Everything Has Changed

ByTrisidium

Everything Has Changed

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

4,442 Comments so far

SeniorPosted on6:56 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Maybe I’m wrong, but,so far, only one club statement about the cheating. LNS probably called it right. They could put whatever they wished, short of stating the Earth is flat, in the report and get away with it.
One statement after four days!!!! perhaps, after-all,we get what we deserve – and this is the country where Braveheart, Robert the Bruce first seen the light of day – must be something in the modern water supply.

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on7:01 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Good Evening,

sorry if this has been posted before but this is an excellent article– clearly written in easy English and reaching salient and clearly worded points.

Read carefully and slowly.

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/nimmo-smith-for-dummies/

BRTH

View Comment

justshateredPosted on7:03 pm - Mar 3, 2013


shield2012 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 18:44

@shield. I posted below and I wonder what you think with regards to ‘gaining a sporting advantage’ and whether you think my points on player aquisition are correct.

justshatered says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 20:58

My own personal belief is that LNS over stepped the mark with this comment in so far as he was only brought in to adjudicate as to whether the rules were broken and yet he went on to make rulings on everything except the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Why would an eminent judge stray into areas outwith his remit and do this.
It was obviously an attempt to justify his decision but as he is not ‘a football person’ is he fit to judge what gives a sporting advantage and what doesn’t?

View Comment

shield2012Posted on7:18 pm - Mar 3, 2013


justshatered on Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 19:03
0 0 Rate This
shield2012 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 18:44

@shield. I posted below and I wonder what you think with regards to ‘gaining a sporting advantage’ and whether you think my points on player aquisition are correct.

justshatered says:
Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 20:58

My own personal belief is that LNS over stepped the mark with this comment in so far as he was only brought in to adjudicate as to whether the rules were broken and yet he went on to make rulings on everything except the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Why would an eminent judge stray into areas outwith his remit and do this.
It was obviously an attempt to justify his decision but as he is not ‘a football person’ is he fit to judge what gives a sporting advantage and what doesn’t?
———–
I can see your point it does seem odd for a lord to make a judgement on a footballing matter. However in the context of this case, the advantage is less about sport and more about the financial and contractual side. perhaps in this case it could be appropriate.

I also think the judgement, of gaining an advantage, had to be made. it was crucial in my opinion but this brings us back to the definition of cheating.

Equally, it could have been to justify his decision. That then raises the question why he would feel the need to justify it in that way?

View Comment

zoylerPosted on7:19 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Nimmo-smith for dummies is right on the money!. I don’t think too many in his office will want to be seen reading it!

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on7:19 pm - Mar 3, 2013


So, bigger attendances are good for the game? Depends on the type of big attendance, doesn’t it?

I mean, who really wants to hear a sashfest at a game apart from the lowest of IQ’s.

What I think would be even better for the game in Scotland is a level playing field for all. Justice dealt out without fear or favour, a bit of consistency.

That just wouldn’t suit some though, would it? Some really relied on a wee helping hand now and then, well ok, maybe not just now and then. And maybe not wee.

Part of the lesson at my church today was about Rosa Parks. She was asked in later years
why she refused to give up her bus seat to a white? She replied that she was” Tired, sick and tired of just giving in.” She refused to accept it any longer and took a stand.

I couldn’t help being inspired the first time I learnt of this venerable human being.
She inspired the black community in Alabama that they could force change, they had a voice and they had power to change things!

Now, before anyone starts to trivialise this by saying ” Ha, they’re even trying to compare themselves to Alabama blacks now!” I am not, BUT, there is a lot of parallels.

To any of the would be ‘master race’ out there, you are not up to your knees in my blood. Nor anyone elses.
You are being exposed as what you really are more and more as time passes.

The Celtic fans were dismissed with a wave of the hand as being paranoid. Can you just
dismiss the rest of football fans in the same way now?

