The recent revelations of a potential winding up order being served on Rangers Newco certainly does have a sense of “deja vu all over again” for the average reader of this blog.
It reminds me of an episode of the excellent Western series Alias Smith & Jones. The episode was called The Posse That Wouldn’t Quit. In the story, the eponymous anti-heroes were being tracked by a particularly dogged group of law-men whom they just couldn’t shake off – and they spent the entire episode trying to do just that. In a famous quote, Thaddeus Jones, worn out from running, says to Joshua Smith, “We’ve got to get out of this business!”
The SFM has been trying since its inception to widen the scope and remit of the discussion and debate on the blog. Unsuccessfully. Like the posse that wouldn’t quit, Rangers are refusing to go away as a story. With the latest revelations, I confided in my fellow mods that perhaps we too should get out of this business. I suspect that, even if we did, this story would doggedly trail our paths until it wears us all down.
The fact that the latest episode of the Rangers saga has sparked off debate on this blog may even confirm the notion subscribed to by Rangers fans that TSFM is obsessed with their club. However even they must agree that the situation with regard to Rangers would be of interest to anyone with a stake in Scottish Football; and that they themselves must be concerned by the pattern of events which started over a decade ago and saw the old club fall into decline on a trajectory which ended in liquidation.
But let me enter into a wee discussion which doesn’t merely trot out the notion of damage done to others or sins against the greater good, but which enters the realm of the damage done to one of the great institutions of world sport, Rangers themselves.
David Murray was regarded by Rangers fans as a hero. His bluster, hubris and (as some see it) arrogant contempt for his competitors afforded him a status as a champion of the cause as long as it was underpinned by on-field success.
The huge pot of goodwill he possessed was filled and topped-up by a dripping tap of GIRUY-ness for many years beyond the loss of total ascendency that his spending (in pursuit of European success) had achieved, and only began to bottom out around the time the club was sold to Craig Whyte. In retrospect, it can be seen that the damage that was done to the club’s reputation by the Murray ethos (not so much a Rangers ethos as a Thatcherite one) and reckless financial practice is now well known.
Notwithstanding the massive blemish on its character due to its employment policies, the (pre-Murray) Rangers ethos portrayed a particularly Scottish, perhaps even Presbyterian stoicism. It was that of a conservative, establishment orientated, God-fearing and law-abiding institution that played by the rules. It was of a club that would pay its dues, applied thrift and honesty in its business dealings, and was first to congratulate rivals on successes (witness the quiet dignity of John Lawrence at the foot of the aircraft steps with an outstretched hand to Bob Kelly when Celtic returned from Lisbon).
If Murray had dug a hole for that Rangers, Craig Whyte set himself up to fill it in. No neo-bourgeois shirking of responsibilities and duty to the public for him; his signature was more pre-war ghetto, hiding behind the couch until the rent man moved along to the next door. Whyte just didn’t pay any bills and with-held money that was due to be passed along to the treasury to fund the ever more diminished public purse. Where Murray’s Rangers had been regarded by the establishment and others as merely distasteful, Whyte’s was now regarded as a circus act, and almost every day of his tenure brought more bizarre and ridiculous news which had Rangers fans cringing, the rest laughing up their sleeve, and Bill Struth birling in his grave.
The pattern was now developing in plain sight. Murray promised Rangers fans he would only sell to someone who could take the club on, but he sold it – for a pound – to a guy whose reputation did not survive the most cursory of inspection. Whyte protested that season tickets had not been sold in advance, that he used his own money to buy the club. Both complete fabrications. Yet until the very end of Whyte’s time with the club, he, like Murray still, was regarded as hero by a fan-base which badly wanted to believe that the approaching car-crash could be avoided.
Enter Charles Green. Having been bitten twice already, the fans’ first instincts were to be suspicious of his motives. Yet in one of history’s greatest ironic turnarounds, he saw off the challenge of real Rangers-minded folk (like John Brown and Paul Murray) and their warnings, and by appealing to what many regard as the baser instincts of the fan-base became the third hero to emerge in the boardroom in as many years. The irony of course is that Green himself shouldn’t really pass any kind of Rangers sniff-test; personal, sporting, business or cultural; and yet there he is the spokesman for 140 years of the aspirations of a quarter of the country’s fans.
To be fair though, what else could Rangers fans do? Green had managed (and shame on the administration process and football authorities for this) to pick up the assets of the club for less (nett) than Craig Whyte and still maintained a presence in the major leagues.
If they hadn’t backed him only the certainty of doom lay before them. It was Green’s way or the highway in other words – and speaking of words, his sounded mighty fine. But do the real Rangers minded people really buy into it all?
First consider McCoist. I do not challenge his credentials as a Rangers minded man, and his compelling need to be an effective if often ineloquent spokesman for the fans. However, according to James Traynor (who was then acting as an unofficial PR advisor to the Rangers manager), McCoist was ready to walk in July (no pun intended) because he did not trust Green. The story was deliberately leaked, to undermine Green, by both Traynor and McCoist. McCoist also refused for a long period of time to endorse the uptake of season books by Rangers fans, even went as far as to say he couldn’t recommend it.
So what changed? Was it a Damascene conversion to the ways of Green, or was it the 250,000 shares in the new venture that he acquired. Nothing improper or unethical – but is it idealism? Is it fighting for the cause?
Now think Traynor. I realise that can be unpleasant, but bear with me.
Firstly, when he wrote that story on McCoist’s resignation, (and later backed it up on radio claiming he had spoken to Ally before printing the story), he was helping McCoist to twist Green’s arm a little. Now, and I’m guessing that Charles didn’t take this view when he saw the story in question, Green thinks that Traynor is a “media visionary”?
Traynor also very publicly, in a Daily Record leader, took the “New Club line” and was simultaneously contemptuous of Green.
What happened to change both their minds about each other? Could it have been (for Green) the PR success of having JT on board and close enough to control, and (for Traynor) an escape route for a man who had lost the battle with own internal social media demons?
Or, given both McCoist’s and Traynor’s past allegiance to David Murray, is it something else altogether?
Whatever it is, both Traynor and McCoist have started to sing from a totally different hymn sheet to Charles Green since the winding up order story became public. McCoist’s expert étude in equivocation at last Friday’s press conference would have had the Porter in Macbeth slamming down the portcullis (now there’s an irony). He carefully distanced himself from his chairman and ensured that his hands are clean. Traynor has been telling one story, “we have an agreement on the bill”, and Green another, “we are not paying it”.
And what of Walter Smith? At first, very anti-Charles Green, he even talked about Green’s “new club”. Then a period of silence followed by his being co-opted to the board and a “same club” statement. Now in the face of the damaging WUP story, more silence. Hardly a stamp of approval on Green’s credentials is it?
Rangers fans would be right to be suspicious of any non-Rangers people extrapolating from this story to their own version of Armageddon, but shouldn’t they also reserve some of that scepticism for Green and Traynor (neither are Rangers men, and both with only a financial interest in the club) when they say “all is well” whilst the real Rangers man (McCoist) is only willing to say “as far as I have been told everything is well”
As a Celtic fan, it may be a fair charge to say that I don’t have Rangers best interests at heart, but I do not wish for their extinction, nor do I believe that one should ignore a quarter of the potential audience for our national game. Never thought I’d hear myself say this, but apart from one (admittedly mightily significant) character defect, I can look at the Rangers of Struth and Simon, Gillick and Morton, Henderson and Baxter, and Waddell and Lawrence (and God help me even Jock Wallace) with fondness and a degree of nostalgia.
I suspect most Rangers fans are deeply unhappy about how profoundly their club has changed. To be fair, my own club no longer enchants me in the manner of old. As sport has undergone globalisation, everything has changed. Our relationship to our clubs has altered, the business models have shifted, and the aspirations of clubs is different from that of a generation ago. It has turned most football clubs into different propositions from the institutions people of my generation grew up supporting, but Rangers are virtually unrecognisable.
The challenge right now for Rangers fans is this. How much more damage will be done to the club’s legacy before this saga comes to an end?
And by then will it be too late to do anything about it?
Most people on this blog know my views about the name of Green’s club. I really don’t give a damn because for me it is not important. I do know, like Craig Whyte said, that in the fullness of time there will be a team called Rangers, playing football in a blue strip at Ibrox, and in the top division in the country.
I understand that this may be controversial to many of our contributors, but I hope that this incarnation of Rangers is closer to that of Lawrence and Simon than to Murray and Souness.
