Good Morning,
A number of years ago I sat and watched while the late David Will, one time chairman of Brechin City, former President of the Scottish Football Association and Vice President of FIFA, peered over the upper rims of his glasses at the assembled board and management of St Johnstone Football Club and proceeded to brand them all as a “shower of thrawn buggers!”.
The reason for the tongue in cheek outburst from Scotland’s highest ranking official from the world of football was the organisation of the centenary dinner celebrating 100 years of the Perth Club— which the club saw fit to hold well outside the centenary year. Will had been invited to speak as a guest at the dinner ( yes Mr Cosgrove I was there ), along with then manager Alex Totten and Craigie Veitch the former sports editor of the Scotsman.
For those who are not familiar with old Scots words, Thrawn can have a couple of meanings which are very similar. If someone is being obstinate, stubborn, uncompromising, perverse or intractable then in auld Scots we say that he or she is being thrawn. Equally, the original meaning has been said to be crooked, twisted, misshapen or deformed. A tree could be thrawn, as could someone’s arm or other part of the body. To be thrawn-leggit was to have a crooked leg.
These meanings then sort of morphed into meanings like difficult or contrary, and so twisted and crooked in that sense, and when David Will called St Johnstone a shower of “thrawn Buggers” he meant that they were being awkward, contrary and perverse in holding a centenary dinner when it wasn’t actually the centenary. He was of course being lighthearted.
That episode came to mind this week when I read the latest statements from Alastair Johnston and Charles Green. Both set out an argument which suits their individual purposes and adopted perspectives, and both perhaps chose to ignore counter argument or salient facts which would obviously derail their logic and train of thought. With the greatest of respect to both men— what a pair of thrawn buggers!!!
In that vein let me recap as to where I think we stand on this September morn in relation to the EBT debate, the question of “Club” and the Independent enquiry into payment outwith contract.
Clearly, all of these issues are closely linked but each stands in its own wee pocket or chapter, and when taken together they serve to make a whole book or paint an overall scene.
The EBT issue has been repeatedly explained on the RTC blog and elsewhere but at the risk of repeating what is already known the fundamentals are as follows:
Employee Benefits Trusts under certain circumstances are or were a perfectly legal business and accounting tool.
However, in order for the trusts to provide substantial tax advantages, any reward, remuneration or compensation they provide to a beneficiary must not form part of their contract of employment or work package. If this rule is not strictly adhered to, then tax is payable on the sums “given” to the employee, with the employer being liable for tax and national insurance contributions of any employee.
It is alleged by HMRC, that a number of persons who were at one time employed by Rangers PLC have received benefits by way of a specific EBT. Further, the benefits which these employees received were clearly related to their contracts of employment and so these payments are liable to tax, together with interest for late payment and penalties for non-declaration and so on.
This is denied by Rangers PLC and by Murray International Holdings, and MIH have instigated and conducted an appeal against the HMRC view, with that appeal being determined by an independent tax tribunal (The FTT). The basis of their argument appears to be that the benefits received by the beneficiaries were nothing to do with MIH or Rangers and that these payments were purely discretionary and at the instance of the trustees of the trusts concerned– none of whom have any connection with Rangers PLC or MIH. Therefore– there is no tax payable.
Against this there seems to be a plethora of evidence which contradicts this stance including a number of side letters or second contracts which show that any payments to these EBT’s were indeed contractual and part of an overall contract of employment “package”– and if that is deemed to be the case then tax, interest and penalties are indeed, and always were, due.
These contracts or side letters then seem to fly in the face of the documentation lodged with the SPL and later the SFA, as both bodies require sight of all contractual documentation relating to players remuneration and their terms and conditions of employment. Contracts have to be in standard form and lodged with the appropriate bodies to ensure that the player is in fact properly registered to play for the team.
Further, the rules of football prohibit any player being paid by a third party, and so payments made to a player by someone other than his employer is a breach of that rule.
It is this issue that the Nimmo Smith Tribunal is to investigate and rule upon.
For their part, Rangers PLC appear to argue that the existence of EBT’s were always declared in the notes of their accounts, and so the footballing authorities should have known that they were in use at the club. More recently, Alastair Johnston has stated that the club did receive a request for clarification from the SFA in 2011 to which the Rangers PLC board responded disclosing documents ( although he does not specify what documents ) over and above the normal documentation sent re player contracts. Johnston has gone on to state that there was no response or follow up whatsoever from the SFA, and the appropriate UEFA licence simply arrived in the post without further ado. He concludes that as a result of the documentation sent, the SFA must have known at that time that the EBT payments were being used for “player compensation” purposes.
Now, AJ argues that if any misdemeanour or breach of rules has occurred it does not merit the much discussed and publicised “stripping of titles” and that any failure on the part of the Rangers PLC board amounts to no more than an oversight or an administrative error which does not justify the ultimate penalty.
Let’s just pause there and remember who and what AJ actually is in life. Alastair Johnston holds the posts of vice-chairman and member of the board of directors of International Management Group, the leading international sports and entertainment group. Now everyone knows that IMG was formed by Mark McCormack and represents sports stars as their agent. However what is less well known is that the majority of IMG’s work comes from broadcasting – not necessarily mainstream broadcasting – but the broadcasting of certain events to mobile phones and so on and in this context the company works with the likes of Vodafone and other major service providers in the sector. Further the company has the rights to market and broadcast the sports activities of a huge number of schools and colleges in the US as well as music channels, entertainment and so on.
I raise this aspect for one very important reason.
That entire industry is based on one thing and one thing only and that is………… a Licensing system. Broadcasters of any sort obtain the rights to broadcast by way of a licence. They licence content, they licence by area and geographical location, they licence for set time periods,they share licences, sell licences, create licences and terminate licences. Without a licence, they can have all the technology in the world, all the necessary content and so on but they are not able to show it, sell it and profit from it. Proper licensing is vital!
Further, they are very precious about licences- and rightly so– because unless they have the licences tightly tied up, others in the same field can attempt to steal their content, their territory and their rights– all of which are valuable assets.
So go back again and look at all AJ’s comments about proper registration of contracts, about proper administration of documents and licence applications for players, UEFA competition and so against the background of him being a grand fromage in a major company whose absolute lifeblood depends upon proper licensing.
Do you remotely believe that the continual and prolonged inability to properly declare all relevent contracts and player documentation to a licensing body ( both SFA and SPL in this instance) can be merely an oversight or an administrative error?
Further, take a look at the accounts for Rangers PLC at least in the year ended 2005, where it is made very clear that the football management side of the business was working extremely closely with the board in all business and contract matters.
The SFA in particular fulfills a licencing function– a function which is so important that without passing the tests laid down, any club of no matter what size simply cannot play or participate in the sole sphere it is designed to participate and play in. There are strict rules about licences, and a duty on the SFA as well as Rangers PLC to make sure that all of the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to gain a licence have in fact been met. It is not a process that should be left to chance or a process that any major organisation would leave to a junior member of staff or without there being a company defined process and procedure to ensure that the applications and compliance issues are properly dealt with.
