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!
dl2068 says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:02
What about the larger creditors, like the country, do you want us paid as well. Or just the “small debtors” (sic).
I see RFC (Wavetower) are listed as a secured creditor. Presumably the floating charge.
The other secured creditors include Premier Property Group (A Murray Company)
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:05
0 0 Rate This
dl2068 says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:02
What about the larger creditors, like the country, do you want us paid as well. Or just the “small debtors” (sic).
With what!!!! How many other businessmen rip the taxman off, and, I’m not condoning that. Whyte, should have paid the paye and ni, Murray, don’t think the ebt was illegal, duel contracts is a footballing matter between SPL and Rangers.
http://rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/administratorsinformation/RFC_2012_PLC_(Formerly_The_Rangers_Football_Club_plc)_Final_Progress_Report_to_Creditors.pdf
Final report, looks like 12th October is when rangers football club will start on the road to oblivion
wolvibhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 16:46
“You’re all against us” “The SPL will die without us” ” Financial Armageddon coming” “we’ve been punished enough” “you’ll never strip titles” “we won it on the park” “it’s a Timmy conspiracy”
“Rangers then, rangers now rangers……” and so on. They just will not tolerate any type of debate. They will shout over people to drown out their point. They do not and will not listen to details of the available facts.
————————————————————————————————————-
The reaction you describe is called Confirmation Bias. Basically filtering out any information,data or evidence that contradicts your point of view. A closed mind if you will
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:03
It seems the administrators are still using the same definition of what Rangers was.
——
And I’ll point out again that that is only an “interpretation” section which applies to the current document.
i.e. When you read “Rangers” or “the company” or “the club” in the document, it means RFC(2012) plc.
angus1983 says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:17
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:03
It seems the administrators are still using the same definition of what Rangers was.
——
And I’ll point out again that that is only an “interpretation” section which applies to the current document.
i.e. When you read “Rangers” or “the company” or “the club” in the document, it means RFC(2012) plc.
====================================
Indeed, the interpretation of the administrators, appointed by The Court of Session.
As far as that report is concerned, and as far as the administration is concerned, and as far as the liquidation will be concerned, Rangers, the club and the company are the same thing.
It’s amazing what you find the time to do on any given hangover Sunday.
Here’s a quick take on the new Rangers finances – and it may make grim reading for some of us – but I believe that rumours of impending doom are but mere premature adjudication.
SALES
Season Tickets 5,775,000
Programs 92,311
Hospitality 344,222
Food and Drink 500,109
Stadium Tours 39,431
Sponsorship 70,000
Other Sales 707,364
7,528,437
EXPEND
Home Games 178,833
Away games 70,986
Away Tickets 254,302
Security / Policing 662,345
Programme Costs 31,118
Audio Visual Costs 116,237
Media Costs 89,191
Medical Costs 21,615
Football in the Community Costs 49,615
Player Agents Fees 6,270
Legal Costs 5,000
Wages / Salaries 2,700,000
Sub Contractors 24,400
Staff Expenses 39,134
Player Accommodation 53,078
Other Employee Costs 31,589
Pension Contributions 184,803
PAYE / NIC 1,314,500
Facility Costs 394,183
Catering / Cleaning Costs 400,000
Utilities 407,152
Banking Services 3,161
Stationery / Postage 35,752
Software Licences / Trademarks 50,000
Waste Disposal 100,701
Fuel Costs 166
Petty Cash 13,200
Sundry Payments 5,700
Business Rates 96,557
7,339,588
Profit 188,849
Yes the formatting went a bit awry.
Figures taken from the Duffers last report and either extrapolated for a season or a year.
Assumptions, there are a few, eg, 33k season tickets at 175 to allow for discounted briefs etc.
Personally, I think this is a tad optimistic, but not too far off. Well, maybe about 180 grand off. I believe the new incarnation is viable.
Naturally other debt is present – 6 mill or so from investors, football debts et al, but the time frame for payment is either non-existent or I’ve forgotten it and can’t be bothered lookibg it up.
I am assuming that RTC is not a golf fan – Tweet drive. http://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase
RTC is drawing attention to PAYE46085 – Employer returns: employer return post capture: regulation 72.