Motherwell fans, St Johnstone fans, Dundee Utd. Dons fans amongst others see you in
a true light now, and how the powers that be close ranks and bend over backwards to accomodate you.

The old corrupt days are truly numbered. Only you lot can claim a ‘victory’ of sorts after being
found guilty of cheating!

I really hope other clubs will follow Celtic’s lead and let their fans know their thoughts on this
massive embarrassment last week. Every team’s directors are after all merely custodians of their clubs. Will fans of the future look back with pride or shame at any action/inaction by their representatives?

This will be such a decisive time for the future of our game. I just hope more clubs have the
balls to stick their head above the parapet and refuse to accept the pandering any more.

The time couldn’t be better for everyone with a love of the game to look at ourselves in the mirror
and say “No more, It stops now!”

We can all have a ‘Rosa Parks moment’ when even the smallest gesture can inspire others
to fight for a better, fairer future.

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on7:38 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Approx 3200 responses to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PLLNCMR
Story so far: http://www.filedropper.com/surveymonkey

View Comment

Regilives (@regilives)Posted on7:41 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Been musing the LNS decision re ‘no competitive advantage’ and have come round to thinking he had no other option but to take this view if he was to appear consistent with the FTT ruling(under appeal) that the EBT scheme was legal.

If the scheme was legal then to use it was legal so it cannot be deemed ‘cheating’ in the truest sense of the word, despite the evidence of concealment which might suggest otherwise, but remember only suggest this. It would be difficult therefore to take a different view as the two outcomes would be at variance with each other.

Now if the EBT ruling is overturned on appeal and deemed illegal, then the unregistered side-letters would then be fully contractual and can then be said to be illegal too.

It is an easier and more consistent conclusion to draw then that as Oldco benefitted from an illegal scheme any benefits gained can be said to have been achieved through illegal means which = cheating.

For now I think the focus should be on reform of the SFA/SPL/SFL which has been shown to be inherently biased over the years. Ogilvie must go, to be swiftly followed by the Regan/Doncaster Axis of Self-Interest who with their fudged 5 Point Plan set the groundwork for the current confusion and myths over the Oldoc/Newco conundrum.

RFC were liquidated and the new Club should have been freed up to enter at the bottom tier free from any signing bans or footballing debts as these belonged to Oldco for better or more truthfully, worse.

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on7:48 pm - Mar 3, 2013


I think it’s really quite funny.

Rangers admitted to stealing millions of pounds from the nation and have been found guilty of breaking the football associations rules, by lying in returns made to them for a decade.

Heaven forfend anyone should call them cheats just because they deliberately broke the rules.

View Comment

BunionPosted on8:20 pm - Mar 3, 2013


angus1983 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 18:53

“Verb: Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
Noun: A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.”

LNS clearly noted that they deliberately failed to disclose (e.g. acted dishonestly) in order to prevent anyone enquiring further into their tax ‘efficiency’ plans (e.g. to gain an advantage).

However, the actions of Rangers (club and company) during the period in question most definitely conforms to the literal definition of CHEAT.

They cheated by definition, and they did so for more than ten years.

View Comment

Geordie BhoyPosted on8:28 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Regilives (@regilives) says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 19:41

———————————————————-

It is my strong belief that EBTs and with-holding vital information regarding player payments from the registration department of the football authorities are in no way correlated. The rules of player registration are clear and straightforward: ALL payment details must be disclosed. Whether undisclosed payments were tax-paid or (legally) tax-free is irrelevant. To conflate the two is an attempt to confuse the issue and create a grey area.

Rangers broke the rules by not declaring all payments made to playing staff. This is the issue.

View Comment

alticryPosted on8:29 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Thanks brth….. Lns for dummies explains the rulings very well……what a farce!

View Comment

justshateredPosted on8:30 pm - Mar 3, 2013


shield2012 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 19:18

Cheers shield2012 thanks for responding.
It could be that he did not realise the importance that would be attached to that phrase by the ‘bampotery’ however I must admit that given the way this whole game has played out I think that this is just one co-incidence too many for a lot of fans considering the way the administration, liquidation, five way agreement has been handled by the powers that be far less the way this undignified episode has been reported within our nation.