Further, if you think about how a footballer player signs for a club– the negotiations, the transfer fee, the personal terms, the contracts, the agents commission and so on, you will realise that a player signing and the terms of his contract – or contracts for that matter – cannot simply come about by accident and outwith the boards knowledge or consent.
In short, it is impossible. It is also impossible, in my respectful opinion, to proceed on a decade long process of administrative errors involving the repeated failure to disclose secondary contracts or side letters. As someone once said to me, there comes a point where a continued and continual series of repeated errors or omissions starts to look suspiciously like a plan!
However, if we were to take AJ’s comments at face value, and accept that there were repeated failures on the part of the Rangers Board by accident, then to be honest there would be every right for shareholders and investors to hold the Directors liable for such negligence. Directors regularly and properly insure themselves against such claims– so I wonder if AJ has paid his insurance premiums?
Further, if he as Chairman presided over such mismanagement, then no doubt his time at IMG is limited as I doubt such an organisation could afford to have such a dunderheid permanently ensconced in a senior managerial position.
However, AJ appears to be a positively straightforward chap when compared to Mr Green.
He of course is on record as saying that if the proposed CVA were to be rejected and the club forced into liquidation then the club dies, the history dies, and so on and so forth– but of course that was yesterday or the week before or even the week or months before that. That was the message that Mr Green wanted to convey at that time in the hope that HMRC would buckle down and accept the proposals.
Now, Mr Green seeks to sing a different tune, and recently latched on to Lord Nimmo Smith’s comments about the “club” being a continuing entity and capable of transfer from one owner to the next. He muses that if that is the case then the “club” may well in fact still be a member of the SPL and the SFA as no matter what happened to Rangers PLC, Rangers FC are ” a continuing entity” and therefore should not be forced to apply to rejoin any body which it was always a member of– such as the SPL and the SFA. Of course this then means that all the history and so on remains– despite what he himself said earlier!
Now of course, Charles makes for a good soundbite and is mad keen to ensure that as many Rangers fans as possible take up shares in “the club” when he offers them for sale.
Yet there is the problem,– shares in what are being offered for sale? According to Charles– and following his logic— he can offer as many shares in the Rangers Football Club Ltd for sale as he wants — but that company will not actually be Rangers FC– will it? If Rangers PLC was not actually Rangers FC– then what was it that David Murray was offering for sale all those years ago? Or could it be that Charles has just got it plain wrong?
You see for some reason he did not quote Lord Nimmo Smith in full– especially that part where the learned judge gave a brief description of his interpretation of the law of clubs.
For example Charles chooses not to comment on this sentence from the learned judge:
“This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator.”
Earlier, Nimmo Smith said this:
“While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
So let’s pause there.
A club is an undertaking— in other words any type of loose arrangement involving a group of people with a common purpose. If a club is not an incorporated club ( a limited company ) then to be anything other than a loose idea of a few folk getting together for a common purpose such as a holiday or a meal or to read a book or anything else– then of course it should have a formal constitution and a set of rules for its members.
So– where is the constitution for Rangers Football Club? Where are its rules of admission which says who can join? Are there certain rules that preclude you from joining? Is there a set limit on how many members there can be at any one time? Who are the officers of this club?
At the current time, Mr Green seems to be very keen on everything British and everything of a loyal and royal nature. So here is a quote from the pages of the Royal Yachting Association of Great Britain on the legal status of unincorporated clubs and so on.
“Since an unincorporated club has no legal status, it is incapable itself of owning property or being party to a contract. It is therefore standard practice to appoint trustees, who are usually required in the rules to comply with committee instructions, to hold the property (whether freehold land and buildings, yachts or a long leasehold of a reservoir) on behalf of the club members.”
Eh going by that statement – Rangers FC never owned Ibrox or Murray Park– and indeed can never own Ibrox and Murray Park. Someone had to be the trustee.
Further, it can never have been granted a licence to play football— you can’t grant a right to a non legal entity or to a body which has no legal status. You cannot accept a licensing application from a body which has no legal status. You cannot be employed by a body with no legal status.
Rangers FC has no constitution, no legal persona, is not allowed to own property ( heritable, moveable or intellectual), can’t enter into contracts and so on.
In short, Rangers FC is a body with no legal status– it does not exist and has never existed— unless it is to be found within the confines of Rangers PLC which everyone now recognises is in Administration and will soon be liquidated.
Still don’t believe me?
Ok here is a recent release by the Scottish legal commission setting out changes that they want to make to the law so that “clubs” can gain some legal status:
“In Scotland, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, unincorporated associations are not recognised as entities separate from their members. Consequently, such organisations cannot carry out acts such as entering into contracts, owning property or engaging employees. The lack of legal personality can also give rise to unfortunate, and perhaps unforeseen, repercussions for members. For example, it is possible that, under the current law, a member of an unincorporated association could, by virtue of that membership alone, find himself or herself personally liable in delict to a third party injured at an event organised by the association. Further difficulties relating to this area of the law are set out in our Discussion Paper on Unincorporated Associations (DP 140) which was published at the end of 2008.
Our Report recommends a simple regime, with the minimum of administrative burdens, to ensure that associations and clubs are recognised as legal entities. Separate legal personality will be accorded to associations which satisfy certain conditions. The main conditions are that the association has at least two members; that its objects do not include making a profit for its members; and that it has a constitution containing certain minimum specified provisions. These provisions are: the association’s name; its purpose; membership criteria; the procedure for the election or appointment of those managing it; the powers and duties of its office-bearers; the rules for distributing its assets if it is dissolved; and the procedure for amending its constitution. Many associations will already have constitutions which contain these provisions but, for those which do not, we anticipate that style constitutions will be made available, free of charge, on the websites of organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations”
Maybe Charles should seek some advice from the Scottish Council on Voluntary organisations? And perhaps he should note that part about not making a profit for members too!
Then again, as Lord Nimmo Smith has said the actual status of a club and who or what a club is depends on individual circumstances. So with regard to Rangers, let’s look at who would know– for example, who did Charles get “Rangers” from? Duff and Phelps of course — so what do they say?
Well they have stuck to their guns because in each and every report that they have issued to the court, the shareholders and the creditors they have included the following definition:
| Rangers / the Company / the Club | The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276); |
Now that doesn’t really help Charles does it.
Ok so, lets ignore Craig Whyte because everyone knows that he was a diddy— let’s go to folk that are far more sensible– how about the Board of Rangers PLC before Craig Whyte– what did they have to say:
Well, here is a statement from May 2011 which seems to set out who and what the then Directors thought amounted to the club– and let’s face it– they should know!