Auldheid says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:26
If the IPO money is not reported in turnover and the total wage bill is in the £14.5m bracket then the wage to turnover ratio will be dangerously high and certainly above the 33% that CG is proclaiming.
===============
The IPO money will not be reported at all, since it belongs to RIFC, and not TRFC. Turnover will be the season ticket income, matchday receipts, TV and sponsorship money, and maybe bits and pieces like catering.
As regards the wage bill, Green is suffering for the sins of Duff & Phelps, who should have drastically cut both playing staff and backroom staff in the interests of the creditors. Now that most have TUPE’d over to TRFC on their existing terms, Green will find it very difficult to cut wage costs significantly. TRFC must now be in debt to RIFC to the tune of several million, and growing every day. Cash flow is the key, and it’s mainly cash out at the moment.
If TRFC don’t get a leg-up to the SPL next season via reconstruction, then it looks like curtains to me. That IPO cash, whether £20m or £8m, can’t keep the show on the road indefinitely, even if Green’s backers were prepared to let all the IPO money be pumped into a loss-making football venture. And I’m pretty certain that the original investors will want their money back, with a profit, long before it all gets spent.
if RFC can turn over £40M in the SPL without euro money then 33% of that is £13.2M
a squad of 25 players works out at a touch over £10k a week wages each – a clever manager should manage with a smaller squad on bigger wages and a selection of utility/fringe/youth players on much smaller wages
I guess that’s Ally’s tea oot then!
Of course, the other unmentioned fact is…..how much will it cost to sign those players? Will those players be SPL journeymen or will they actually be brining in players who can compete for honours?
We’ve already seen TRFC struggle against SPL sides on a fraction of their budget….(actually, we’ve seen Celtic do the same!) but this in itself if the big unacceptable reality for TRFC supporters – they will not accept not winning/topping the table against their SPL enemies.
So, what gives – turnover (support) or financial responsibility? We all know where this is heading again.
neepheid says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 12:13
Interesting conundrum.
If it transpires that TRFC are financially unsusainable in all leagues outwith the SPL and that fact is made known to the SFA and the SFL how can the SFA continue to provide the Club with a licence where there is a real risk that the Club cannot meet its financial obligations?
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 12:05
Actually not a bad piece by Mr McMurdo.
Apart from the following bit …
“In a sense, it doesn’t really matter. How Alex Thomson feels about Rangers is not the issue. The fact is, he is a clear and present danger to Rangers Football Club precisely because he writes stuff that is anti-Rangers.”
Mr Thomson is a clear and present danger to TRFC not because he “writes stuff that is anti-Rangers”, but because he writes without a preconceived agenda. Because he is able to do that, he relays facts without dipping them in blue (or green) dye first. The danger to Rangers lies in the fact that Mr Thomson has no hesitation in exposing actual or potential wrongdoing.
I note that over the last few days most posts have returned to all matter T’ Rangers.
However, combined with the potential problems down Tynecastle way, the financial stability of two of our tops clubs is clearly still the biggest thing on the Scottish Football agenda. Especially as it looks like Euro curtains for Celtic.
At Tynecastle people know that the figures do not match up and that at some point something is going to have to give.
At T’Rangers the financial situation is somewhat unknown but given the events of the past and the known costs associated with running a club that size, people on here are rightly concerned that it could all go down the tubes once again.
The question is are our ruling authorities quietly but efficiently monitoring the situation closely and requesting all possible information from each clubs respective representatives so as to be prepared for the worst
OR
are they sticking their head in the sand hoping it will all go away.
The Brechin cup tie has been raised again and the authorities quizzed about making up the rules.
IMHO the problem was not just that they bent the rules but that despite everyone and their uncle knowing what was going on they remained powerless in terms of making quick and efficient decisions.
My fear is that if one, the other or both clubs get into bother our authorities will still not be prepared.
I was very interested to read that the LNS enquiry result will be announced on 28th February. Can anyone confirm this? Does anyone know if LNS will decide on punishments (if applicable), make recommendations, or simply offer his findings?
If a timetable is agree for release then the result must surely be known to some. You don’t agree a timetable for release if you haven’t made a decision. I assume the reason for delay is the full decision / recommendation / findings will have to be presented with supporting documentation, meetings arranged to discuss and agree actions, etc.
Interesting times ahead, whatever the decision.
Long Time Lurker says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 13:14
Interesting conundrum.
If it transpires that TRFC are financially unsusainable in all leagues outwith the SPL and that fact is made known to the SFA and the SFL how can the SFA continue to provide the Club with a licence where there is a real risk that the Club cannot meet its financial obligations?
===================================
The SFA know full well that the TRFC financial model is not viable outside the SPL. That is why there was all that arm twisting to try to get Sevco a place in the SPL, or failing that, in SFL1. The SFA went the “extra mile” last summer, to ensure that a Rangers team continued to play in senior football. Having done that, and totally compromised themselves in the process, they now have no option but to go another extra mile, and somehow rebuild Scottish football in a way that gets TRFC into the SPL before the money runs out. That is my prediction anyway- just wait and see!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr Chris Graham:
——
“On a day when BBC Scotland staff will take to the streets outside Pacific Quay to protest at job cuts, there remain huge question marks over the ability of their organisation to meet the terms of their own charter. “The BBC exists to serve the public interest”. It is highly debatable whether this remains the case, at least in Scotland. Agendas and bias should be utterly foreign to the BBC but more and more we are seeing those things creep into their work. Central to this idea of serving the public interest is the idea of “balance”, which has been sadly lacking from the BBC’s output north of the border. Despite this problem having been raised many times with them it was apparent again this past week.
I should start by saying that BBC Scotland presents something of a conundrum for Rangers fans. We have no real option but to pay our licence fee and fund them, but we find them not only at odds with our view of our club but simply unable to provide anything approaching a fair commentary on matters affecting it. The simple fact is that as a group we can’t hurt the BBC in the same way as we can a newspaper or an independent broadcaster because boycotting them does not hit them in the pocket. It was from that standpoint that I agreed to a couple of discussions with BBC Scotland producers and presenters recently about appearing on their shows.
I am not going to go into the content of these meetings too deeply because I would like to respect that they were private. However, I will say that it is apparent that BBC Scotland, at least in certain areas, understand that their programming is being harmed by the perceived anti Rangers bias which infects their output. They remain at loggerheads with the club and are refusing to apologise publicly for their “Madmen” montage featuring Ally McCoist. They also refuse to publicly acknowledge that they have an issue with imbalance in the panels which make up their sports programming. However, saying something publicly and recognising privately that there is a problem are two different things. The BBC know they made a mess of the McCoist issue and they know that continuing with panel shows which feature only those people who have been outspoken against Rangers in the past year, is leaving them vulnerable to accusations of bias. The more lucid, self-aware panel members also appreciate the imbalance that exists on the shows they appear on.
On the anniversary of the club going into administration, BBC Sportsound aired a show which featured Stuart Cosgrove and Graham Spiers as panellists, on a show presented by Jim Spence. Within minutes of the show airing, Spence had decreed that Rangers “are a new club although Rangers fans will argue the toss on that”. He said this unchallenged. It was a factually incorrect statement that could only have been made by an idiot, someone not in full possession of the facts, someone that wished to pander to an agenda against the club or a mix of the above. I’ll limit myself to saying that Spence is well aware of the facts. We shouldn’t expect more from Spence, he isn’t really capable of it, but we are entitled to expect more of the BBC. I genuinely don’t mind if they want to employ people who are willing to sacrifice their journalistic integrity and twist the facts about Rangers, but they should also employ people willing to highlight that agenda and challenge it.
Later in the week, with a panel consisting of Tom English, Graham Spiers and Gordon Smith (making a rare appearance), Spiers continued this line of propaganda with “technically Rangers are a new club”. Well, no. Technically, we are the same club. Technically, the SFA licence was transferred between corporate entities – something which could only have been done if we were the same club. Those are the technicalities so, technically, Graham was talking nonsense. Again this went unchallenged. There was no balance.
Now herein lies the problem, there are different ways of achieving balance. One is to have a panel in which each member is neutral, but given the current paucity of Scottish journalism and broadcasting this is virtually impossible. The other way to do it would be to have a panel which consists of those who detest or dislike Rangers, which the BBC already have plenty of, and balance it with those willing to stand up and reject their propaganda when it rears its head. Whilst journalists can openly declare that they support Dundee Utd or St Johnstone, anyone openly stating that they support Rangers would be hounded out of a job. Not providing any counter to the panellists who are hostile to the club is where the BBC in Scotland utterly fails in its duty.