As for yakutsuki says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 19:19.

If there truly is a protectionism racket at the heart of football they will continue to play fast and loose with the rule book, or indeed just ignore it, relying on the emotional ties that fans have for their club. Fans will always show up for cup finals, played at Hampden, lining the pockets of the SFA. Change generally does happen over time otherwise the dinosaurs would still be about however as I have stated before on this site this was Scottish footballs Darwin moment where the law of natural evolution was halted in favour of natural selection and we all know who was selected over all others.
Yes Rosa Parks refused to move but most fans in Scotland probably still view Celtic and ‘The Rangers’ as the same common enemy of competition rightly or wrongly.
It cannot and will not be Celtic alone that can challenge this decision. It will have to be clubs like East stirling, Arbroath, Partick Thistle, Hibs, Aberdeen etc that will bring about change as they along with all the other clubs are the SFA.
I don’t think they will have the hunger for change and will be bought off with places on the Hampden gravy train. That is thte way people in power remain in charge by dulling or marginallising the attacks and making alliances that will keep them in their position.
However I hope I’m wrong.

View Comment

alticryPosted on8:32 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Thanks brth….. Lns for dummies explains the rulings very well……what a farce ! Ok that’s my first post….,,can I call myself an Internet bampot or is there an apprenticeship ?

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on8:34 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Looks like CAS may not be an option.

Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20
As several people have asked me, I would like to make it clear that the SPL/SFA rules do not provide for appeals to CAS.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on8:38 pm - Mar 3, 2013


What’s been difficult to believe in all this is the lack of responses from any of the European clubs that RFC played. I realise that the process is not yet complete, so maybe they are waiting till then, however RFC played more than 50 ties in European competition from 2000-2012 (not 50+ clubs as some clubs played them twice). Is it possible that none of them would be interested in getting the issues ruled on and perhaps getting compensation?

Since our own football authority has proven itself unable to enforce UEFA rules, maybe some other associations or UEFA itself can? It would seem that LNS has established that payments were not disclosed, although this is not a problem in Scotland so it would appear according to an SFA official,( although he apparently didn’t provide written confirmation of this in the rules).

Should we consider a campaign to lobby those clubs, their national associations and UEFA to investigate? Most of us probably believe that change will not come from within, and external forces will be required, just as it was the Met that got the RFC files! Not any of the Scottish authorities.

Of course, as I acknowledged above, the SFA have still to formally complete the process, so maybe we should wait till then. In the meantime, any views on this suggestion?

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on8:44 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Robert Coyle says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 20:34

Looks like CAS may not be an option.

Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20
As several people have asked me, I would like to make it clear that the SPL/SFA rules do not provide for appeals to CAS.

===================================

Am I not right in saying that the rules of football don’t allow for taking matters to the civil Court in the country concerned, when a team disagrees with a decision against it.

That doesn’t seem to stop it happening.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on9:14 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Sectarian singing at berwick say 1pm sat 23/2/2013 FAO V Lunny compliance officer……………no action yet and the clock is now at 200 yes 200 hours come on do your job or are you like the greatest administrator ie claiming a wage but not actually doing any work?

TU I keep counting TD I won’t bother

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on9:36 pm - Mar 3, 2013


dentarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 20:44
——————————————————-
From celtic on friday,as you say,clubs are not allowed to go to the C.O.S (unless your a team called rangers) so was surprised to see (Law Of The Land) used in their statement.We all see what we want so the line below could imply a threat being sent to the S.F.A that celtic would be willing to use the courts.Then again it may not.

“We will continue to concentrate on our own affairs, and assure our supporters that at all times we will operate within both the rules of our governing bodies and the law of the land.”

http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=3748

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on9:36 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Geordie Bhoy says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 20:28

I disagree.