Regulation 72
Unless Regulation 72 applies, under deductions of tax are, in the first instance, recoverable from the employer. The Debt Management Office will only consider action under Regulation 72 where
The employee received the earnings knowing that the employer’s failure was wilful
In the case of directors the prospect of recovery from the company are poor, for example
The company is insolvent.
Could Hector be considering going after some of the players?
the taxman cometh says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:15
http://rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/administratorsinformation/RFC_2012_PLC_(Formerly_The_Rangers_Football_Club_plc)_Final_Progress_Report_to_Creditors.pdf
Final report, looks like 12th October is when rangers football club will start on the road to oblivion
===============================
Is that why David Leggat keeps talking about 11th October being a momentous day, it will be Rangers’ last one before the liquidation process starts in earnest.
If liquidation has been given the green light, does that mean that Lord (Hodge)? is satisfied that there was no conflict of interest with D&P and RFC(il) prior to being appointed administrators?
Media House Media consultancy in relation to the Company. £112,500
Spreckley Media consultancy in relation to the Administration. £28,941
______________
does any one know if any other administrators have ever employed the services of a public relations company during the course of and administration
With regard to Davis58, I will be sad if he chooses not to engage. I think he does have to develop a thick skin on here as hides are flayed regularly, and not always on a cross-partisan basis.
As moderators, we will do our best to protect people who are willing to come on here and challenge the consensus viewpoint – and it is necessary to do so since regrettably, not all of us are perfectly welcoming. In time, we hope that will change for the better.
Having said that, Davis58 was perhaps in too much of a rush to be insulted. Take a breath and come back again, prepared to listen as well as teach.
A wee reminder that there is a page for people to leave their message for our late friend Corsica. It is a separate page – not a blog post – and is accessible from the main menu at the top of every page on the site. Or you can click here http://wp.me/P2Dvlo-5H
Just read the D&P report. It is just grim.
£3million in fees for D&P. And they lost, yes lost, £4million while they were running the club.
£5.5 million owed to ordinary debtors. £18 million to HMRC, and that is NOT including the wee tax case or the big tax case. So even if it turns out that Rangers win the FTTT and the EBTs were all right and proper (copyright Murray) then Rangers still shafted every one of us as tax payers to the extent of £18million.
Football debts of £1million to be paid by Green. Debenture holders also shafted by the club.
Simply incredible.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:30
2 0 Rate This
the taxman cometh says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:15
http://rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/administratorsinformation/RFC_2012_PLC_(Formerly_The_Rangers_Football_Club_plc)_Final_Progress_Report_to_Creditors.pdf
Final report, looks like 12th October is when rangers football club will start on the road to oblivion
===============================
Is that why David Leggat keeps talking about 11th October being a momentous day, it will be Rangers’ last one before the liquidation process starts in earnest.
=========
He thinks 11/12th is a positive day
4M shortfall is good for the creditors – which creditors exactly – the ones involved in the stitch up from the start
HOW ON EARTH can an administration be legally allowed to run at such a loss
8.10 – HMRC wants BDO in soon as
Think BDO may challenge some of this – Just like the creditors basically reformed the orig Resolutions
the taxman cometh @ 17:52
I’ve pointed this £4 million trading loss out before
How can any administrators be allowed to piss away £4 million of creditors money, playing Football Manager
Surely this cannot be legal
Another point of note, Green paid £1.5 million for the properties, £2.75 million for player’s registrations, and £1.25 million for plant and machinery, as well as being given title to £2 million money due from the SPL
If this is not at the very best gratuitous alienation, and at worst a stitch up, then I don’t know what is
the taxman cometh says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:52
==============================
It was a sham throughout, they kept the players because the plan was always to keep the team together and get it into the SPL. There would be a new club and company but with the same ground, same strip, same players everyone would simply ignore that. They would be in the SPL, with the vast bulk of the debt away.
They shafted the creditors by running the business at a loss during administration and by agreeing the sale of assets before the CVA had even been voted on.
The victims who had not been paid simply became the victims of the administration as well.
The whole thing was a disgrace.
Does Lord Hodge have to make a ruling on the administration and the potential conflict before 12 October?