“Further to today’s statement from Wavetower Limited (“the acquirer”), the Independent Board Committee of The Rangers Football Club plc (“the club”), comprising Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain, John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre, (”IBC”) would like to make the following statement:
“In recent weeks the IBC has been engaged with the acquirer and has secured an enhanced financial commitment from Wavetower for future investment into the club. The decision on the sale and purchase of the majority shareholding in the club firmly and ultimately rests between Murray MHL Limited (“MHL”) and Lloyds Banking Group (“LBG”).
“Although the IBC has no power to block the transaction, following its enquiries, the IBC and Wavetower have differing views on the future revenue generation and cash requirements of the club and the IBC is concerned about a lack of clarity on how future cash requirements would be met, particularly any liability arising from the outstanding HMRC case.
“Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the club for £1 and the club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower. This share transaction would ordinarily trigger a requirement on Wavetower under Rule Nine of The Takeover Code for a mandatory offer to be made to the other shareholders.
“Given this transaction structure and following discussions with the Takeover Panel, the IBC considers there to be no purpose in the acquirer making such an offer to acquire all other shareholdings at effectively nil value per share. Accordingly the IBC has agreed that the offer period for the club will now end.
“In agreeing that no offer should be made to all shareholders the IBC has insisted that the acquirer issues a document to all shareholders setting out the full terms of the transaction, comprehensive details on the acquirer and the sources of its funding and giving firm commitments to agreed future investment in the club.
“The IBC is committed to ensure that the transaction and future investment and funding proposals should be transparent to all the shareholders and supporters of the club”
Ah— that doesn’t really help Charles Green’s current argument either does it?
So here we are, on the cusp of the FTT ruling, with a share offering in the offing, and SPL enquiry scheduled for November and no doubt Mark Daly and the Panorama team beavering away in the background getting ready for another documentary.
The decision of the FTT may reveal yet more of what the bold AJ describes as “Administrative errors” by way of failing to administer EBT’s properly so resulting in a massive tax bill, and the SPL enquiry may reveal further “Administrative errors” in failing to properly record player contracts for a decade, with the result that players were never properly registered in the first place and so were illegal players during championship winning games.
Yet all that is history and in the past.
Today’s Rangers has a new hero, a new commander– even though who he works for is a closely guarded secret and remains a mystery to most of us who may be interested to find out who Charles Green really is and who he represents. He seems to attack certain quarters then retreat, antagonise and appease, and has a habit of constantly contradicting himself when it suits.
In the interim he reminds me of the most famous creation of the American writer Timothy Zahn who brought about a revival in the fortunes of the Star Wars franchise, bringing it widespread attention for the first time in years. He did this by creating a new villain to follow in the footsteps of the administratively challenged and ultimately vanquished Darth Vader.
Zahn describes this new villain’s command style as considerably different from that of Darth Vader and other typical Imperial commanders; instead of punishing failure and dissent, he promotes creativity among his crew and accepts ideas from subordinates. He is a tactical genius who has made extensive study of military intelligence and art, and is willing to retreat instead of making a stand in a losing battle.
His full name and his true origins are only known to a few select individuals of the Empire and the New Republic.
To quote Wikipedia:
“His name is ………… reminiscent of the old Scots word meaning Twisted ot Crooked.
The character’s name is……….. Thrawn.
I suspect that we are about to see some pretty Thrawn statements from a shower of Thrawn buggers as the late David Will would have said!
Dave B says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:48
1 0 i
Rate This
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:33
Surely this post should not have passed moderation due to the profanities it contains?
——
Maybe. I thought I’d asterisked them all. I’m sure TSFM will delete it if he sees fit. No great loss – just an insight into fans of the club confirmed as dead by the SFA.
🙂
Couple of observations on the the last 24 hours or so;
1) The Curious Case of Campbell Ogilvie’s Reappearance.
Why now ?
Why give a PR fluff piece – no questions allowed – at this time ?
Why state nothing of consequence – except that the SFA President is not doing his job ?
In the last 12+ months he has been a virtual hermit wrt the MSM.
Then more recently he has had ‘favourable’ photo opportunities handing out Cup medals, involved with Cup draws, [no questions allowed of course.]
My immediate interpretation of CO’s reappearance means only one thing: he has absolutely no intention of walking away, or of ‘being fired’ either !
IMO. he is laying the PR ground to either carry on at the SFA, or as mentioned earlier, to perhaps move to a nice UEFA or FIFA job.
CO lost all credibility in football administration a long time ago, and has absolutely no right to hold any office in UEFA/FIFA.
Campbell Ogilvie should be fired – as most reasonable folks would I think agree.
2) RTC and the DR Editor Rennie.
Although I’m sure RTC has no intentions of being associated in any way with the DR, I do think – on the face of it anyway- it is a brave/smart move by Rennie.
If he got RTC onboard, then his paper could claim “it was on the story from the beginning” via RTC’s serialised, lengthy summary of events at RFC.
Of course this would probably alienate many Sevco fans, but perhaps Rennie believes it is worth it to regain some credibility for his paper – and as a precursor for replacing some of the succulent lamb brigade ?
However, unlike CO, I think Rennie is also at risk of getting fired in the medium term.
I received my copy of ‘Downfall’ yesterday, and amost finished it.
Need another book to keep me going…come on RTC where is it ? 😉
So Angus1983
Check out the SFA response:
“Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.
The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and
therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.
Yes that was before Lord Nimmo’s interpretation. Where is the SFA statement (48hrs) and why have the cup draws mysteriously been delayed, sorry what is the hold up?
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:33
Latest excitement from RM – because someone posted a link to a Tribunals results page, they’ve got themselves convinced that the FTTT has already let them off the hook.
Apologies for the length of this post, but it’s worth a read. A good display of the intelligence of the average herd of online bears …
————————————————————————————————————————
In the intrests of accuracy I understand the collective noun for Bears to be “Sleuth”
A sleuth of bears! How ironic is that! haha
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:03
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:33
Latest excitement from RM – because someone posted a link to a Tribunals results page, they’ve got themselves convinced that the FTTT has already let them off the hook.
Apologies for the length of this post, but it’s worth a read. A good display of the intelligence of the average herd of online bears …
————————————————————————————————————————
In the intrests of accuracy I understand the collective noun for Bears to be “Sleuth”
A sleuth of bears! How ironic is that! haha
———————————————————
Surely a “Struth of Bears” would be more apt 😀
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:02
0 1 i Rate This
So Angus1983
Check out the SFA response:
“Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.
The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and
therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.
Yes that was before Lord Nimmo’s interpretation. Where is the SFA statement (48hrs) and why have the cup draws mysteriously been delayed, sorry what is the hold up?
——
Nice to see you back, Davis.
As far as I can make out, that was *after* LNS’s interpretation of SPL rules. If you look at the OP on RM, that seems to be the case – whoever came up with the original email did so *because* LNS said the Club continued …
The SFA statement, I think, was the work of an over-zealous BBC hack. Their website only said “a statement is expected within 48hrs…”.