I think the two are intertwined.

I believe that Rangers lied to the SFA, and did not declare the side letters and EBT payments because to have done so would have been to accept that they were agreed contractual payments and not discretionary as they had to be in order for the EBTs to be legitimate.

I honestly believe that the failure to disclose was as a result of the EBTs and a “necessary” side effect of that policy.

Not paying the tax was a business decision, lying to the football authorities was a side effect. As was failing to comply with both HMRC and the SPL’s requests for information and documentation.

That is not an attempt to condone the decisions and actions, it is an attempt to explain them.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:41 pm - Mar 3, 2013


henryclarson.wordpress.com/2013/03/gro

Hopefully above link works as it is a brilliant read.

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on9:42 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Homepage.

http://www.splfansunited.com/

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:45 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Sorry forget above post as link did not work

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on9:57 pm - Mar 3, 2013


The curious tale of Steven Davis.

Good player , decent career. Played for big clubs like Villa and Rangers, played in the EPL and a European final as well as representing his country over 50 times. In addition to all of that he achieved a lifetimes ambition by captaining Rangers. He also seems like a decent bloke, so if you want a poster boy for a club playing in blue in the SPL , he’s as good a choice as any

And yet…..

He was off like Usain Bolt at the first hint of being asked to play in SFL 3. To be fair , you can’t blame him for that. Given his status in the game, as detailed above, it wasn’t a reasonable ask to expect him to stay. However , what took him to Ibrox in the first place ?

From a Rangers supporting community, I’m sure he was thrilled to get the opportunity in 2008 , when David Murray drew up a lucrative contract to entice him to be part of Walters rebuilding programme, after the debacle that was the Paul Le Guen era.

That contract included , as LNS helpfully detailed, a payment of £1.2 million through the EBT scheme. Lets just remember that…….a payment, not a loan as LNS and his panel made very clear.

The interesting thing is that part way through this contract the UK Government changed the Law, which meant that there was no benefit to Rangers in paying….yes paying…..their players this way.

So Rangers went to Davis and increased his basic salary to allow him to achieve the same net pay that he had been under the combined salary and EBT plan.

Now , we were told by LNS, that there was no competitive advantage to Rangers in operating the deception that kept the EBT scheme from the SPL and SFA. We were also told by David Murray that he had absolutely no say over whether the trustees allowed a loan to given to the players.

What Murray was saying, was that the EBT loan, was an opportunity rather than a contractual right. LNS said bunkum, and most people would agree with LNS. What Rangers could have done was provide the opportunity of a bonus to Davis, but they didn’t. They increased his basic by exactly the amount needed to make up for loss of EBT.

Fast forward a few months , and Rangers are in administration . The added cost to them of Davis’ salary would be a factor in their inability to meet their costs or pay their creditors.

No competitive advantage through EBT’s !!………I think not M’Lud

Now backtrack to any point after 2000. Lets assume , and this won’t be easy, that Sandy Bryson and his fellow eagle eyed aparatchiks at SFA towers had actually wondered why Rangers were paying £ millions a year through an EBT scheme as disclosed in their accounts.

Lets say they had asked the question then that they should have asked …….is any of this going to the players, and if it is is it detailed in their contracts.

Lets say this happened in October 2006……an arbitrary date, but coincidently the first time I mentioned on KDS forum that ” Lord Stevens may want to have a look at the EBT scheme which was being heavily used at Ibrox” ….October 2006 Mr Bryson…….maybe that was hibernation time at Hamden.

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/505931/2/#new

Anyway , if the question had been asked then, one of 2 things would have to have happened . Either Murray would have lied, or he would have had to shut down his EBT scheme.