I was invited on to the show on the 14th where Spence peddled his lies but could not appear due to work commitments. I was offered a studio in London to facilitate my participation but it didn’t meet my travel plans. It was clear the BBC wanted me on but I then woke up that morning to discover that they had offered the place to Paul McConville, Celtic fan, Celtic blogger, associate of Phil MacGiollabhain and regular attendee at Celtic functions (to talk about Rangers obviously).
Naturally, I contacted the producer of the show to voice my discomfort at this. I was told that if I appeared they would drop McConville from the show. I informed them that I was willing to try to change my travel plans to do so but asked who else was appearing. At this point I was told it was Stuart Cosgrove (which I already knew), Andy Muirhead from the Celtic blog, Scotzine, with Jim Spence and Graham Spiers as possible other participants. I made my feelings clear and declined. Let me explain why.
It was clear to me that the message on “balance” is still not getting through. It would have been bad enough for the BBC to think that me appearing with three journalists, who have been amongst the most outspoken critics of Rangers over the past two years, would have been “balanced”. However, for them to be contemplating a show that also included Muirhead and/or McConville would have been farcical.
The idea that I could have provided balance on a show which included two Celtic bloggers, two journalists in Spiers and Spence who are willing to ignore the facts on Rangers status to peddle “new club” myths and Stuart Cosgrove, no friend of the club, is utterly ridiculous.
Now, I’m willing to accept that perhaps the BBC didn’t know about the backgrounds of Muirhead and McConville. They do both masquerade as neutral in their own ways, McConville on the pretence of being an Albion Rovers fan and Muirhead by pretending his website is not a Celtic blog. Also, I must give the BBC some credit because, once the facts were presented to them, they clearly took on board the fact that to have those people appearing on the programme would have been ridiculous. However, they should not have needed me to tell them that.
An enraged Muirhead took to his Celtic website in his inimitable, semi-literate style to brand me a coward for not appearing, a bigot (a regular, baseless accusation), and complain about me ruining his shot at ‘stardom’. I’m not going to get into a slanging match with him because he’s not important. I’ll just mention this quote that a fine gentleman made me aware of, from Thomas Paine, “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.”
I’m told McConville was quite put out too. I don’t have the time to wade through his spectacularly lengthy drivel to see what he said so I’ll content myself with the knowledge that apparently my refusal to go out of my way to appear meant neither of them got to spew their bile about my club on national radio. Why they were ever invited in the first place will remain a mystery. I would neither expect nor accept an invite to appear on the radio or TV to talk about Celtic. Whatever odd personality defect gives them the sense of entitlement to think they deserved to be on a show talking about a club they hate will also, thankfully, remain a mystery to me.
The BBC have to find a way to balance their own output without relying on appearances from fans, bloggers or ex lawyers who require to work under supervision. They have to balance their own panels and their own staff. It is not my job, the job of any other Rangers fan or Rangers fan representative to challenge Spence or Spiers on their lies – although we could. Fans should be on these shows to give the fans view, not to stem the tide of inaccurate drivel from those employed by the BBC. The BBC should be employing people to appear regularly on these shows that will pull people like Spence and Spiers up if they wish to stray from the facts. Until they do, they will continue to find it hard to get Rangers fans to take their output seriously and they will continue to damage what little credibility they have left.
Perhaps if they can balance their own output then they will find that Rangers fans are willing to engage with them again. Maybe they will even find the club more willing to cooperate with them. However as long as their website, radio and news outlets continue to churn out snide, agenda driven content, often with no factual basis, then the rift will widen and who knows, perhaps those responsible for upholding the BBC charter will start to take more and more interest in our little corner of their operation.”
——
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 12:05
I have no personal knowledge of the Green Brigade (GB) as a whole or the individuals that make up their numbers but I can comment on the use of language in some of their statements, which have been posted/re-posted on other fan sites (e.g. CQN). It has never been so easy to infiltrate organisations and bend their aims to the unseen hand / state-actors, especially when your average Joe on the street gives away his/her most private information via social media. The Stasi spent decades trying to perfect this system but it’s taken only a couple of years and better technology to persuade people to actually do it voluntarily. The corollary of this is that is has never been so difficult to trust what one reads coming from or via any communication channel, as one’s normal instincts and beliefs on what and how to build trusted relationships generally no longer apply. I find it rather striking the similarity in the choice of language used by both sides of the Glasgow divide to describe the actions and inaction of a certain East-end CEO. One would almost think someone or some people, were scrapping for a very public PR-fight. If I were the GB, I’d be conducting an audit on my membership first.
If Charles has signed a legally binding document (the 5-way agreement) agreeing that the new Rangers will pick up the footballing debts of the old club, the LNS enquiry should be of great interest to everyone.
If the LNS commission amends the results for all of the affected matches, Rangers will retrospectively be placed in a different league position from the one that earned them whatever prize-money they received at the time. This could be up to 10 years when they were paid mostly 1st or 2nd prize-money that they will either be placed last or forfeit all prize-money.
I’d estimate that the other SPL clubs would collectively be owed at least £15m. Because of the way the SPL prize-money is skewed towards the top two, Hearts alone – who finished 3rd 3 or 4 times (from memory) – would be probably owed several million from the old club.
Given Hearts current financial plight, would they not do everything possible to recoup that debt?
If TRFC Ltd are landed with a series of “legitimate” invoices for repayment of the old club’s prize-money, hands up who thinks he’d pay?
Hands up who thinks the new club will have already given its holding company a floating charge over its assets – or indeed will transfer title to those assets to the holding company?
Hands up who thinks he’ll just put the key in the door of the big hoose?
verselijkfc says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 13:43
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 12:05
=========================================================================
I don’t know much about them either.Most of what they do seems to be great and really adds to the atmosphere at home games.
However,there also seems sometimes to be a political agenda that I wish would disappear.I’m interested in the football.
Having said that,their complaint is that their membership is being victimised by Strathclyde Police.some have been arrested but as yet none convicted.Friends of mine who sit near them tell of police filming them,ejecting some from the games and actively prohibiting anyone else joining them at the game.When they took their complaint to the club itself it fell upon deaf ears.In fact the club seem to be pro-active in the actions against them.
They feel that as long as they act within the law the club should back them,not as the GB but as spectators enjoying the match.They did not expect to be victimised by CFC.
angus1983 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 13:38
0 0 Rate This
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr Chris Graham
—————————————————————————————————————-
This article sums up the mindset of a vast majority of Sevco fans. They claim to be the same club.
The SPL/MSM have got to dispel this myth NOW. This argument is IMO the most important of issues. If the SPL/MSM cannot state that they are a new club without fear or favour it will show HOW corrupt Scotland and Scottish football is. All this they are an institution, fabric of society are just tools to keep them alive. Head of SFA says it all, to be still in such a position (it just makes us a laughing stock as such). I for one am not laughing as it is very sinister and unhealthy state of affairs.
Punishments (if guilty of LNS depends on newco oldco scenario)
Creditors must be furious if same club(debt free is continues their history).
HMRC appeal if upheld will effect who?? Oldco? Newco?? Don’t know, who knows? F*** Knows
All fans outwith Sevco know they are a new club, but try voicing this in public (and face the wrath).
Licence here licence there, conditional licence associate member here etc….These would not exist if they were the same club. Emotionally their fans will always see them as the same club.
But facts are facts and we all should be able to state them as we live in a democratic society.
They are a NEW club.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 14:15
1 0 Rate This
If Charles has signed a legally binding document (the 5-way agreement) agreeing that the new Rangers will pick up the footballing debts of the old club, the LNS enquiry should be of great interest to everyone.
================================
Since the final terms of the 5 way agreement are unknown to anyone other than the signatories, then if the SFA have anything to do with it, we will never know a) exactly what liabilities Sevco have agreed to accept, and b) whether in due course the SFA chooses to enforce whatever agreement there may regarding oldco liabilities.
So much for Regan’s promise of transparency.
WRT Regan & the SFA you have to remember that you’re dealing with the organisation that threw Celtic Ladies out of the Scottish Cup because they couldn’t fulfill a fixture due to a player shortage.
Why was there a player shortage?.
They were away representing Scotland on international duty!
On further reading of the FTTT and having spotted various good informative comments in the blogosphere since, Ive formed a firm opinion on one central aspect.
Wages were paid in such a way (in most cases, but not all) as to avoid the tax payable – PAYE/ENIC. This is the substance of what happened, and is not disputed by any of the three panel members, or Mr Thornhill for MIH, or Mr Thompson for HMRC. It was openly discussed by a number of witnesses during evidence, where they confirmed that the scheme was operated to avoid tax. There is little dispute as to what substantially happened.