I think the Cup draw was made yesterday, wasn’t it? TRFC got Alloa at home?
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:55
Dave B says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:48
1 0 i
Rate This
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:33
Surely this post should not have passed moderation due to the profanities it contains?
——
Maybe. I thought I’d asterisked them all. I’m sure TSFM will delete it if he sees fit. No great loss – just an insight into fans of the club confirmed as dead by the SFA.
==========================================================================
I thought that some of those words would cause the system to block the post (are the filters switched on?).
Anyway, I get enough stick when my kids gleefully exclaim “Dad’s been on Rangers Tax Case all day” to their mother.
Thankfully, they don’t understand that RTC has been superseded by TSFM so I deny their accusation with a clear conscience.
However, they do look over my shoulder sometimes and if they were to report that the “F” word was spelled out fully then I’m afraid I would be in big trouble (smiley face).
Apparently the nuclear option is about to be released as a reverse tango, whatever that means.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:09
A number of people on here and the old RTC blog, have consistently argued that it was a bit niaf to suggest that Messers Doncaster and Regan have gone rogue. It is clear to most people that Doncaster and Regan have been operating with the support of their respective boards.
The test will come when LNS turns in a verdict and awards punishment, whatever wriggle room the authorities had, has all but gone. I remain convinced that the authorities have actually lost control of the process, and are awaiting the result with a lot more trepidation than anticipation.
BTW, it makes sense for LNS to be an SPL enquiry, the bulk of any offences occured under the auspices of the SPL, and it also leaves the option open for an appeal. I would imaginge that once the process is complete, the SFA would have to accept the LNS findings and act accordingly.
Whatever guff it suits Mr Green’s purposes to spout just now, when the time comes he will appeal, at that point the SFA board will have nowhere to hide. Things are going to get a lot more interesting, before they become any clearer!
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:41
============================
You say the wage bill has been slashed, fair enough.
What about the £14m in costs (not including salaries) how far has that been cut.
angus1983
The SFA statement, I think, was the work of an over-zealous BBC hack. Their website only said “a statement is expected within 48hrs…”.
I think the Cup draw was made yesterday, wasn’t it? TRFC got Alloa at home?
——————————————————————————————————–
You are quite right I apologise, time difference and all that/
grajag says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 1
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:41
============================
You say the wage bill has been slashed, fair enough.
What about the £14m in costs (not including salaries) how far has that been cut.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Can you elaborate on that? What 14m cost, presumably Ibrox & MP maintenance?
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:11
0 0 Rate This
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:02
0 1 i Rate This
So Angus1983
Check out the SFA response:
“Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.
The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and
therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.
Yes that was before Lord Nimmo’s interpretation. Where is the SFA statement (48hrs) and why have the cup draws mysteriously been delayed, sorry what is the hold up?
——
Nice to see you back, Davis.
As far as I can make out, that was *after* LNS’s interpretation of SPL rules. If you look at the OP on RM, that seems to be the case – whoever came up with the original email did so *because* LNS said the Club continued …
The SFA statement, I think, was the work of an over-zealous BBC hack. Their website only said “a statement is expected within 48hrs…”.
I think the Cup draw was made yesterday, wasn’t it? TRFC got Alloa at home?
=========
The penny will drop LNS is using a SPL definition of the club this has been dissected by BRTH in a previous blog post
This idiot’s email was to the SFA and they are quite correct sevco scotland as an entirely new club would not be seeded
The thread will be hilarious once they realise this
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/what-price-loyalty/#more-3194
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:41
Thank you for your response and I am glad you acknowledge that T’Rangers have to live within their means.
However are you sure they can manage this at this present time?
As pointed out the other day EXLUDING the wage bill Duff & Duffers expenditure over four months to the end of last season was still in the region of £1m per month.
OK it is a bit of a fag packet calculation but even if Mr Charles has managed to reduce the day to day running costs by say 25% thats £750k a month. Then add to that the wages for all staff, remembering those who tuped are on their oldco salaries. Even at £2k a week for 26 players that brings the expenditure back up to the £1m a month mark. Certainly a lot more when you add in high earners Alexander, McCulloch, Wallace, Ally himself, Durrant McDowell etc. Black and Templeton may be £40k a month on their own.
The season ticket cash and the pay at the gate money is reduced but as the crowds are large it may cover a significant element of the running cost but I believe it is very tight especially as other income such as sponsorhsip, prize money, player transfers out, tv and Euro cash are slashed.
My guess is that a proportion of monies raised through any share issue will be needed to keep the club running to the end of the season (Therfore those loyal fans who sign up will have effectively paid full price and then some for their Div 3 season tickets). Some money will be used to pay off investors or deal with the cash laid out for buying the club.
If they are sensible they will bank some of it to buy a bit more time. If not then it could be another slippery slope.
Do you think Rangers fans like yourself can trust Mr Charles to do the right thing with your money if you were to part with £500 for shares?
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:32 (Edit)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks TBP. I seem to recall Bain receiving a payment of around £0.5m from Murray within the past year or so. Fairly soon after he resigned from RFC I think. No one too sure what lay behind it at the time. Any connection to L’Equipe story eg a final payoff for some dirty work carried out previously ?
Allyjambo – thanks for yours of 13.51. While he was at HMFC did he he hold any SFA/SPL roles ie committee member for something or other ?
thereek says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:38
—————————————————————————————————————————-
I try not to speculate, thereek, and I have no information that would link the two transactions in the way you suggest.
the taxman cometh says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:37
The penny will drop LNS is using a SPL definition of the club this has been dissected by BRTH in a previous blog post
—————————————————————————————
Yes but the problem is, all the main players the spl, spl, sfa and more importantly uefa have different definitions of club/company/owner, how are the SFA or UEFA going to reconcile this?
Each party has sought expert legal advise and each have been advised on a contradictory but determined interpretation that they are correct.
It appears to me , is that we have learned over the last few years, Banking and Law are not exactly moral or exact science.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:50
0 0 Rate This
the taxman cometh says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:37
The penny will drop LNS is using a SPL definition of the club this has been dissected by BRTH in a previous blog post
—————————————————————————————
Yes but the problem is, all the main players the spl, spl, sfa and more importantly uefa have different definitions of club/company/owner, how are the SFA or UEFA going to reconcile this?
Each party has sought expert legal advise and each have been advised on a contradictory but determined interpretation that they are correct.
It appears to me , is that we have learned over the last few years, Banking and Law are not exactly moral or exact science.
==========
The SPL have created a problem only for themselves aided by the SFA, UEFA will not allow Sevco Scotland to play in Europe as they are a new club EVEN IF they were to win the Scottish Cup
The supporters need to wake up and stop listening to the lies, the SFA are 100% right, sevco scotland are a new club and they were rightly not seeded
You are either a troll or [SFM EDIT]
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:33
Can you elaborate on that? What 14m cost, presumably Ibrox & MP maintenance?