No prizes for guessing the likely outcome, and no prizes either for for concluding that if the scheme had been forced to close, then Steven Davis may very well never had arrived at Ibrox, because the extra cost to Rangers on his EBT payment alone would have been £480,000 in PAYE

When Walter filled his boots on his return in 2007, almost every one of his signings received EBT payments and side letters. That team , 2 seasons later won a tightly contested and highly controversial league title which gave them direct entry into the CL, with its resultant £15 million pay day

No competitive advantage….level playing field……these words must mean nothing to LNS, badly advised as he was by Bryson…….they clearly mean something totally different to the SFA

Shameful and Shameless, but job done in their eyes .

View Comment

Geordie BhoyPosted on10:19 pm - Mar 3, 2013


dentarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 21:36

—————————————–

I take your point (and agree with it) that it was necessary for Rangers to hide the EBT payments from the SFA as disclosing them would have brought the attention of the taxman. What I do not agree with is that EBTs should have been part of the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry. The remit was simply: “did Rangers follow all the disclosure rules?”

If they did, fine. If they did not, then consequences automatically follow, Previous precedents have set out that no other evidence is required nor mitigation considered (e.g. competitive advantage). The only reason I believe EBTs were dragged in was to allow Lord Nimmo Smith to fudge a judgement.

Again I restate what I believe to be the issue under LNS consideration: Rangers broke the rules by not declaring all payments made to playing staff. Why this happened is not the question.

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on10:26 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Geordie Bhoy says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 22:19

Apologies, I agree with that.

Sorry for picking you up incorrectly.

View Comment

Geordie BhoyPosted on10:33 pm - Mar 3, 2013


dentarthurdent42 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 22:26

—————————————-

No problem! Now, if we could only get the SPL chairmen to agree …

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:34 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Robert Coyle says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 20:34
1 0 Rate This
Looks like CAS may not be an option.

Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20
As several people have asked me, I would like to make it clear that the SPL/SFA rules do not provide for appeals to CAS.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
=====================================

133.3.6 Decisions of the Appeals Board
The decision of the Appeals Board shall be final and binding on all parties concerned subject to the arbitration procedure which may be available to the appellant to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. However, in relation to any matters concerning National Club Licensing or the National Club Licensing Procedures, the decision of the Appeals Board shall be final and binding on all
parties concerned.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09Articles.pdf

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on11:00 pm - Mar 3, 2013


valentinesclown says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 15:36

Concerning Mr Ogilvie he must be above reproach as there have been several member’s of the MSM stating that he is a very nice honest man. Today in the paper Mr Regan gave Campbell a vote of confidence again as Mr Ogilvie is such a nice man.
………………………………..

Why did Regan feel it necessary to provide a vote of confidence?

It is patently obvious why Campbell refused to leave his post….he was needed to do a ceratin clubs bidding in decision making…

Conflicted? You better believe it….you don’t get 95 grand tax free cash without a payback!

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on11:08 pm - Mar 3, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 22:34

133.3.6 Decisions of the Appeals Board
The decision of the Appeals Board shall be final and binding on all parties concerned subject to the arbitration procedure which may be available to the appellant to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. However, in relation to any matters concerning National Club Licensing or the National Club Licensing Procedures, the decision of the Appeals Board shall be final and binding on all
parties concerned except Charles Green.
……………………………………..

Fixed that for you HP

View Comment

thegamesabogeyPosted on11:29 pm - Mar 3, 2013


valentinesclown says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 21:41

3

0

Rate This

henryclarson.wordpress.com/2013/03/gro

Hopefully above link works as it is a brilliant read.
—————————————————————————————————–

Yes it is a good read, either the link below will work or just search for henryclarson.wordpress.com.

http://henryclarson.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/group-two-morality/

View Comment

SeniorPosted on11:53 pm - Mar 3, 2013


Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20
As several people have asked me, I would like to make it clear that the SPL/SFA rules do not provide for appeals to CAS.
____________________________

UEFA rules did not allow for a case to be brought to a Court of Session, but of course we are still waiting.
Perhaps the SFA informed them that they would deal with this – sometime!