Where the dispute lay in the FTTT was on whether or not the form of payment (MIH to a Trust – then to a sub-trust – then to the beneficiary as a loan), which legally defined these wages as something else, was enough to ‘trump’ the substance of what happened. If Form trumps Substance, then the payments weren’t subject to tax. If Substance trumps Form, then the tax was payable. That dispute continues to the UTT, but stands currently in MIH’s/Rangers’ favour due to the FTTT majority decision. Argument will settle on the applicable case law, no doubt.
(On the ‘sham’ issue – Mr Thornhill makes the case that the loan form is not a sham. He indicates that, were the trust(s) to be operated differently at some future time the loan could be called in since the loan document could be enforced as such. It is enough for the agreement to be enforceable – it does not necessarily need to be enforced. I see this as legally true. Mr Thomson, I guess, knows that an angle of argument standing on these loan docs being shams was doomed to fail, and he decided to stand the HMRC on other ground. Mr Thomson made the right play with this. I take the point that there is a fair likelihood that broader EBT concerns were in play with this strategy – not just MIH/Rangers issues.)
Consider the above in the context of the SPLIC. The form over substance issue is only of importance in the context of UK Tax law and rules. The Form over Substance does not apply in the context of the SPLIC – where the wording of the applicable rule, as LNS sets out in his ‘ground rules’, refers to all payments made to players for footballing activities. Bear in mind that the FTTT decision tells us that a large number of payments were made to players – and there is a case to answer on whether all of them were declared. The form of these payments doesn’t matter, only the substance.
The evidence that was provided to the FTTT tribunal includes that of a number of Rangers employees, who were specifically asked if they declared all the payments to the footballing authorities – many answered that they did not, since they did not consider that all the payments needed to be declared. Based on such evidence, it is difficult to see how the SPLIC could decide that rules weren’t breached.
In my non-cynical opinion the decision of LNS will be shaped roughly as follows:
– They will find against Rangers in that they were in breach of the rules.
– The usual reprimands will be in there, but the real teeth will be in further more specific punishments.
– Titles will be corrected, but some means of not correcting the result of all titles in question will be found – some middle ground solution (How LNS might consider and interpret the extent of breach remains in doubt).
– The financial aspects of the judgements will take a split form – payback prizemoney and punishment fines. Since its unclear that the prizemoney can be directly identified as being in the possession of NewGers, they wont be asked to pay it back, but the punishment fine aspect will have an impact on NewGers.
– The footballing punishment will be wholly on the Rangers FC, and so the current O/O company will need to carry the can. I think they may be subject to a further transfer ban, a points deduction maybe now or maybe on entering the SPL or it’s equivalent again in future, and possibly a cup ban for a season or two (but given there’s not a specific ‘SPL cup’, maybe not).
– Further punishments will be applicable but suspended.
– No recommendation will be made on any reallocation of corrected titles will be made. This will be left to the SFA/SPL.
My cynical opinion is a bit different in that the establishment might find a way to avoid implicating a knight of the realm, Sir David Murray, whilst in charge of the establishment club, and some way of avoiding just punishments against the establishment club. Some way of limiting the evidence seen/considered, or limiting the damage in some way will come about. Some interpretation of ‘footballing activities’ may come into play.
Has the SPLIC got/had access to all the evidence as available from Mark Daly/BBC and FTTT, or not?
Might LNS have a much narrower ‘field of vision’ for some reason?
I hope others can/will challenge and correct any errors above. Feel free.
I await the actual decision safe in the knowledge that my guesswork on it will be thoroughly shown up!
Can someone please help me out here and clarify one thing:
• UEFA Licence requirements state that before a club can participate in any UEFA competition then they must be able to present three years of audited accounts – yes?
• However UEFA also require the same requirements for any team that participates in any league that has the potential to allow a team to qualify for any UEFA competition. i.e. the top division in each member country? – Is this correct?
If this is indeed correct then this confirms a few points:
• Regardless of all the bluster and talk, the New Rangers being allowed to start their existence in the SPL was a complete non-starter. Is this correct?
• If the New Rangers had been allowed to start their existence in the SFL Division 1, then even if they were to finish in a promotion place they would not be able to take their place in the SPL as they would still not meet the licence requirements. They could win SFL 1 every year but would not qualify for the SPL until they could produce the requisite three years of audited accounts. Is this correct?
• As it is the New Rangers were allowed to start their existence in SFL 3 – despite it still being a SFL requirement that they can show the three years audited accounts. However, as this is under the remit of the SFL and not UEFA it was decided that in this case they would not insist on this rule and allowed the New Rangers in anyway. Is this correct?
• Even if the New Rangers are successful in working up through the leagues and wining promotion within three years it is by no means certain that even then they will be able to produce three years of audited accounts. So in this case they will still not be eligible the enter the SPL. Correct?
I would be very grateful if someone can confirm if what I have outlined above is accurate?
Maybe this is what [Charles Green] means when he says that the New Rangers will never play in the SPL while he is there……
valentinesclown says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 14:23
8 0 Rate This
angus1983 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 13:38
0 0 Rate This
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr Chris Graham
—————————————————————————————————————-
This article sums up the mindset of a vast majority of Sevco fans. They claim to be the same club.
The SPL/MSM have got to dispel this myth NOW. This argument is IMO the most important of issues. If the SPL/MSM cannot state that they are a new club without fear or favour it will show HOW corrupt Scotland and Scottish football is. All this they are an institution, fabric of society are just tools to keep them alive. Head of SFA says it all, to be still in such a position (it just makes us a laughing stock as such). I for one am not laughing as it is very sinister and unhealthy state of affairs.
Punishments (if guilty of LNS depends on newco oldco scenario)
Creditors must be furious if same club(debt free is continues their history).
HMRC appeal if upheld will effect who?? Oldco? Newco?? Don’t know, who knows? F*** Knows
All fans outwith Sevco know they are a new club, but try voicing this in public (and face the wrath).
Licence here licence there, conditional licence associate member here etc….These would not exist if they were the same club. Emotionally their fans will always see them as the same club.
But facts are facts and we all should be able to state them as we live in a democratic society.
They are a NEW club.
______________________
story in one of the papers the other day was that Regan told the ECA they were the same club thats why they got in
why has no one asked Regan for a direct answer to the question and also why the 5 way agreement is a secret
Stuart Cosgrove and Jim Spence had the chance the other week when he was on radio scotland
i emailed the question but it was ignored
The propectus announced the intention to restrict player salaries to 1/3 of turnover. Charles Green on Rangers website has stated “Typically, Rangers would be close to a £60million turnover per year and we’re down to below £30million now”. As £60m tunrover has only been achieved once in 139+1 I think it more prudent to base numbers on the £30m figure.
BTW in the year OldCo turned over £40m (2009) they made a loss £17.3m, in 2010 with an additional £20m revenue they made a profit of £5m. Given that the team at the time had a wage bill of some £30m (not including ahem, tax efficient offshore trusts) and lost 3 leagues in a row, not qualifying for the Champs League, does Green really expect his team with a wage bill of 33%turnover will qualify for the CL group stages “typically”?
So best case scenario they will be playing with a wage bill less than half that enjoyed under the OldGers wage structure. When NewGers get promoted from 3rd to 2nd they will of course see an uptick in revenue from gates and maybe TV, but by then some of their sponsorships may have run their course so there will be renegotiations. I would assume these would include “step-up” clauses in the event of promotions etc. It is not as simple as just assuming NewGers will attain OldGers turnover as a right – it’s not a St Etienne bike!
Disclaimer: for any investment matters, speak to a qualified financial adviser. For investment matters pertaining to NewGers, speak to a shrink.
Carl31
MD specifically said at the Napier Uni Q&A that he was not asked nor were the BBC asked to provide any documents to LNS.
From the Big Pink’Un. Link to full article at end.
Disney eyes UK exit for ESPN
By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles
Walt Disney is “exploring an exit” of ESPN from the UK, after the sports network incurred losses and lost key sports rights contacts.
ESPN, the largest sports broadcaster in the US, launched to great fanfare in the UK three years ago and made an immediate impact, buying a package of rights to live Premier League football and setting itself up as an alternative to British Sky Broadcasting, which holds most of the rights. However, the network lost out in the auction for the next three seasons when it was outbid by BT. It also recently lost mobile rights when it was outbid to a rival offer from News Corp. Coverage included in ESPN’s current Premier League contract, which expires at the end of this football season, will not be affected, said a person familiar with the situation.