Still don`t understand how they can sell all the properties for 1.5m [less than the legal fees]
Then Claiming [4.6] this is a better deal for the creditors
Does this make sense to anyone?
campsiejoe says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 18:10
————————————————————-
Think BDO might object to sme of the expenses run up by D&P (such as PR fees! Whit I hear you say) and at least deduct them from their bill.
What always struck me as a odd was D&P’s attempt to sign a player and then try and retain players already there. After admitting in their first presser that the club was using the credit line from the bank of HMRC to fund operations.Odd behaviour indeed.
Correct me if Im wrong but did the administrators at Motherwell not end a dozen or more player contracts within days of their arrival.I am guessing but feel that that was a spiv plan “A” that went pear shaped rather quickly.
At least we now have a timeframe for BDO’s arrival on the scene and things could begin getting very interesting again!
Question for the Legally minded:
How long can this Liquidation go on for? Year, or years?
The arguement D&P used in keeping the players was to benefi the creditors – by getting prize money and having a better ongoing concern to sell.
The prize money was given to CG – neither CG no D&P got any moeny for players
Total nonsense
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 18:33
at the same first presser, they said they would “act in the best interests of the club.”
it’s probably the single honest statement that they’ve made throughout the entire debacle.
Duffers paid Media House $112500 during administration.
WHY? That is shocking.
Is this legal?
PaulMartin
I thought the comment was something like “our primary objective was to rescue the Club” (when of course it was to act in the best interests of the Creditors).
In no way at all have D&P acted in the interests of anyone other than RFC.
Could a creditor ask D&P what assets were sold to Green, as it states “Certain Assets”?
Also if if was only certain assets, what happened to the unsold ones?
dl2068 says:
How long can this Liquidation go on for? Year, or years?
———————————
I am pretty sure that Traynor mentioned on the radio that Airdrie FC were still in liquidation. That’d be, what, ten years?
chris shields (@chrisshields10) @ 18:33
At both Motherwell and Dundee the first thing the Administrators did was was to make quite a few staff, including playing staff, redundant
I hope that there will be action taken against all involved in this sham of an administration
dl2068 says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 18:36
Question for the Legally minded:
How long can this Liquidation go on for? Year, or years?
—————————————————————————————————————————–
How long do you have?
HMRC want BDO to do a forensic investigation. We are talking a long time.
Let’s put it this way. If Green can’t get his share issue organised quickly, newco Rangers will be in administration before the liquidation of oldco Rangers has been completed. And that is not a joke.
At what point does BDO look at gratuitous alienation?
If this is left hanging as a possibility over the length of time of the liquidation, how is it possible for CW not to inform the people to whom he is trying to punt his shares to?
Not that I would expect him to tell them.
Well everyone ,we are about to enter October and I things are definitely about to warm up,big time,over the winter months.
We are about to be informed of the extent to which people have lied,or not,over this tawdry affair.The extent to which the taxpayers and creditors have been shafted, and the extent to which a football club has competed in a less than honest way through non disclosure and alleged tax evasion.
Not a small news item then.To those fans who think this is about football and their club has been wrongly treated.Think again.
This is a matter of national significance and the repercussions will be felt for years to come.
jmaclure says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 16:21
It pains me to say it, but I don’t see the same thoughts on our situation, in fact, some want us gone forever.
Yes, I know we have left bills unpaid and we have tax issues to be dealt with, but people seem to forget it is 10 years or so out of 140 years existence. Why should the authorities see that to lose such a club as Rangers with their vast support will do more harm than good for Scottish Football?
Punish Whyte and Murray, but let us get on with supporting our club and watching football.
————-
jmclure,
RFC have been given every chance to continue. The reason other fans don’t like it is that it has taken extraordinary decisions by all of the governing bodies to make sure that the club did survive. It looks as though rules have been circumvented to achieve this. It is seen as enormous blue bias because it is.
So I’m not surprised that other fans don’t like Rangers. Though it’s probably also got something to do with many issues which are outwith football altogether. I am sure many believe these issues will only leave Scottish football if Rangers disappear.