==================================
Elaborate how, it’s the running costs not including salaries.
The salaries have been cut, agreed. How much have other costs been cut though. I don’t think it’s by enough and that Rangers income this season are heading to be less than expenditure. Therefore the business needs to cut costs further or get additional funds.
The future is very uncertain.
Don’t believe me though, continue believing what you want. I’m sure you didn’t think administration and liquidation would ever happen either. I’m sure you thought you would get the new club into the SPL.
wottpi says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:38
Do you think Rangers fans like yourself can trust Mr Charles to do the right thing with your money if you were to part with £500 for shares?
———————————————————————————————
The real question here is what shares will we be offered, Public or private. If it is public then it will cost Rangers a lot of money through a prospectus, however he appears to be alluding to doing a sale of private shares whereby you buy at your own risk. If he wants to do the private sale he has to do it now, not in 6 months or whatever. If he wants to go public then I think at least a year, to meet AIMS requirements.
I am not trying to avoid the question, well actually I am, but at 500 pound, I think private with no voting rights is just ridiculous and even Public with voting rights is well over priced.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:03
You cant have it both ways.
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Quantum theory says you can. A photon can both be a discrete particle and an electromagnetic wave. A bit like Rangers and The Rangers. Sometimes it’s one and sometimes it’s the other. Sometimes it’s a club and sometimes it’s a company. According to Duff&Duffer on the second page of definitions, RFC 2012 P.L.C.(Formerly The Rangers Football Club plc) (In Administration)), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC 004276) can be three things at the same time. Rangers/ the Company/ the Club.
So no real problem with the bold Craig being only two. Perhaps Craig Whyte is the Motherwell Moriarty and Craig White is the diddy. Or perhaps just a diddy Moriarty.
See you later Jack. I’ve got a Champions League game to watch.
Agrojab says,
Elaborate how, it’s the running costs not including salaries.
The salaries have been cut, agreed. How much have other costs been cut though. I don’t think it’s by enough and that Rangers income this season are heading to be less than expenditure. Therefore the business needs to cut costs further or get additional funds.
The future is very uncertain.
Don’t believe me though, continue believing what you want. I’m sure you didn’t think administration and liquidation would ever happen either. I’m sure you thought you would get the new club into the SPL.
————————————————————————————————————–
The wage bill of any football club has a huge impact on operational costs. Total Income – operational costs = profit. So long as he can balance that formula we can look to the future.
SFA it is now 195 hours since you announced that you would release a statement regarding cheats fc in 48 hrs ????? YOU’RE A TAD LATE by a full 147 hrs 😉
Parsons st Bouy
Ah the old Schrödinger’s cat theory?
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:03
0 0 Rate This
wottpi says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 16:38
Do you think Rangers fans like yourself can trust Mr Charles to do the right thing with your money if you were to part with £500 for shares?
———————————————————————————————
The real question here is what shares will we be offered, Public or private. If it is public then it will cost Rangers a lot of money through a prospectus, however he appears to be alluding to doing a sale of private shares whereby you buy at your own risk. If he wants to do the private sale he has to do it now, not in 6 months or whatever. If he wants to go public then I think at least a year, to meet AIMS requirements.
I am not trying to avoid the question, well actually I am, but at 500 pound, I think private with no voting rights is just ridiculous and even Public with voting rights is well over priced.
=====
No the real question is on 30th July the share certificate you got (whatever you buy it certainly will not be voting shares) would have said sevco scotland – would that have been ok would that have made you feel that you had bought a “part of the club”?
From 31st july the very same share cert in the very same football club will say the rangers football club ltd/plc it is the very same shares in the very same football club all that has changed is the name.
Now compare this reality to the spin and lies you have been greedily gulping down since 14th feb
RFC is dead the history has a start and an end
Still don’t believe that listen to what charles green had to say about the CVA and history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkbSD56hlY
Remember the 26000 small shareholders and debenture holders they got shafted the day the club died
Did none of the ‘churnalists’ think to ask CO what was holding up the statement ?
I know, I know… 😉
the taxman cometh says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:22
Try and understand something, it is something that infuriates me so much. People can, and should change their believes or their positions within a debate because they are evaluating and adjusting to other viewpoints and perspectives of the debate. To stand firm and refuse to budge even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is in my opinion far worse.
Green made that statement before the CVA was decided. Now I think everyone believed that to be true.
Except Hector blindsided you all and came up with a statement that, beggars belief. Then it became clear that their was a green light to proceed, as Rangers and playing at Ibrox. I have never understood why they did that, but thanks Hector.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:03
1 10 Rate This
BRT&H
Ok so, lets ignore Craig Whyte because everyone knows that he
was a diddy— let’s go to folk that are far more sensible– how
about the Board of Rangers PLC before Craig Whyte– what did
they have to say:
————————————————————————————————
OK so can you guys please try and establish your viewpoint, is
Craig Whyte a diddy as suggested by BRT&H, or as Goosy suggests a modern day Motherwell Moriarty?
You cant have it both ways.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once upon a time, Sir David Murray could do no wrong in the eyes of the Rangers support. Yet he is almost soley responsible for the death of the old club. Craig Whyte was ultimately little more than a bit part player.
Lord wobbly
Once upon a time, Sir David Murray could do no wrong in the eyes of the Rangers support. Yet he is almost soley responsible for the death of the old club. Craig Whyte was ultimately little more than a bit part player.
—————————————————————————
I am not speaking here about how Rangers or Celtic Fans viewed Murray. I am asking how business and professionals such as Bankers, lawyers, accountants Hector, etc viewed Murray & Whyte.
Honestly how did Murray & Whyte manage to fool all of these guys for so long.
Also for the Lawyers on here why has Whyte not been arrested for withholding payment of PAYE & NI he had deducted from employees salaries? Is that not criminal?
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:19
Agrojab says,
Elaborate how, it’s the running costs not including salaries.
The salaries have been cut, agreed. How much have other costs been cut though. I don’t think it’s by enough and that Rangers income this season are heading to be less than expenditure. Therefore the business needs to cut costs further or get additional funds.
The future is very uncertain.
Don’t believe me though, continue believing what you want. I’m sure you didn’t think administration and liquidation would ever happen either. I’m sure you thought you would get the new club into the SPL.
————————————————————————————————————–
The wage bill of any football club has a huge impact on operational costs. Total Income – operational costs = profit. So long as he can balance that formula we can look to the future.
—————————————————–
Yes but that’s the point for Rangers Costs > Income = Loss.
Your costs are too high for the income you are generating. Problem is, unless someone else is willing to lend the club money then it’s selling assets, share issue or administration. A business can’t just make losses, they have to be covered somehow.