…
The cost to screen Premier League action soared by 70 per cent in last year’s auction, when BSkyB and BT snapped up the rights to the next three football seasons, bidding more than Pounds 3bn. ESPN’s departure would leave the UK sports market a less competitive field, although with John Malone’s Liberty Global bidding for Virgin Media, there could soon be another deep-pocketed buyer on the scene.
…
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c4bee40-6fee-11e2-8785-00144feab49a.html#ixzz2LGWQDJv0
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 14:18
thanks for responding – I agree that taken at face value, there appears to be a concerted effort by Strathclyde’s finest to harass and intimidate. There are clearly civil rights/liberties issues here for all football fans in Scotland and I can only surmise that because the main focus is with the two Glasgow clubs right now, there is no reason why it will not (if not already) be applied to fans of other clubs. A stupendously stupid piece of legislation brought forward in haste, based on the most flimsy of evidence (the data was destroyed wasn’t it or merely mislaid? An almost impossible act in today’s electronic world).
What I took from the GB statement (and it’s only my “remote” interpretation) was that they don’t have the maturity or political nous to engage, negotiate and compromise or, at least are not ready or willing to do so right now, which I think is a mistake. Either that or it’s a PR hatchet job on Lawwell. Even if CFC only “finally” got around to granting them a meeting recently, by declining/rejecting the invitation because the points listed on the agenda did not cover any of their concerns they should still have accepted. Why? They may not get to discuss their specific concerns on day-1 however, by conducting themselves in the correct manner, this is a vital first step to being able to make and develop their case further. In other words, because you’re not setting the agenda today does not mean you can’t change or influence CFC in the future.
Andy says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 14:53
They are a NEW club.
———————–
Yes, but they are operating under the brand of the Oldco with the blessing of the SFA, SPL and SFL.
It was the bending of rules and creation of new membership statuses by the footballing authorities that allowed the Newco to bypass normal entry criteria for new clubs. The rules were established with the intent of preventing clubs ditching debts in this way and phoenixing themselves, but clubs across Scotland have effectively allowed the Newco to do exactly that. Remember that the SFA, SPL and SFL hierarchies are accountable to their member clubs, thus it is the clubs themselves that have allowed this situation to occur and the subsequent argument to fester.
Basically, I don’t give a toss whether they are a new or an old club. Most of my friends don’t post on message boards or blogs. They see Rangers as the club that went bust but one that was resurrected into its current status. Old Rangers? New Rangers? …….. no they still refer to them as Rangers.
Companies are liquidated every week and their brands live on. Why is there such a brouhaha about a football club doing it. It can only be down to footballing rivalries, brand loyalties and baiting by other clubs fans and little more. Sure, you could argue that the entry cost for the Newco back into the league set-up was insufficient, but where else are such levies used.
Take the case of Clinton Cards which has some parallels to RFC. They went into administration in May last year. In June, one of their creditors, American Greetings, bought their “good assets” (397 stores, staff and the brand name), while the loss making part, 350 stores and staff went to the wall. The 397 stores continued trading under the brand of Clinton Cards (later rebranded as Clintons).
Did their new owners have to pay any levy to continue trading? Do their customers see them as a different entity. Of course not. Would their competitors (Hallmark, The Card Factory, etc.) have preferred that the brand had disappeared permanently? Possibly, but only for competitive advantage. Can they do anything about it? No.
Is it worth getting upset about? No.
While we await the verdict from LNS panel, can I make the following plea:
If titles are stripped, can they please not be re-allocated. I have two reasons for making this plea:-
1. If titles are stripped it will because there will have proven to be rule breaking on an industrial scale over a long period of time. These titles should remain in the record as unallocated as an indelible reminder of what happned and who was responsible. Re-allocating the titles will inevitable over shadow the title removals. Which brings me to my second point
2. Any re-allocation will simply turn the debate into one about stolen titles. The reason for the removal will be completely lost in the hue and cry. the perpetual warfare over these titles will do neither Scottiah Football as a whole or the clubs concerned absolutely no good at all.
Lets have the record clear that in the years concerned no title was awarded due to cheating!
“The perpetual warfare over these titles will do neither Scottiah Football as a whole or the clubs concerned absolutely any good at all.”
Oh dear, fixed that for myself lol
chris graham
if sevco5088-sevcoscotland-the rangers are the same club as the liquidated rangers
1. what is the definition of liquidation – [has chris graham changed it on wiki?]
2. why isn’t the debt getting paid ?
thanks in advance – [for showing your ignorance]
Thanks Angus for taking the time to put Mr Graham’s rant on this site. Maybe it’s time to agree with him and get over it. So to that end ….ok Chris your the same club.
Now how about paying your debts to everybody you suckered, from the Tax man to the face painter.How about admitting exactly how child-like your organisation has behaved on everything from 100 years of blatant sectarianism to the recent toys out the pram boycott of the Dundee Utd game. Stop looking for scapegoats in the shape of people who sought out the truth and God forbid people whose opinions differentiate from your own.
As for your clever quote from Thomas Paine, that was stolen from the RTC website. I know….because I quoted it myself months ago.
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 15:48
If titles are stripped, can they please not be re-allocated. I have two reasons for making this plea:-
1. If titles are stripped it will because there will have proven to be rule breaking on an industrial scale over a long period of time. These titles should remain in the record as unallocated as an indelible reminder of what happned and who was responsible. Re-allocating the titles will inevitable over shadow the title removals. Which brings me to my second point
2. Any re-allocation will simply turn the debate into one about stolen titles. The reason for the removal will be completely lost in the hue and cry. the perpetual warfare over these titles will do neither Scottiah Football as a whole or the clubs concerned absolutely no good at all.
Lets have the record clear that in the years concerned no title was awarded due to cheating!
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
I would hope that if there was a suggestion to re allocate the titles then Celtic would refuse to accept them.
If titles were stripped and given to another club what happens to all the teams they knocked out of cup tournaments over the period in question.
Or teams who were relegated based on their results with Rangers as opposed to the team above who may have taken a draw or victory of Rangers.
If 3 nil defeats are recorded what happens to the all the clubs prize money who finished bellow them.
What about the teams they knocked out of europe, these teams have lost 10s of millions between them.
It has to be justice for all, so unless something is done to redress the entire problem then giving titles to Celtic means nothing.
Just let the entire focus be on Rangers, what they have done, and how they have almost destroyed the game in Scotland through their greed and desperation and not let the press turn it into some petty vengeance be jealous competitors.
Re Chris Graham and his balancing act.
I’m sure others didn’t bother even giving it a try but in the interest of balance I read on until.
“Later in the week, with a panel consisting of Tom English, Graham Spiers and Gordon Smith (making a rare appearance), Spiers continued this line of propaganda with “technically Rangers are a new club”. Well, no. Technically, we are the same club. Technically, the SFA licence was transferred between corporate entities – something which could only have been done if we were the same club. Those are the technicalities so, technically, Graham was talking nonsense. Again this went unchallenged. There was no balance.”
So on the ‘panel’ you have an ex Rangers player and Director of Football Gordon (I know nothing) Smith, who having been Chief Exec of the SFA must surely know about such technicalities and could have challenged Spiers, who despite being a critic of the club acknowledges they were his boyhood team.
And still he wants more balance.
Perhaps the BBC could have had on the panel the current director of communications who said they were a deid club, or the current CEO who said they and their history would be deid unless they got a CVA.
FFS.
Take the case of Clinton Cards which has some parallels to RFC. They went into administration in May last year. In June, one of their creditors, American Greetings, bought their “good assets” (397 stores, staff and the brand name), while the loss making part, 350 stores and staff went to the wall. The 397 stores continued trading under the brand of Clinton Cards (later rebranded as Clintons).
Did their new owners have to pay any levy to continue trading? Do their customers see them as a different entity. Of course not. Would their competitors (Hallmark, The Card Factory, etc.) have preferred that the brand had disappeared permanently? Possibly, but only for competitive advantage. Can they do anything about it? No.
Is it worth getting upset about? No.
==================================================================
errrrm, yes it is.
are “clintons customer’s” making a fuss, saying that “clintons” are being attacked? No
do clintons customer’s make the claim that they are the same entity? No
do clintons customer’s care? No
are all sorts of rules being bended, amended, broken to accommodate clintons? No
would the competitors have preferred clintons to disappear?
(are the competitors being told by clintons customers to go home or referred to as f3inians
or t4igs or the like?
did clintons operate a sectarian employment policy for 100 years?
do clintons claim to be a superior “race” /
easy jambo
you are comparing apples and oranges here!!