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on12:44 am - Mar 4, 2013


thegamesabogey

Thanks for that.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on1:01 am - Mar 4, 2013


VL now 204hrs night night 🙂 will keep counting tomorrow 🙂

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on1:03 am - Mar 4, 2013


Sorry if posted before:

http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s109

This is all seen as important for one key reason: because any club that is spending more on players than they can afford, is automatically gaining a sporting advantage over every other club it competes with. Whether the precise system of measurement used by UEFA is perfect is a moot point. But the logic behind the principle however is, I think, broadly sound. And it is this same principle that explains the position of the SPL.

To turn a blind eye, to allow clubs to continually fail to make prompt payments as they fall due, would be to allow those clubs to gain an unfair sporting advantage over all those other clubs that pay their players, the taxman and other clubs on time. That is one of the reasons why, whenever the SPL receives a request from players to adjudicate on their contracts, it has a duty to do so.

Thanks ND

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:43 am - Mar 4, 2013


paulmac2 says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 23:00

valentinesclown says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 15:36

Concerning Mr Ogilvie he must be above reproach as there have been several member’s of the MSM stating that he is a very nice honest man. Today in the paper Mr Regan gave Campbell a vote of confidence again as Mr Ogilvie is such a nice man.
………………………………..

Why did Regan feel it necessary to provide a vote of confidence?

It is patently obvious why Campbell refused to leave his post….he was needed to do a ceratin clubs bidding in decision making…

Conflicted? You better believe it….you don’t get 95 grand tax free cash without a payback!
==========================================================================

Hang on – why did he even get a bonus to start with if he didn’t even know what was going on at Rangers whilst being a Board member.

On another matter – well done to Tom English for finally being allowed to print a proper opinion of SDM.

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on3:08 am - Mar 4, 2013


On gaining an advantage………….

Let’s say signing a player they could not afford was as LNS not an advantage given the fact that he was not given the SPL evidence that no one else in SPL was doing this EBT stuff with exception of Celtic with Juninho – for which Celtic promptly paid the tax – had no side letter – and was at end of his contract – hence there is no question he was ineligible. However SPL asked last March every club to provide answers if they also had one – yet LNS said he was unable to determine if an advantage was gained as no one said if anyone else was doing this – I pressume then he was not given the chart that showed only one team used them extensively.

(1) Why would SPL gather evidence no one else was using EBTs and then not present it?
(2) Next time I get done for speeding, I will use the “everyone else was doing it” defence…..

However……..

Given that the better players on the park the better the product, the more fans will go along……….RFC were able to fill their stadium at premium prices – thereby gaining a financial advantage over say St Johnstone each time they played at home. A full crowd also can help the team and also pressure refs etc.

This year, in order to keep up the attendences of the old club, TRFC had to halve the prices (and in some instances give tickets away). After all, if you play East Stirling and have 14,000, the place would be like a grave yard and the 12th man would be negated. Also, pay cuts would have to be enforced since according to CG, only 30% of income will be spent on wages….but I digress!

If attendances are not important and give a home team an advantage then why did UEFA punish Inter Milan with playing at home versus RFC (presumably not so we could hear on Radio the RFC directors sing The Cry Was…..) and Celtic play Athletico Madrid in empty Celtic Park after the Rapid Vienna fiasco………….

So better players – better product – better crowds.

Even a 5 year old can see the sporting advantage of signing players,,,,,,,,,,,,,

View Comment

dreddybhoyPosted on7:18 am - Mar 4, 2013


Sevco interims – 7M loss for 7 months

There is no way that they will be in anything like the bottom tier of scottish football next season

Who is bearing that loss and how much is it costing?

View Comment

manandboyPosted on7:43 am - Mar 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 22:34

133.3.6 Decisions of the Appeals Board
The decision of the Appeals Board shall be final and binding on all parties concerned subject to the arbitration procedure which may be available to the appellant to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. However, in relation to any matters concerning National Club Licensing or the National Club Licensing Procedures, the decision of the Appeals Board shall be final and binding on all
parties concerned.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09Articles.pdf
____________________________________________________________________________________

Which just leaves the fans to give their verdict in the court of public opinion.