My personal views have changed over the course of events. I now feel it would have been best to shut down the whole enterprise. What could be sold should have been sold, even if this meant the stadium. A new start, a fresh club, no matter how modest. It would have been a project many football fans would have supported, even from a distance. Green’s Rangers has no attraction for me, even less than the former club. Most of my family in Glasgow don’t go near Ibrox anymore and were pretty much disenchanted before the end of the Murray era. RFC have long been unrecognisable to the version I grew up with and even back then there was something rotten at the core.
The only way the club will get certain supporters back is by zero tolerance of all forms of sectarianism, whether it be songs or banners, and by a complete disassociation with Irish politics and religious b*****y. Will it happen anytime soon? Not at the rate our resident son of Yorkshire is going. Rangers might survive but they’ll remain dead to some of us.
[sfm edit ]this was posted on sevco media in another discussion on the subject of shares:
“I think I may be right in saying it’s so I can own shares in the club I love, and at the same time building our club back up to being a financially healthy one. ”
and
“CG’s advice will be sound enough for me. ”
Buying a share in “the club” ladies and gentlemen
46,000 Danish Pastries at ibrox and the world would be a better place.Fatter perhaps,but better.
Well said Sir
twopanda on Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 18:25
The question marks around the propert sale are mostly around the book value place on them by SDM. Somewhere in the region of £100m for Ibrox and Murray park.
This ignores the revaluation Murray performed in order to borrow more money against the assets. Basically he performed a massive revalue, boosting the asset value to get his hands on more cash from BOS.
To quote Downfall, the properties are only worth around £12M (I think, not having the book to hand).
Even taking that figure, they were still massively under valued.
thespecialswon says:
just watched it again.
baldy one said.
“what we now need to do, make sure the long term future of the club”
creditors must’ve been reassured with that.
scottyjimbo says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:30
If liquidation has been given the green light, does that mean that Lord (Hodge)? is satisfied that there was no conflict of interest with D&P and RFC(il) prior to being appointed administrators?
No
This is a statutory report
LH said the Administration would not end until he had a report on the COI issue
D&P are applying for the Administration to end .LH will decide if he agrees .
To read anything else into this report is to assume there has been secret discussions between LH and D&P leading to permission being given for D&P to apply for liquidation and say so in this report
Perhaps a legal mind can comment
It seems to me that LH is being asked to rule on the end of Administration rather than connive with D&P on announcing a pre agreed date for end of Administraion
Danish Pastry
I wish more of your ilk would stand up and be counted.
I am a lifelong Celtic fan with more than a spattering of friends/colleagues/family who are real Rangers fans. They are without exception, decent individuals. But, they have been silenced and overtaken by the loudmouthed, bigoted unsavoury element attached to their Club.
The silent majority is not a new thing at Ibrox ! In all of my football supporting days, the Rangers crowd has been defined by its lowest common denominator.
I am saddened by what I see happening right now at Ibrox and believe Charles Green is nurturing a new era of divisiveness whilst the whole idea of ensuring a continuing ‘Rangers’ by the football/political authorities was advanced to prevent the very opposite.
I hope that the appointment of BDO will halt this movement in its tracks and encourage the birth of another ‘New’ Rangers with real Rangers football men at the helm who will take things forward in an entirely different climate, fostering all that is good about football whilst discarding the baggage attached to the club presently.
HMRC
13.8 The Joint Administrators have continued to review the claims made by HMRC in the administration. The claims are largely made up of determinations issued by HMRC in accordance with Regulation 80, penalties and outstanding PAYE/NIC. The Joint Administrators have adjudicated on these claims and confirmed to HMRC that for voting purposes, their claim will be admitted for voting purposes at £94,426,217.22.
————————————————————————————————————————
Does this mean
a) D&P know result of FTTT
b) have decided that arguing the exact amount at this stage is moot
Or is this standard procedure?
PaulMartin, yep, basically told the truth and showed their hand, completely, getting to the end of the season, intact, was their only objective. Creditors? Sorry, they were always irrelevant.
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 19:43
HMRC
13.8 The Joint Administrators have continued to review the claims made by HMRC in the administration. The claims are largely made up of determinations issued by HMRC in accordance with Regulation 80, penalties and outstanding PAYE/NIC. The Joint Administrators have adjudicated on these claims and confirmed to HMRC that for voting purposes, their claim will be admitted for voting purposes at £94,426,217.22.