I’m with Easy Jambo on the New Club argument . As long as Rangers are treated like a new club, especially in relation to European participation and where they started out in Scottish football , then I really couldn’t care less.
It’s their club, not my club. If they want to believe then it doesn’t bother me. Of course the dumping of debt was obscene. Of course the decision to evade paying legally obligated PAYE and VAT was obscene . However that’s now part of their history and can never be hidden.
Regardless of what LNS decides about the contracts enquiry , and regardless of what the SFA decide to do about the Scottish Cups that were won by Rangers since 2000, every fair minded individual knows that these trophies were gained by Murray using a business model which was a complete bust. LNS and the SFA have yet to conclude on the legality of contracts. They may yet, and the probability is high, conclude that Rangers cheated.
That’s another part of the history they are very welcome to. The SFL’s public statements that they won’t investigate is disingenuous . IF the SFA and LNS conclude Rangers are cheats, Longmuir and Ballantyne are prepared to ignore this and allow the validity of their own Cup competition to be undermined. Why on earth would neutral administrators want to adopt that position ?
With the contribution from RTC these last few days, I’d like to signify our own thanks and welcome.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Auldheid for his tireless work in putting together the resolutions to the fan trusts (which hopefully will yet bear fruit) and for his latest initiative with regard to club licensing.
I feel that Auldheid has almost single-handedly been the engine and driving force who has attempted to put into action the ideas and sentiments held in the main by all of us.
Thanks for that Auldheid. We are indebted to you.
angus1983 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 13:38
3 21 Rate This
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr Chris Graham:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I started typing a McConville-esque critique of Graham’s desperate attempt at rewriting history but I began to develop RSI as a result of writers cramp.
I will summarize thus:
Graham’s article is breathtaking in its ignorance.
(that’s 7 words when Paul would have written 700!)
Shanghai Shenhua have been stripped of their 2003 league title by the Chinese Football Association (CFA) after being found guilty of match-fixing.
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2887/asia/2013/02/18/3761132/match-fixing-drogbas-ex-club-stripped-of-title?source=breakingnews&ICID=HP_HL_1
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 17:09
9 0 Rate This
angus1983 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 13:38
3 21 Rate This
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr Chris Graham:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I started typing a McConville-esque critique of Graham’s desperate attempt at rewriting history but I began to develop RSI as a result of writers cramp.
I will summarize thus:
Graham’s article is breathtaking in its ignorance.
(that’s 7 words when Paul would have written 700!)
—————————————————–
One word too many.
Graham is breathtaking in his ignorance.
Barcabhoy,
Have the weapons inspectors found anything nuclear as yet or was that particular line a red herring put out to serve a purpose ?
Headline in sports section of today’s Daily Record:
“Shamed ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte is in a “constant state of denial” says top sports psychologist.”
Yeah – there’s a lot of it about.
Mr Marshall said: “I think a lot of fans were surprised to learn that the liquidation of Airdrieonians had still not been completed after all this time.
“The trust were aware the Airdrieonians name and club crest means a lot to almost every supporter.
“Therefore, we contacted KPMG and made enquiries as to whether these assets could still be purchased.
“But we have been told that it is not possible to acquire the name and crest in the timescale available. We’ll look to take advice on what our next step could be.”
one rule for some
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 15:48
No, I do not agree. When you look at the cynical way the EBTs were used, I cannot agree. Season 04/05 is the one that sticks in my throat. A dozen players were signed with the express purpose of stopping Martin O’Neil’s Celtic. The two high profile signings were Novo and Prso who between them shared £3.1M in tax-free loans and between them accounted for almost half of Rangers league goals. Prso would not have signed for Rangers without the tax-free cash. Novo would have signed for Celtic if there had been no tax-free cash from Rangers (there is an interesting story right there for those who don’t know about it). Rangers do not deserve that title. Whether LNS finds them guilty or not, I say they cheated.
I remember Hugh Keevins on SSB saying that Celtic lost the 04/05 season title because they lost the last game of the season. The man is an idiot if he really believes that. Celtic lost that title because Rangers signed two players they would otherwise have not been able to get. Those two players scored 37 goals between them.
I try to take a measured, middle-of-the-road view on things if I can, but not on this. I want that title for Celtic. If you want one, you have to want them all. I want them all.
jimlarkin says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 16:49.
you are comparing apples and oranges here!!
=========================
No I’m not. In a business sense they are comparable.
However, if you just want to compare the behaviours and actions of the respective groups of customers and owners then they are not comparable.
I’d also point out that the customers of Clinton Cards and Clintons are acting in the same way as they did pre and post administration and that the customers of RFC PLC and TRFC Ltd and also behaving as they did pre and post administration/liquidation.
i.e. little has changed in the actions of Clintons’ customers, just as little has changed in the actions of TRFC’s customers.
easyjambo,
Do Clintons Have a card for a 140th birthday? – No. Do they have a card for a new birth? – lots actually.
Case closed. 🙂
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/newsid=1977017.html
Rangers go under
14 June
Rangers’ perilous financial position had been an open secret but there was still shock when, after 140 years of history and a world record 54 league titles, the club was consigned to liquidation in mid-June. The Glasgow giants were subsequently reformed as a new company and granted entry to the Third Division, Scotland’s fourth tier, which they currently lead by nine points with a game in hand.
“Lets have the record clear that in the years concerned no title was awarded due to cheating!”
I’m puzzled (what’s new?) I thought titles were won not awarded. The team that comes first in the league without cheating are the winners of that league.
What of the efforts of the club that ended second due to cheats not to mention the financial Armageddon that that entailed.
What about the old supporter who was denied his moment in the Sun because of cheats – and possibly never got the opportunity of the Sun on his back ever again.
Do we take the easy way out because it may offend the cheating club. Do we compound the wrong perpetrated on the rightful winners by withholding the title because the offending club might take to the streets.
If the above is the way of Scottish football justice then I suggest we should all fold our tent and head back into the dark ages once again.
RE Chris Graham’s petulant piece. Anyone else get the feeling he has been stung by the accusations of cowardice? A truely pathetic response, ‘I did not go on to provide balance cos there were individuals on the programme who might have disagreed with me and challenged what I say’…. er, yes, that’s why you were asked Chris. Instead you ‘walked away’ rather than have your own gossamer thin arguements scrutinised in public. What did you say about the BBC and Craig Whyte again…….
I don’t believe Clinton Cards went into Liquidation, only admin before it was bought out.
Senior says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 18:17
Senior, as spanishcelt pointed out it is not as simple as that. Even a proud celt like me has to admit, that merely coming second, is no guarantee that celtic would have won the title that year or any other. For me it is arrogance to assume, that had RFC not acted in that way, then CFC would be the main or only beneficiaries. Absent the “alleged” cheating “then all is changed, changed utterly”, we can’t possibly know what a HMFC, DU, Aberdeen or Hibs might have done in a totally different situation.
madbhoy24941 says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 18:34
I don’t believe Clinton Cards went into Liquidation, only admin before it was bought out.
================================
Correct, but RFC Ltd was still in administration when its assets were bought by Sevco Scotland.
The Liquidation process started some weeks later.
The principle I was getting at was that Clinton Cards’ brand and good assets had been purchased and trading continued as normal for the stores that were taken on despite the change of owner. ownership
easyJambo says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 18:48
madbhoy24941 says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 18:34
I don’t believe Clinton Cards went into Liquidation, only admin before it was bought out.
================================
Correct, but RFC Ltd was still in administration when its assets were bought by Sevco Scotland.
The Liquidation process started some weeks later.
The principle I was getting at was that Clinton Cards’ brand and good assets had been purchased and trading continued as normal for the stores that were taken on despite the change of owner. ownership
————————————————-
But Rangers brand etc was bought after at a “liquidation” price after the CVA failed so to all intense purposes, it was in Liquidation.
Clinton were able to pay outstanding debts, they could not just ditch that.
I think this is different.
arabest1 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 18:20
RE Chris Graham’s petulant piece. Anyone else get the feeling he has been stung by the accusations of cowardice? A truly pathetic response, ‘I did not go on to provide balance cos there were individuals on the programme who might have disagreed with me and challenged what I say’…. er, yes, that’s why you were asked Chris. Instead you ‘walked away’ rather than have your own gossamer thin arguments scrutinised in public. What did you say about the BBC and Craig Whyte again…….
————————————————————
I must admit his views on what constitutes ‘balance’ are laughable. It appears balance is him being allowed to make a statement that is not subjected to any scrutiny. His appearances in the happy clapping Rangers world of STV have clearly gone to his head.