Thing is, Rangers are already in administration, so this would be the new club going into administration.
I know you aren’t willing to accept any of this, that much is clear. You weren’t with the previous club either. Maybe if you had been then something could have been done. Seriously, if Rangers fans are totally unwilling to accept reality the same thing will happen again. There is no MIH to come in with a £50m shares purchase.
To davis58
I’m glad you decided to come back. I support neither of the former ‘Old Firm’ teams; rather a second division team (who are doing just fine!). The blog needs a good cross-section of supporters and if you develop a thick enough skin to engage with the posters, you will learn a great deal.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:03
Finally a decent debate.
As I have outlined and along similar lines to Agrajag there is information out there as to what it costs to run a club the size of Rangers.
In 2011 Hibs say their wage bill was £4.8m and operating costs £3.4m so that £8.2m.
Even allowing for playing in Div 3, £1m a month or £12m a year wages and operating cost for a club the size of T’Rangers doesn’t seem unreasonable.
The Rangers fans have to be applauded for coming out in numbers but the season tickets sold and the pay at the gates are just not enough to cover the expenditure outlined above. It is questionable if the other income streams are adeqaute to make up the shortfall.
Without more details then no serious investor is going to give Mr Charles any money.
Therefore all he has is the private issue which you yourself say is ridiculous at £500 a pop.
I have no doubt that plenty fans will part with their money if that is the only offer in town but I can see half of any monies raised being accounted already with a good chance people in the shadows have their eyes on the other half.
With the opportunity of euro cash being some way off in the distance even with a league re-organisation, then even if they get to the end of this season then trouble will be brewing in the next.
Income through ticket sales may increase in Div 2 or in a return to the SPL but at some point so will the wage bill as fans will expect signings as soon as they can when the transfer embargo ends.
As you say they money problems are no different to any other club in Scotland – other than the banks and financial institutions are not fans and will view T’Rangers as a new company and therefore a line of credit may not be available. If someone does take them on then it will be at a huge price thus further expenditure in interest payments.
That leaves Mr Charles with trying to squeeze more money out of the fans and so we start all over again.
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:58
Yes but that’s the point for Rangers Costs > Income = Loss.
———————————————————————————-
Yes but how do you know that, we will not not till Green/Rangers produce their audited accounts.
My point is that Banks, Accountants and Tax Lawyers somehow where complicit in fooling everyone that Rangers were a going concern, how is that possible?
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:22
Ah the old Schrödinger’s cat theory?
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Quantum Field Theory I believe or more particularly wave-particle duality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
Schrodinger’s cat was a thought experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
This one could be called The Edminston Drive Paradox.
Or the Whyte-White Duality Paradox aka the Minty Moonbeam Phenomenom.
wottpi says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:02
Yes I agree with all your points there. So long as we operate within tight financial budgets we can easily survive, after all Peterhead does. No disrespect to them, but why does Rangers require 14m over and above their wage bill to operate? Apparently these are figures from D&P but why? Can anyone enlighten me on this?
Davis58, It is not an individual (Craig Whyte) who deducts PAYE and NIC from wages and salaries from employees and forwards them to HMRC, it is the (club or company) that has that responsibility, Which is why RFC are in the dock on charges of non payment of same.
Parson St. Bhoy says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:15
You should warn people about clicking on those links 🙂
Parson St. Bhoy says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:15
Thanks for that so can an individual director say the Chairman, CEO or CFO be held responsible, if it was that individuals strategy to deliberately withhold payment?
ekt1m says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:34
sorry the above post was meant for you,
Thanks for that so can an individual director say the Chairman, CEO or CFO be held responsible, if it was that individuals strategy to deliberately withhold payment?
Ya Feckin’ Beezer.
Davis58, That is what a Board of Directors are for. It is their duty to see that no individual carries out an illegal act. If Craig had sacked the entire board prior to spending the proceeds running the club, then he would be liable. But the directors were in place during the entire time up to and after the club went into administration. They act for the club or company.
wottpi says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:02
One other point – while great crowds are impressive – they bring with them additional costs – police, stewards etc – Strathclydes finest are the same price – whatever division the game is in – so the punters may be paying less, but the policing costs won;t be – and since they were owed from the old club, am sure they are not letting it go on tick for now…..
Speaking about Tic – ya beauty!
Did John Brown not sum things up brilliantly on off the ball on Saturday – why do Rangers need a share issue now, when they cannot buy any players until their ban is lifted?
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:43
Thanks for that so can an individual director say the Chairman, CEO or CFO be held responsible, if it was that individuals strategy to deliberately withhold payment?
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
I would refer you to Asil Nadir of Polly Peck fame.
The FTT ruled in relation to Falkirk recently, an appeal with regard PAYE. The report made it quite clear with regard the actions of an individual
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2012/TC02262.html
27. The situation is rather different in regard to Mr Craig. Firstly, since he was Managing Director, he was in fact “the Club” and his actions in that role were as the Club. Accordingly, the fact that he did not ensure timeous payment, knowing as he did the problems in the previous year and the availability of TTP would make it very difficult to argue that he was unaware of the potential problems caused by late payment of PAYE. The Tribunal finds no reasonable excuse in his actions.
Exiledcelt at19.01. With the 9 police forces amalgamating shortly, will they have a countrywide fee for policing matches and public events? Or as at present individual force charges. If the former, could this be an extra burden on small clubs?
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:44
Thanks for that so can an individual director say the Chairman, CEO or CFO be held responsible, if it was that individuals strategy to deliberately withhold payment?
===============
It is the company’s responsibility to deduct PAYE tax and to pay it over to HMRC. In this case, I understand that the tax was properly deducted, but was not paid over. It would be almost impossible to make a criminal case out of that, since you would have to show that this was not simply a case of late payment (overtaken by insolvency), but a deliberate conspiracy to defraud the Revenue.
If by any chance a conspiracy to defraud could be established, then the whole Board would be in the dock, not just Whyte, in my opinion, since all the directors are responsible for the conduct of the company’s affairs. Any director unhappy with the conduct of the company’s affairs should have resigned immediately he became aware of any problems that he could not get the Board to rectify.
Posted earlier but held in moderation. Any thoughts?
I’m a long time lurker and lover of both RTC (oldco?) and SF Monitor (newco?). Every day has become a school day and I bow to the superior knowledge of many who post on here.
Last night on Twitter @padrepio1916 posted a snapshot of the company ASDFGHJKL Ltd. I recall this being listed on here as one of Charles Green’s companies. Interestingly, the previous names of this company are listed as RFC 0712 and RFC 2012. Does anyone have any idea what might be going on here? Why would Chuck want to be connected to the old rangers who are about to be investigated by BDO?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick completely? http://t.co/fCdt6FVz
Neepheid, You said it better than I could to Davis58.
Banger Mcgraw says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:38
‘.What happens if the panel of LNS return a decision before the tax tribunal does, and then the tax tribunal returns a decision the complete opposite of LNS’s panel.’