————————————————————————————————————————
Does this mean
a) D&P know result of FTTT
b) have decided that arguing the exact amount at this stage is moot
Or is this standard procedure?
=====================================================================
Was thinking about this,Chris but I don’t know the legalities.
We know there was around £18m unpaid from last year,plus the WTC i think was£4.2m
Total £18.2m
If these figures are correct that leaves approx £76.2m unpaid.
Could this be the BTC result?.
Hope someone on here can point me in the right direction.
It is the amount HMRC will have lodged as a claim.
As has been stated before the HMRC assessments, interest and penalties are legally enforceable debts. Therefore would be lodged as a claim in the administration, giving HMRC that amount of voting rights.
Had Duff and Phelps rejected it then HMRC would have taken the matter to Court, as they have done before.
It being in that report does not signify anything with regard the FTT.
I’ve had a quick look through the report and would like to highlight some points. However, some of the outstanding numbers still need explained further as they are outwith my ken. – Paul McC may be able to help out here.
I make the total D&P pre admin, admin, and expenses (disbursements) comes to £3.63M (pages 12 & 13)
….. of which they have already received a total of £2.57M (pages 13 & 21)
That would appear to leave £1.06M still to be paid
However, their claim for further payment of money due as detailed in Resolution 1 to Creditors (page 16) seeks a total of £3.12M
These claims may cover other expenses such as outstanding legal costs but I can’t work out how it is calculated.
Moving onto “Agents and Solicitors” fees themselves (these are also fees of the administration) – (page 36)
The total comes to (excluding VAT) £2.52M of which £1.98M has already been paid with £0.52M still outstanding.
The balance of funds still available to the company is reported as £3.17M (pages 11 & 21)
With a back of a “virtual” fag packet calculation (I don’t smoke) …. if D&Ps claim of £3.12M and the outstanding “Agents and Solicitors” fees of £0.54M are satisfied, then it means that there is still a shortfall of £0.49M, i.e. no money in the pot for any creditors and that is before any BDO fees are levied.
I may have missed out on the total payment of £1.95M for Jelavic still to come in 2013 and 2014, but it’s not wholly clear where this is accounted for (Assets/Debtors?) or indeed whether that money will stay with oldco or go to the newco.
Some things just don’t add up ……………. but then I wouldn’t expect anything else from D&P.
Torrejohnboy, Your figures are correct totalling £94.4m. Craig Whyte himself stated in the media that the BTC could be as high as £75m.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 20:18
——————————————————————————————————————————
Thanks.
Cheers roundbaw & rantinrobin
More repetitive writing from me really, and a bit off topic as the D&P report is out. But there’s been some more or less good-natured debate from different shades of blue today so I thought a response to jmclure was relevant.
Sticky pastries all round.
dl2068 says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 17:02
40 1 i
Rate This
wolvibhoy says:
Angry, hurt, embarrassed , correct, Angry that Murray would get something soo wrong, when, he didn’t need to resort to the path he took, cut cloth to suit should have been the way ahead. Angry, he sold to a spiv, when Johnston warned him off, Angry, he said he was duped, man was never duped in his life, he was the guy who duped others. Hurt, that my team are where they are now, hurts at the jibes I take of work colleagues who can be very hurtful, where before it was good banter, now, I’m afraid some just like to rub it in a little more than others, Hurt, watching my team play at Ibrox in the SFL3, that really bloody hurts, and the Biggest hurt, NOT paying our debts , that is my Biggest hurt and embarrassment , that is NOT the Rangers way, we need to compete yes, but, I want all small debtors paid off and quickly, and, before the ones who like to rub it in comment, Tax money, JAIL THE PAIR OF THEM.
—————————————————————————————
Excellent post dl, must of been painful to write but your honesty does you credit.
Of for an “edit” facility in WordPress – My last post contained a small miscalculation. The outstanding Agents and Solicitors fees should have read £0.54M, leaving a potential shortfall of £0.49M in the creditors pot.