Re Chris Graham’s hilarious ramblings .
Is there 2 different BBC Scotland’s .I think he has been spending too much time with the many fantasist’s at his OLD CLUB .
Good to hear him ruling himself out of any constructive debate regarding the old club new club subject as he has made it quite clear that he will only debate with peepil who agree with his view .
Sorry Chris that is not a debate that is mutual bullsh***ng and that’s what led to your OLD CLUB becoming a NEW CLUB .
So, Clinton Cards became Clintons…
Meanwhile over at Edmiston Drive, Rangers FC are called? And the company that (now) owns them is called?
Green bought ‘certain’ assets, then pretended everything was the same. Which is not what Clintons have done…
Perhaps someone can point me to the time and date when Rangers became the most important thing in Scottish Football.
So important in fact that if they are found to have cheated their way to success the best outcome for Scottish football (some would say) is that no one should be considered successful in the competitions in question.
In this unpleasant equation is it really Rangers or no one? If so, how did we let that happen?
It may be complicated to determine the rightful winners. Is that a reason for not doing it? Or at least trying to do it.
What is there to lose – nothing unless you believe that the good will of Rangers fans is more important than football as a sport in Scotland.
clintons was (is) where you go to get cards.
rangers was (is?) where you go to not get cards.
I’ve been wracking my brains to work out how the original investors are going to get their money back and every scenario does not pan out well for ‘The Rangers’.
As RIFC is the company that floated on the AIM and they own ‘The Rangers’ could it be that money is loaned, at rather large interest rates, from RIFC to ‘The Rangers’ and gradually bleed the club dry. For RIFC this is great as they still own Ibrox, the car park, and Murray Park to sell on to the next Blue Knights. In this way money is gradually removed from the club and syphoned off to the original investors and yet they still have the assets to dispose of at the end of the game.
Considering this is a club/company (allowing for the continuation theory) that has recently been sold for £2 (that’s TWO pounds), £1 (that’s ONE pound), and £6M I cannot see anyone paying much more that Green and his consortium paid for the assets. Even if ‘The Rangers’ get back to the SPL by that time, judging by conservative estimates, they will be over £10M in debt.
The ramping up of even more debt, to achieve Euro qualification, as we know is the previous business model that did not prove too successful in the long run. Into this cauldron of uncertainty comes banking facilities or more importantly the fact that they don’t have any so who is this debt going to be piled up against. Institutions are going to be rather reluctant to hand out the kind of cash available before.
If you take the most optimistic view then ‘The Rangers’ will sale, sorry sail, through the leagues and end up in the CL on their first year back in the SPL and they will, through the excellent stewardship of Charles Green (stop the laughing), have no debt . Oh and all of the original investors are still waiting for a return on their initial investment because they believe so much in the project.
Superb!
Now ask the important question. Given all of the above how much will anyone pay, FOR A SCOTTISH FOOTBALL CLUB, that at best qualifies for the CL but never makes a profit?
And remember this price has to satisfy the initial investors and give them a profit for waiting four years for a return on their outlay. These guys are not going to sell for a loss when the assets are valued at £80M. This is not a club in the EPL so does not have massive TV revenues and, regardless of what Charles Green says, does not have 500M fans worldwide so merchandising will be no better than before.
madbhoy24941 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 18:54
But Rangers brand etc was bought after at a “liquidation” price after the CVA failed so to all intense purposes, it was in Liquidation.
Clinton were able to pay outstanding debts, they could not just ditch that.
I think this is different.
======
No it isn’t. Rangers brand etc were bought by Green under an agreement with the administrators entered into before the CVA was rejected. Easyjambo is spot on with his comments, the flurry of TDs he is getting just for setting out the facts do no credit to this forum.
Easyjambo just picked Clinton Cards as an example on the High Street we’ve all heard of.
There are literally thousands of examples of businesses which continue trading under new ownership after the company that owns the business goes into administration. The only points at issue in Rangers case, so far as I am concerned are a) the sale of the assets at massive undervalue, to the detriment of the creditors. and b) the fact that our football and legal authorities bent the rules (in my opinion) to allow a Rangers team to play in SFL3.
I will say this once only, and will not return to the topic ever again, because that was the expressed wish of TSFM some weeks ago. You cannot kill or extinguish a football club by killing or extinguishing the company that owns it. I have read all the arguments, most of which come down to semantics, exploiting the different meanings which can be attached to a single word.
There are plenty of examples worldwide of clubs surviving administration, liquidation, change of ownership, anything else you like to come up with. To their fans, they remain the same club. In most cases, nobody else cares. In this case, I don’t care, because it really doesn’t matter. What matters is the corruption at the heart of our game, and even more worryingly, in our legal system. We should focus on the first of those at least- I can sense trouble with the mods if I stray into my views on the legal system- and Lord Hodge in particular.
If we set a precedent that cheating results in no one winning – the game is finished. Literally there are no winners. The sport is dead.
neepheid says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 19:31
———–
My last word on that topic: Thanks 🙂
Re the earlier discussions with regard the FTT and the appeal.
It is a point well made that HMRC were and will be basing their assessments on when the payments were made into the trust funds and not when the “loans” were paid out.
They accepted that the payments out were loans, because to all intents and purposes that’s what they were and still are, outstanding loans.
However that is not the point, the point is when would tax have been due, if it was to be due. That is further dependent on the nature of the payments.
HMRC’s position, as I understand it was that the payments into the trusts were contractual in their nature and as such tax was payable on them. I don’t think that position has changed.
I thought Graham’s response was Traynoresque.
Perhaps he got a wee bit of help with it from the worlds greatest PR guru . . . . ?
If LNS’s inquiry finds that the now in liquidation RFC did not ‘cheat’ without producing overwhelming exculpatory evidence and satisfying me that their terms of reference were not slanted to ensure such a result then as far as I’m concerned Scottish Football will have demonstrated that it has no governance (I know). Will it take another season ticket threat again to ensure justice? Not that we actually got that the last time. Perhaps the result will be released on August 5th 2016, just as the opening ceremony kicks off.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:49
————————
HP
The key message from Heidi Poon with which most tax specialists would concur has nothing to do with whether the loans were real loans or not etc; it is simply to say,
“ignore the numerous inserted steps and ask yourself this question –
Messrs Red, White & Blue were each on a contract entitling them £16,900 per week;
what did they receive in total each week?”
If the answer is £16,900, then what they received is a contractual obligation liable to tax and NIC. It matters not what the ultimate source of those monies was since the original source was the employer.
That is the nub of the argument and one which it is more than likely the judge hearing the UTT will consider this autumn.
As to Chris Graham, just ask him these questions
Did the club run up more than £100M of debt?
Why hasn’t the club paid its debts?
When is it going to?
If he cannot give a satisfactory answer to those questions, in particular the last one, a reasonable person is entitled to conclude that what passes for Rangers in the bottom tier of the Scottish leagues is neither the same company nor the same club.
As to the LNS enquiry Beatipacificiscotia, we know he will pronounce his verdict on 28 February because Charles Green has told us so. I am surprised you felt the need to ask.
54 to 0
The difficulty of not allocating titles is that the implication is that the entire league was corrupt. In reality one club failed to register its players properly ( assuming this is what LNS finds) and as such will face having all of its results overturned. Thereafter the titles must be allocated with the new results in place. To nullify the entire league is to spread the guilt ( Teams would not now be second or third but because of the illegal actions of the winner their places would effectively be nullified)
The second result must be the reallocation of prize moneys. ( Given the rigged nature of the prize money allocation Celtic will actually gain less from this than almost all others – in only five will they be entitled to cash – and from second to first a significantly smaller gap than from third to second bizarrely – Old Firm clearly in evidence here and in distribution of football cash however distasteful celtic fans find the entire concept) – many other clubs should receive significantly more with upgraded receipts for up to 12 years). This is a football debt. Part of the 5 way agreement was that the rangers pay OLDCo’s football debts. This money may well have been gained illegally by Rangers ( assuming LNS finds the players have been illegally registered) and it rightfully belongs to other clubs.
I think LNS is delaying not because he is considering his findings but because he know the implications could be profoundly damaging for Rangers and this is a case for managing timing rather than considering the decision to be taken.
Woof!!!
Delayed ‘get out’ on the anniversary just popped up on the recent trades for RIFC.
Date Time Trade Prc Volume Buy/Sell Bid Ask Value
14-Feb-13 13:53:47 75.00 100,000 Sell* 79.00 80.00 75.00k
In case that just looks like gobbledigook
Its 100,000 shares sold at 75p which is the lowest yet and 1p below the start price of 76p from 20 Dec 2012 the day after floatation.