Here’s hoping.

Ps. Reserves of hope are running pretty low.

View Comment

Brian McHugh (@pbmchugh)Posted on8:21 am - Mar 4, 2013


Dreddyboy
Very interesting!
Source?

View Comment

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on8:24 am - Mar 4, 2013


Ibrox losses of £7m in unaudited accounts

http://bit.ly/YODjfZ

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on8:33 am - Mar 4, 2013


thegamesabogey says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 23:29

14

0

======================================================================

Thanks for the link to Henry Clarson’s inspired article. Sandy Bryson must go!

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on8:43 am - Mar 4, 2013


So, one regular poster on here insists that big attendances are always better, even doon at Govan with their world record crowd swelling tactics. “Two for the price of one!” “Buy one, get one free!” “Free parking for saracens and tanks!”

Well, sorry to call you wrong (Again!) but 7 million LOSS!!! In 7 months??? Another world record looms perchance?

View Comment

zoylerPosted on9:16 am - Mar 4, 2013


BRTH does it again with a new post highlighting what Nimmo did NOT look at

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on9:22 am - Mar 4, 2013


Good Morning,

A belated comment on the Nimmo Smith findings– and beyond really.

Just exactly what have we been watching in Scottish Football for a decade? And are we really prepared to continue with this type of Sporting Governance?

Lord Nimmo Smith– and the Hare and the Tortoise

http://wp.me/p1G95H-I0

My apologies for the formatting at the end– I have tried to correct it on wordpress but all atempts have proven fruitless.

BRTH

View Comment

BrendaPosted on9:26 am - Mar 4, 2013


Easy solved 🙂 sevco could actually start charging for the tickets 🙂 these eye watering attendances at home games would soon fall if they had to pay to watch this amazing team.

212hrs mr lunny

View Comment

stevensanphPosted on9:26 am - Mar 4, 2013


hang on.. im really confused? I thought Rangers International were the company shares were issued in that own ‘The Rangers football club ltd’??

Havent they only been trading for 2 months?

View Comment

stevensanphPosted on9:37 am - Mar 4, 2013


Wow… just wow…

· Cash of £21.2m as at 31 December 2012

So, the 22.5 million raised in the share issue on the 18th allowed them to pay decembers salaries. They are currently spending 2.3 million a month in expenses. in 7 months they have received 9.5m in revenue…

Now the accounts claim they still have 8m of ‘season ticket money’ defered… I dont think this is anywhere near correct, as they didnt received 15m of season ticket money (note 4). They received 37,000 x 213gbp, as shown in the prospectus = circa 8m total. If they hadn’t added that into the revenue yet, it would mean the 6.5m from gate income would have meant 21,000 paying customers at 20gbp at every home game… Not likely when capacity is only 51k and you have 37k season ticket holders!

So total season revenue is likely to be around 14 – 15m tops… expenses will be circa 27 – 28m. That is a MASSIVE MASSIVE LOSS.

On another point – still no mention of sponsorship revenue from puma/blackthorn.

And doesnt the statement about the history going back to 1872 clearly show they are a Phoenix operation?

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on9:41 am - Mar 4, 2013


From what I’m reading the Rangers accounts released are unaudited. Does this mean they could be a load of nonsense? It appears they have the share issue money in the bank (or most of it after losses). Still can’t work out why Institutional inverstors would be in for £17m.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:42 am - Mar 4, 2013


OK the figures are unaudtied (so it could go either way) but the estimated ‘burn rate’ of a £1m a month seems to tie in with what many on here have been saying based on the previous accounts and the running of the club (with a reduced players wage bill) by D&P.

That’s £12m a year.

The only income left now until the end of the season is the pay as you go sales for the home games and Jim Traynor’s forthcoming book!!