[SFM: Fixed that for you EJ. Check the edit’s accuracy and let me know]
A post from Maleys Bhoys highlighting the advantage gained by RFC with their tax fiddle:
Here’s What You Could Have Bought
Recently, Duff and Phelps released their final report to the creditors of Rangers Football Club. In amongst several other eye watering amounts, D&P revealed that the total amount HMRC are pursuing Rangers for is £94,426,217.22 (don’t forget the 22p). Now, to put that into context, I calculated that to be the equivalent value of five Tore Andre Flo’s (at £12m each), three Paul Gascoigne’s (at £4.3m each), two Giovanni Van Bronckhorst’s (at £5m each), one Artur Numan (at £4.5m) and still over £7m cash (perhaps for a partridge in a pear tree). For the record, these figures are those Rangers paid when purchasing the players.
Now, let me give you a few examples which I feel highlight the true cost of Rangers’ tax evasion and financial doping.
The highest figure Celtic have ever paid for a player is £6 million for Chris Sutton. With the money Rangers stole from the taxpayer over the years, Celtic could have bought fifteen Chris Sutton’s, and still have had enough left over for a few Henrik Larsson’s.
The highest fee Aberdeen have ever paid for a player is £1m (for Paul Bernard). With the amount of money Rangers saved, Aberdeen could have bought thirty four Paul Bernard’s, and Fernando Torres.
In 1995, Dundee United signed Steven Pressley for £750,000. With an extra £94m, they could have signed Cristiano Ronaldo and nineteen Steven Pressley’s.
In 2006, Hearts paid £850,000 for Mirsad Beslija from Racing Genk. If they’d stolen an equivalent sum of money as Rangers, this could have attracted Kaka as well as several others to Tynecastle (theoretically speaking).
Now, I feel these statistics tell their own stories.
With BDO potentially set to move in the near future, we’ll soon find out whether crime really doesn’t pay.
You have to remember that the figure for the big tax case represents tax, interest and penalties. So the figure Rangers actually benefited by (the unpaid tax) is substantially less than HMRC’s claim.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 20:44
‘….Here’s What You Could Have Bought…’
—–
Nice one.
Danish Pastry, couldn’t agree more. My view is exactly the same as yours but I could never have put it so succinctly or eloquently as you just have. My brother, Father and I gave up years ago for all the reasons you’ve described.
I went to my first Old Firm game when I was ten and a guy in front of us was shouting some pretty strong stuff and my Dad was starting to get agitated. He leaned forward and said something quietly in his ear and the guy never said a word for the rest of the match.
That guy is probably still going to the matches empowered by CG’s inflammatory statements and shouting louder than ever. A sad state of affairs.
readcelt says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 19:18
Cheers – yes
Apologies should have been clearer – The claim in [4.6] that this “better result” was a better deal for the creditors simply doesn’t add up to any rational thinking person. Not only that, but there is no demonstrable comparison to justify or prove that claim. But they don`t need to the way they`ve worded it.
This is legal statement – to be presented to Lord Hodge in the Highest Law Court in the Land to sign–off.
[4.4] Second hierarchical precept of Administration describes “better result” for “creditors as a whole” [includes all creditors]
[4.6] describes “better result” for “creditors”
And;
“Creditors” are not singularly described under [1] Definitions
Neither is “better result” defined
Lord Hodge wouldn`t sign off a statement that was not true. D+D would know better than to present an untrue statement to a Court. It must be clear that this statement must be true [for secured] creditors and if it is then the secured creditors are still involved and they`ve achieved a “better result” for them. [some Secured creditors still TBC or ”in negotiation with” from their previous report]
Any Creditors, anywhere, got no chance if they can play a form of words and it`s accepted.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 20:44
Try again with the interest and penalties removed, that would be a more realistic figure.
dedeideoprofundis says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 20:55
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 20:44
Try again with the interest and penalties removed, that would be a more realistic figure.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
I’m sure you’re right.
It was a repost from another sight.I don’t know what the interest & penalties are but I would think it shows the sort of advantage gained,if a bit on the high side.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:05
=====================================
As I understand it the actual tax involved was more like £25m.
That could be way out though.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:08
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:05
=====================================
As I understand it the actual tax involved was more like £25m.
That could be way out though.