I expect the price will keep heading south to below the 70p they were originally bought for.
However not a worry if you got yours for 1p.
.
I’m still confused about the club v company argument in relation to the history. If the club is separate from the company and the club has the history as some would argue, what history does/did the company have?
Was it the club that built Ibrox?
Was it the club that bought the flo’s ,Gazza’s and Laudrup’s?
Was it the club that introduced an anti-Catholic signing policy?
Or was it the company?
Does the company get any history buried with it?
wottpi
Is Mr Kings laundry taken delivery of additional cleansing machines.
iceman63 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 20:15
You have rightly pointed out that the prize money would be a footballing debt however what is less clear is if the resultant European revenue derived from that, and that was deprived to the other teams, also a footballing debt?
This could work out far more than any SPL prize money.
Re the LNS verdict .
Forgive me for being slightly underwhelmed about the whole thing as all I have witnessed so far in the ragers fiasco from the authorities is fawning and accommodating .
The only meaningful sanction applied was forced upon them by US THE FANS .
IMHO no one in authority has the stomach to apply any sanction on either the old club or the tribute act ,in fact IMO the are more than happy to avoid it .
So they can take as long as they like to wheel out any mealy mouth verdict they want and lest we forget that any verdict they come out with will be appealed and then moves on to the appellant body who is ? ,yes you guessed it the SFA .
Anyone like to guess how that will pan out .
probably end up with another GOOD NIGHT OUT .
Handshake banking?
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/media-investigation-reveals-bank-of.html
BANK HANDS EX-BOSS £12 MILLION WITH 35 YEARS BEFORE HE PAYS A PENNY
FEBRUARY 3 2013 The Mail on Sunday
By Andrew Picken
THE Bank of Scotland agreed a £12 million loan deal to a company owned by its former managing director which allows it to skip repayments for the next 35 years.
A Scottish Mail on Sunday investigation can reveal former top banker and Dunfermline Athletic owner Gavin Masterton’s firm was handed the cash in a deal personally approved by disgraced HBOS executive Peter Cummings.
The generous agreement was struck at the height of the global financial crisis, when thousands of Scots were struggling to get mortgages and loans from the now taxpayer-backed bank.
Details of the £12.2 million deal show the 71-year-old’s company does not have to make a single repayment on the debt until 2043, when the full amount is due to be paid back to the bank.
Documents at Companies House state interest is only liable on the loan if his football team’s East End Park ground is ever sold, a move the latest accounts state the club has ‘no plans’ to do.
Mr Masterton yesterday said the deal was ‘approved in the conventional, way’ and insisted interest was accruing on the loan.
But the retired banker declined an invitation to explain why the records at Companies House appear to suggest the loan is effectively interest free as long as the Fife club remains at its current stadium.
Sources close to the deal struck in 2008 claim it was sanctioned by fallen Scots banker Mr Cummings. Mr Masterton is a former mentor of Mr Cummings, who was last year banned from working in the City for the rest of his life following his part in the downfall of Scotland’s oldest bank.
Details of the loan have emerged as Mr Masterton is facing an uphill battle to shore up the finances of his ailing First Division club which has struggled to pay tax and wage bills this season.
Last autumn seven directors -owed more than £500,000 from Dunfermline Athletic quit the Fife football club as the true extent of its financial difficulties was beginning to emerge.
It is understood the former directors wanted to take Dunfermline Athletic out of the group of companies owned by Mr Masterton but he refused.
One source close to the £12.2m loan deal said: ‘There’s not a bank in Scotland which would ordinarily agree to terms this generous. Something stinks.
‘Gavin was Peter’s mentor, they went way back. There is a confidential legal agreement on this deal which spells all this out but Gavin has refused to let anyone see it as he knows it is toxic.’
Dumbarton-based Mr Cummings was the head of HBOS corporate banking from 2006 to 2008, but was last year fined £500,000 by UK financial regulators over his role in the bank’s collapse and banned from ever working in the industry again.
The former tea boy turned corporate banker was accused of epitomising the excesses of the property and buy-out boom of the last decade.
Insiders claim he learned much of his hands-on approach – dubbed ‘handshake banking’ – from his former mentor Mr Masterton, who retired from the Bank of Scotland in 2001.
For full article click link.
neepheid and easyjambo
maybe your view and the sevconians view is it is the same club.
that certainly is not my view.
to let your view win the argument, would mean that the sevconians have gotten away with the crime.
It IS NOT THE SAME CLUB.
if it were – the debt would be getting paid.
that is my last word on the subject !
[maybe you have one eye on HERTZ going down the tubes and will “benefit” from the same course of action when you won’t believe it or accept that they spent too much and didn’t pay their “debtors” … lead us not into administration – amen]
jonnyod says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 20:41
“The only meaningful sanction applied was forced upon them by US THE FANS .”
No, that was not a sanction.
That was a refusal to bend the rules and let a brand new club enter it’s country’s top national league, or indeed for that matter any league other than the bottom tier,
Not a sanction, not even a consequence, but simply a given in the same way that a newly qualified solicitor cannot just pitch up to the Court of Session or the Supreme Court and start practising his trade.
The only sanction so far is the transfer ban which the entire MSM is treating as if it did not exist.
However I remain mildly optimistic that Lord Nimmo Smith may now impose a meaningful sanction on Rangers, old and new, debt-ridden and debt-free.
agreed Jim, maybe its a view that some have because their own club is struggling financially
Confirmation tonight that Ukio Bankas has been declared insolvent and had its banking licence permanently withdrawn.
http://www.lb.lt/the_bank_of_lithuania_agreed_to_the_transfer_of_the_liabilities_and_assets_of_insolvent_ukio_bankas_to_another_bank
There should be no immediate impact on Hearts, but the fate of Ukio Bankas’ largest debtor, UBIG (Hearts parent company), should define how Hearts go forward.
It may be that the potential sale by the end of the season as intimated by Sergejus Fedotovas at the weekend will negate any adverse impact, e.g. of UBIG going into administration.
Ukio Bankas hold the first ranking security over Tynecastle, so let’s hope that any sale includes the security.
neepheid says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 19:31
I think this is different.
======
No it isn’t. Rangers brand etc were bought by Green under an agreement with the administrators entered into before the CVA was rejected. Easyjambo is spot on with his comments, the flurry of TDs he is getting just for setting out the facts do no credit to this forum.
______________________
I disagree. Although the agreement was reached before, the deal to buy at that price was based on liquidation. Yes this was done while in admin but that is the same as any business that folds, this is part of the admin process. I don’t know of all those other examples of clubs that exist under the same guise as the previous club after ditching debt and not having a CVA agreed, if that is true then fine, I will accept there are examples and what is currently happening with Rangers is not unusual.
For the record, I never look at how many TU’s or TD’s I or anyone else receives as I don’t expect everyone to think the same, that is the beauty of opinion and I welcome it. In saying that, I agree 100% that in the hearts and minds of most Rangers supporters, they are Rangers. And so they should be, I always wanted a club to survive, just not one with the same traditions.
What I disagree is that under the current (or at least previous) rules, they are not the same club and as such, the history line ended last summer. That is what this is all about and I make no appologies for stating this should not be allowed to happen. Why? Because this history was built while breaking the rules, if we welcome the unbroken history we condone the events of the last 10 years. And even worse, they will not just THINK they are the people, they will KNOW it!
I would hate to be party to allowing that situation for my children.
Apologies for O/T, but a BIG well done to the board of Motherwell for putting the money where their collective mouth is, in bringing back a true Scottish Footballing hero. Ladies And Gentlemen, James McFadden is back in the SPL.
slimshady61 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 19:56
HP
The key message from Heidi Poon with which most tax specialists would concur has nothing to do with whether the loans were real loans or not etc; it is simply to say,
“ignore the numerous inserted steps and ask yourself this question –
Messrs Red, White & Blue were each on a contract entitling them £16,900 per week;
what did they receive in total each week?”
If the answer is £16,900, then what they received is a contractual obligation liable to tax and NIC. It matters not what the ultimate source of those monies was since the original source was the employer.
That is the nub of the argument and one which it is more than likely the judge hearing the UTT will consider this autumn.
============================
Agreed, the rest is obfuscation.
How much did they get paid, what did they get it for, and how much of it was contractual rather than discretionary.
These have always been the issues and they still are.
For what it’s worth I think HMRC will be willing to go way beyond the UTT if need be, see the much quoted Dextra case.