—
From the football rules perspective, nothing changes- the Commission will still make a decision on whether RFC(IA) notified the SFA of all payments contractually made to players, whether or not the club was guilty of tax dodging.
That is the killer for the club, not tax dodging in itself.( Although of course under FIFA and Uefa rules, non-payment of due tax to the civil authorities is a footballing offence as well).
Official DUFC
@dundeeunitedfc
Follow
Well done to @celticfc on a fabulous result in Moscow. #teamscotland
6:58pm – 2 Oct 12
Reading through ‘Downfall’ I wasn’t expecting any real surprises – but what has in fact surprised me so far is that I am still shocked that the whole RFC debacle was able to happen in the first place.
Specifically, I am more shocked at the utter dishonesty of the Scottish MSM.
This is the 21st Century and it reads like a 19th Century mill owner, [(S)DM], who has told the local oiks, [Scottish sports MSM], that they better do as he says…or else !
Apart from a few notable exceptions, the Scottish sports MSM is truly disgusting, and a blight on Scottish society.
Rather than appear on TV & Radio phone-ins too, they should all now be hiding under a large stone – alongside (S)DM. 😉
But they have no shame…
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:02
============================
The thing is, by behaving the way they did they have done the Rangers support a huge dis-service.
Their club was dead and buried before they even realised just how sick it was.
On the other hand, a lot of people tried to tell them, and they would not listen. In fact the reacted with aggression and threats.
History is repeating itself. You only have to read this blog, and a couple of Rangers ones to see that. You only have to listen to Rangers supporting mates in real life. The more fundamentalist they are (and you can’t write fundamentalist without writing mentalist) the less they want to listen, and the more aggressive their response.
There is every prospect history will repeat itself. However where is the next owner to take over, and will the Scottish footballing authorities be so compliant.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:36
Except Hector blindsided you all and came up with a statement that, beggars belief. Then it became clear that their was a green light to proceed, as Rangers and playing at Ibrox. I have never understood why they did that, but thanks Hector.
————————————–
We can ‘thumbs down’ Davis all we want, but on this s/he is absolutely correct.
That is exactly what Hector did: they explicitly signalled that no future action would be taken against a phoenix Rangers.
Why?
Political reasons IMO.
Will we ever know how Hector came to such a lenient decision?
Well, Alex Salmond has long since dodged the Freedom Of Information bullet, so probably no…
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:02
‘..This is the 21st Century and it reads like a 19th Century mill owner, [(S)DM], who has told the local oiks, [Scottish sports MSM], that they better do as he says…or else !..’
———
Yes, but part of the ‘Celtic paranoia’ syndrome is the belief that the local oiks did not need to be be bullied and harassed into kow-towing to the ‘Ranger’s ‘ machine: they were pleased and privileged and honoured to lie and distort on behalf of that club in a way that reflected the same mindless ‘we arra peepil’ hubris they share with a large part of the then Rangers support..
Even otherwise ‘seasoned and impartial’ commentators like Archie, and others like the mild-mannered and ever so polite Spiers, and Roddy Forsyth, felt a raw nerve being touched and lost some of their objectivity. And the Traynors and Youngs, of course, scarce know what ‘objectivity’ means.
This is not to say that sports journalists are not entitled to be fans of particular clubs. Of course they are.
It’s just that, to use a lovely word used by another contributor, there is such a coalescence of support in the MSM ( and in important political and other establishments) for Rangers that no one individual of them , until perhaps very, very recently, wanted to appear to be a stirrer-upper and seeker of answers to awkward questions.
Even now, we have the arch-fiend Ogilvie able, unabashedly, to admit that his compromised position left him collecting salary for not doing his job, while deeming it one of first priorities to get talking to CG about re-structuring!
For that man not to have been subjected to a ferocious barrage of serious questioning from the hacks confirms everything we have said about their grave deficiencies.
He is either a very, very stupid man, or a man so sure of his power as to feel free to disregard and dismiss the media men with the same contempt and disdain as SDM did.
I think he is sure of his power. I hope very soon that the brighter blazers in the general SFA membership will demand that he step down, for the good of Scottish Football, and the good of every club that, in effect, has had its fortunes damaged by him.
HMRC have no power to stop any new club playing at ibrox – be it sevco scotland or govan harp
the taxman cometh says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:44
HMRC have no power to stop any new club playing at ibrox – be it sevco scotland or govan harp
=========================
And also, as far as they are concerned it is a new business.
It has a new company number, I’ll bet you anything you want it has a new VAT number and PAYE reference. It has new owners and a new board.
It is not a phoenix company in the sense HMRC would consider it.
In addition, the action they will take will be in relation to the people who stole their money from them. The £94m.
Why would they care about a new business.
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:37
1 0 Rate This
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:36
Except Hector blindsided you all and came up with a statement that, beggars belief. Then it became clear that their was a green light to proceed, as Rangers and playing at Ibrox. I have never understood why they did that, but thanks Hector.
————————————–
We can ‘thumbs down’ Davis all we want, but on this s/he is absolutely correct.
That is exactly what Hector did: they explicitly signalled that no future action would be taken against a phoenix Rangers.
Why?
Political reasons IMO.
Will we ever know how Hector came to such a lenient decision?
Well, Alex Salmond has long since dodged the Freedom Of Information bullet, so probably no…
________________
a phoenix the rangers is not rangers
Here’s that statement btw.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm
Statement on Rangers Football Club
“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.
So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.”
exiledcelt @19.01.
Very cute EC,very cute.
199 🙂
Especially for bangordub
Re the HMRC statement. always thought that was a bizarre statement from an official site.
1. I thought they didn’t comment on individual tax cases
and
2. Very strange use of words…’so the sale is not being undermined’……..’can make a fresh start’
very PR
Apart from the stunning match in Moscow that’s surely cheered up all Scottish football fans, there’s also a little bit of encouragement for Scottish football in the Chelsea match.
Anyone who feels they support a diddy team should note that Chelsea’s opponents are from a town with just under 20,000 inhabitants. The team relies on a large network of local amateur clubs up here in the north of the island as a talent base. If you want a quintessensstial diddy club, this is it, on paper at least.
The club and (10,000-seater) stadium are only about 10 years old but the guy who helped establish the facilities, the mayor (Peter Brixtofte), ended up in prison for misuse of public funds. However, he was a type of Robin Hood figure though. He overspent massively on infrastructure projects (and rather nice wine and food), but the town has today the small, but state-of-the-art stadium and boasts the Danish Champions and CL football! The football side of things has been achieved on a very modest budget, even by Scottish standards.
The stadium is connected to a public swimming pool, and a brilliant outdoor tennis arena with indoor hardcourts – also open to all. The inhabitants of the town and local region are now paying more tax to partly compensate for the years of wild spending. But to many, the ex-mayor is a hero. You don’t really hear anyone say a bad word against him.