==================================================================
You’re probably right.Add this to the WTC and the unpaid tax from last year and you’re approaching £50m.
Still 4 Andre flos,or 10 Gasgoignes.
Celtic could have bought 8 Suttons and still had enough left over for 3 Larssons.
Might as well jump on the Danish Pastry (called Wienebrod, where I live!) appreciation bandwagon here – sums up my position, too! CG going over to NI was the last straw. I had hoped for the club to raise its hand, say it had wronged, go to Div 3 and work back up. Most importantly, I saw it as a chance for RFC to get rid of the NI contingency. I can’t support CG’s Rangers. However, I’m sure RFC will survive in one form or another and, who knows, maybe in a few years when the dust settles we can make up again.
longtimelurker @17:28
I posted something along these lines at 21:21 last night…….. I heard from a very reliable source that it was squeaky bum time for the EBT ers 🙂 players etc. when I didn’t get much reaction to the post I thought my source may have been mistaken…… Maybe not after all? Hearing tonight that sevco are very short on readies (must be all those free tickets) and are highly unlikely to see 2013 😉 shame. bangordub 151 🙂
Hodge’s silence is deafening. We now have fully documented in black and white a wilful theft of moneys due to creditors – mostly the public purse – by a conflicted administrator whom he allowed to be appointed. If he ok’s this then the judiciary are in complete disrepute – they will,be shown to reward and collude with criminal conspiracies contrary to law. i suspect he will ok it – i think that decision will say all that needs to be said about the state of the judiciary and the rule of law in this country.
I think it also puts into context Nimmo Smiith’s acceptance ofa disembodied and unincorporated concept of a Club existing outwith the incorporated body in which it has always resided. Another clear nonsense and affront to all Law and precedent.
We appear to have judges willing to ignore the law. or remake the law or cover up blatant wrong doing..We certainly don’t appear to have judges willling to uphold justice.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:08
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:05
=====================================
As I understand it the actual tax involved was more like £25m.
That could be way out though
================================
Though the actual figure evaded is low in relation to the sum sought by HMRC you need to factor in the additional CL revenue that was illegally obtained.
How many points was Klos worth? Two leagues won by the smallest of margins could sway the figure by around £30m.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:16
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:08
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:05
=====================================
As I understand it the actual tax involved was more like £25m.
That could be way out though.
==================================================================
You’re probably right.Add this to the WTC and the unpaid tax from last year and you’re approaching £50m.
Still 4 Andre flos,or 10 Gasgoignes.
Celtic could have bought 8 Suttons and still had enough left over for 3 Larssons.
======================================
Adding the unpaid tax from last year makes no sense whatsoever in those calculations.
tomtomaswell says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:39
___________________________________
I’m afraid that’s just making up numbers for the sake of it.
Financial whatifery.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:43
tomtomaswell says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:39
___________________________________
I’m afraid that’s just making up numbers for the sake of it.
Financial whatifery.
====================
Not at all.
Hmmm.
“…The evidence available to the Joint Administrators suggests that the claims made by Ticketus against the Company are unenforceable…
…the Joint Administrators consider that the claims made by Ticketus should be rejected in full for voting purposes.”
Essentially this could be saying one of two things:
1. That the entire Ticketus claim (£26,711,857) is being disallowed by the administrators. D&P do not recognise Ticketus to be creditor at all.
or
2. The Ticketus debt has not actually been claimed and is expected to be settled via other means.
Since Ticketus are listed as having made a claim against RFC plc, we should presume this to be true. But, since D&P have/had no power to cancel the Ticketus contract outright – but could simply refuse to honour it – the Ticketus “debt” could only have crystallised if/when Ticketus formally accepted the breach as a repudiation, rescind the contract, and claim damages.
I repeat: the only way that Ticketus could have made an official claim, is if Ticketus (NOT D&P!!!) have rescinded the contract and have claimed damages.
But if Ticketus have not yet rescinded the contract (so it is technically, if not practically still alive) what difference would that make?
Well consider this:
Ticketus are pursuing Liberty & CW. I would presume Ticketus have been given the equivalent of a floating charge over that company by CW. Liberty have a floating charge over RFC Group. RFC Group have a floating charge over RFC plc.
When RFC plc finally enter liquidation, the Ticketus contract (if it is, as I suspect, currently still technically alive) will also finally die. At that time the Ticketus debt will formally crystallise.
If, by that time, the floating charge over the assets of RFC plc, currently held by RFC Group is assigned to Ticketus, Ticketus will have an arguably valid £26,711,857 floating charge over the assets of RFC plc.
“Ah… but there is only £3m in the pot”, I hear you say.
But, what if Sevco and Ticketus are one and the same? If that is the case (and lets face it, nothing else makes any sense), Sevco are 100% immune to potential action by BDO in terms of accusations of gratuitous alienation. Any additional sum that Sevco are required to pay to keep the Rangers assets would effectively be paid to themselves.
I expect, by 11th October, it will have been made known that Ticketus own Sevco and that Ticketus/Sevco hold the RFC plc floating charge. This will be spun as positive news by the MSM.
I also expect, sometime before 2015, Ibrox and Murray park will be sold for around £30m and leased back to Sevco for an annual rent of around £3m.
The proceeds from the sale of Ibrox & Murray Park will go directly to the Ticketus investors.
Only speculation on my part of course. 🙂
tomtomaswell says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:53
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:43
tomtomaswell says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:39
___________________________________
I’m afraid that’s just making up numbers for the sake of it.
Financial whatifery.
====================
Not at all.
==================================================================
What if RFC(IA) had not cheated and lived within their means.Less big names with big wages.These big names won them the league,therefore CL cash.That makes it relevant.
I think the Ticketus part is disgusting.
Basically my reading of it is that they bought the tickets, and paid for them, but they are unable to enforce the debt and we don’t have to allow for it so feck them.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:58
tomtomaswell says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:53
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:43
tomtomaswell says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:39
___________________________________
I’m afraid that’s just making up numbers for the sake of it.
Financial whatifery.
====================
Not at all.
==================================================================
What if …
===================================================================
What if Celtic had bought Stephen Fletcher and won the league, depriving Rangers of an SPL win and European money.
What if he had broken his leg in the first game he played.
What if …
Whatifery.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 22:00
0 1 Rate This
I think the Ticketus part is disgusting.
Basically my reading of it is that they bought the tickets, and paid for them, but they are unable to enforce the debt and we don’t have to allow for it so feck them.
=======================
if Ticketus = Sevco, would it still be disgusting?
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 22:09
====================================
Do you have reason to believe they are, or is that a purely hypothetical question.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 22:15
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 22:09
====================================
Do you have reason to believe they are, or is that a purely hypothetical question.
————————————
See my post at 21:57
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 21:57
Great post HP.
As our dearly departed friend corsica would say,
Chapeau sir, Chapeau
Completely off topic but let’s hope Europe do it for Seve 🙂 right back to work people 🙂
I know I said I would not be posting as much but hey I’m an addict.
Can someone please correct me if I am wrong.
The Duff &Phelps final report lists expenditure from 14 Feb to 25 Sept as being in the region of £8.9m (lets just say £9m for a round figure). Most of the items appear to relate to the running of the club over the last few months of last season, where Rangers, being out of all cups, only had SPL games remaining- 6 home and 6 away.
Even being generous let’s say the majority of the expenditure kept going to 30th June when some players started leaving the sinking ship. That is 4 and a half months after going into administration.
If we take off the items for wages and the PAYE/NIC of around £4.5m from the £9m that leaves around £4.5m for running the club for 4.5months. Or in other words EXCLUDING STAFF COSTS £1m a month.
What has changed since Mr Charles took over to reduce this running cost?
Have any cuts that may have taken place been adequate, being that while the wage bill for the players will be a lot lower (but not for all the staff who Tuped) the income will also have fallen due to the reduced season ticket and pay at the gate prices?
It seems clearer than ever that Mr Charles needs the share issue to get through this season.
The future of T’Rangers therefore hangs on the success of that share issue and what he decides to with the proceeds.
I think he will get enough to see them through this season.
However if too much is taken out to pay him and his existing investors (and anyone else hanging around in the background) then my guess is they will be struggling again by next season. Especially if they go diversifying with building hotels, cancer centre and the likes 🙂