The facilities at FC Nordsjaelland were mentioned in the Scottish press recently as a glowing example of how they do it in Scandinavia. But the other side of the story didn’t get a mention. There’s more to it than meets the eye.
Funnily enough, the mayor was joined in the local clink by Bjørn Stiedl, the conman who swindled big time far and wide, and who was connected to Baxendale-Walker, Gary Withey and Collyer Bristow while carrying out his white-collar robberies in the UK. Those connections are a coincidence, surely.
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:37
‘..That is exactly what Hector did: they explicitly signalled that no future action would be taken against a phoenix Rangers…
Why?
Political reasons IMO. ‘….
——-
You may recollect that one or two of us have, via our MPs, written seeking an answer to why HMRC made the statement it did. The answer we got from HMRC was that they do not discuss individual cases.
And that’s fair enough, I suppose, as far as it goes.
My initial annoyance at their reply has not entirely dissipated. But I am not really convinced that a political motive lay behind either their statement or their replies to queries about their statement.
I think it is rather more likely that some relatively inexperienced staffer, anxious to be seen to be more on message with the thrust of insolvency law ( which is all about keeping businesses as going concerns and so on) than as a grasping, business-destroying tax-man, badly exceeded his brief.( Government, remember, speaks ambivalently about the need to safeguard tax revenue and the parallel need to foster business!)
On the basis of my own personal experience as a civil servant, whichever officer drafted that statement will have been disciplined for doing so, and for possibly compromising any action that HMRC might have wished to take against ‘phoenix’ Rangers: a serious business, deserving of an adverse report!
Of course, the officer might, for all we know, have deliberately tried to sabotage the prospects of HMRC having a go at CG’s club.
If that was so, and it came to light, he’d be out on his ear sharpish.And well would he have deserved to be sacked.
mirrenman says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 21:03
======================
It didn’t give away any confidential information though, everything was in the public domain.
They have done four really telling things.
1, Forced the administration when Craig Whyte was procrastinating.
2, Blocked the CVA.
3, Made sure Malcolm Cohen, the fraud and contentious insolvencies expert got the liquidation gig.
4, Publicly said the following.
“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action.
I think the young chaps use the phrase “do the maths”. Someone, or several people, look likely to be getting it. You don’t feck with the wongs.
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:53
0 0 Rate This
Here’s that statement btw.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm
Statement on Rangers Football Club
“ Rangers can make a fresh start.”
————————————————
There is the political decision right there.
Until HMRC made it, nearly everyone – RFC fans included – believed that an entirely new football club would have to be formed, with clear blue water, in terms of crest, name, etc, between it and the failed old club.
As RFC fan davis rightly says above, this statement by HMRC “beggars belief”.
HMRC could easily have killed any new version of Rangers. They were persuaded not to. By powerful forces.
john clarke says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 21:12
=====================
It’s still on their site, I think it would have been removed if it had been put there in the scenario you describe.
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 21:18
They were persuaded not to. By powerful forces.
===============================
Really, and who were those powerful forces.
alex (@thekublakhan) says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 21:07
—
Good point, theoretically, I concede,wearing my Cicero-admiring hat.
I suppose I have been as guilty as many in assuming that no player or his agent would have signed for a relatively small contractual payment merely on a nod and a wink that he might apply, and sign for a repayable loan, to be granted or withheld entirely at a third party’s discretion, for the bulk of his money.
Might have happened, though, I’ll concede.:)
andy says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:51
a phoenix the rangers is not rangers
————————————-
Andy, you are in an ever-shrinking minority – not just within Scotland, but in the UK and beyond – who still think this.
The Rangers Resurrection Scam is currently succeeding quite well, and I believe it began with Hector’s bizarre public statement giving the green light to this.
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:44
16 0 Rate This
I look at RM so you guys don’t have to, you know.
Here’s a stunner. One of them wrote to the SFA to moan that TRFC hadn’t been seeded in the Cup.
Check out the SFA response:
“Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.
The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and
therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.
The newco club, The Rangers FC, as you know operate under the auspices
of the Scottish Football League Division 3 and, as a consequence of
their position in that league, enters the competition in Round Two.
Thank you for taking the trouble to write”
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=238906
Har har har har. As you can imagine, they’re a bit grumpy about that one.
—————————————————————————-
That differs somewhat from the SFL when challenged about the honours listed for Newco on their website (though their stock response doesn’t quite fit the question) –
“Re your e-mail. The Scottish Football League has accepted Rangers as an Associate member. The Scottish Football Association membership of Rangers FC was transferred from Rangers Football Club PLC (in Administration) (“Oldco”) to Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited) (“Newco”) in terms of Article 14 of the Scottish FA’s Articles of Association and, therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the Scottish Football League to represent Rangers in this manner.”
If the SFA is right, the honours relate to a club that no longer exists.
You don’t know what you’re doing! You don’t know what you’re doing!
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 21:21
0 0 Rate This
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 21:18
They were persuaded not to. By powerful forces.
===============================
Really, and who were those powerful forces.
———————————
Alex Salmond met HMRC specifically on the Rangers Tax Case & has steadfastly refused to reveal anything about that meeting.
Now, Agrajag, you may be a Surrey dwelling Tory who considers that the first Minister of Scotland is not a “powerful force”.
In which case I cannot argue with you!
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 18:07
Rate This
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 17:58
Yes but that’s the point for Rangers Costs > Income = Loss.
———————————————————————————-
Yes but how do you know that, we will not not till Green/Rangers produce their audited accounts.
My point is that Banks, Accountants and Tax Lawyers somehow where complicit in fooling everyone that Rangers were a going concern, how is that possible?
=======================================================================
For two reasons in my simplistic little mind:
1) The so called “professional advisors”” had gone beyond the “point of no return” in backing RFC and MIH and had no way out, save admininistration/liquidation, but with their professional backsides well and truly covered.
2) (-S)DM is/was a control freak of the highest calibre (succulent lamb is not restricted purely to the wholly ineffective Scottish MSM).
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 21:27
andy says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 20:51
a phoenix the rangers is not rangers
————————————-
Andy, you are in an ever-shrinking minority – not just within Scotland, but in the UK and beyond – who still think this.
===========================
I’m in the same fictional minority. However I am only basing that on facts, rather than propaganda.
It’s a new club, it had the Rangers membership transferred to it. If anything that proves Scottish football thinks it’s a new club.
It had to apply to join the league, so it’s a new club.
Here’s a good one, it wasn’t seeded in the cup. A club that was in the SPL in the previous season gets seeded.
So do the BBC according to their most recent article.
So did Charles Green, up till the CVA failed.
So do UEFA, given that the new club won’t qualify to play in their competitions, even if they win the cup.
So do the administrators, given how they describe things in their report..
It’s actually a really big minority.