Going to have to sell a lot of Puma Kits and Cider to sort that one out.
When will next seasons tickets be on sale and how quickly will that be used up?

Where is the £9m for the Ibrox Refurbishment coming from?
Ally better start downsizing his signing targets as he ain’t gonna get £10m
Can the club afford to travel to pre-season glamour friendlies?
I have said for long enough something is going to have to give either on the park or shelving one of the many projects Charles has mentioned.

Of course Charles could always live up to what he said on Scotland Tonight with regard to the remainder of shares that were not taken up in the fans allocation.

He said he would offer them to the institutional investors or buy them himself!

However I head back to the Dragon’ Den and remind myslef of the investors total objection with regard to their cash being used for operating costs.

Will be interesting to see how the news affects the shares.

I was going to finish by asking if the footballing authorities were monitoring the system – but what’s the point. Their heads will just have popped back into the sand.

View Comment

tic6709Posted on9:52 am - Mar 4, 2013


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:

Monday, March 4, 2013 at 09:22

Good Morning,

A belated comment on the Nimmo Smith findings– and beyond really.

Just exactly what have we been watching in Scottish Football for a decade? And are we really prepared to continue with this type of Sporting Governance?

Lord Nimmo Smith– and the Hare and the Tortoise

http://wp.me/p1G95H-I0

My apologies for the formatting at the end– I have tried to correct it on wordpress but all atempts have proven fruitless.

BRTH

View Comment

fistasapartPosted on10:05 am - Mar 4, 2013


Getting The Rangers into the SPL would be like remarrying your the high spending, high maintenance spouse you had divorced last year and handing her/him (just to be pc) all your credit cards.

View Comment

luoanlaiPosted on10:06 am - Mar 4, 2013


Here’s the statement to AIM.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11506139

Anyone know what the 1.9M of finance leases is likely to be? I assume that’s a cost.

Does that mean that the debt free club has some debts?

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:07 am - Mar 4, 2013


From RM:

“Operating loss is mainly because: our broadcasting rights were stolen, sponsorship income was paltry because of the uncertainty/league, season ticket prices were reduced, and we had several one-off costs like football debts. None of these are recurring.

I’ll try and simplify the negative goodwill. Sometimes you need to pay over the odds for a business that you really want. It’s worth £100k but you pay £130k. However sometimes you manage to buy a business for less than it’s worth because of circumstances, such as the owner needs to sell. You might buy a business for £80k but it is worth £100k (the “fair value” of its assets). This is what has happened here. That £20k you underpaid is a profit in a sense and you recognise that profit in the accounts. CG got the brand “Rangers” (and players etc) valued and the “fair value” was some £20m higher than he paid.

Don’t confuse this with the revaluation of the properties that also took place. The properties were valued at £34m more than was paid and their values have been uplifted to reflect this. If they were sold at that amount, there would be £8m tax to pay, and that “deferred tax” liability has also been provided, hence a net increase in the balance sheet of £26m (the “revaluation reserve”).”

View Comment

BrendaPosted on10:11 am - Mar 4, 2013


I’d hazard a guess that if sevco were moved up the leagues they could have a home game every week !!!! Every other team would die like rfcil ……. No fans attending matches = no money to survive, it is so simple, they are even more detested now than last year because it’s been proven they are cheats and still got away with it?? and the football authorities have been made to look even more incompetent (if that was possible) 🙂

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:15 am - Mar 4, 2013


Interesting interim figures from RIFC today.

The first point is that all the speculation on here a few weeks ago about the share issue falling far short of £22m in cash terms looks to have been based on wrong information. As Charles Green said in Australia, there was in fact over £20m in the bank at the end of December.

However the picture is far from rosy. Expenditure is running at over £2m per month. So from first January to 30 June, the company accounting date, another £12m will be spent. Income from football for this season from January to June will be very limited, being the matchday receipts from 10 home games. Even if gates remain high, that will produce no more than £100,000 per game, or £1m total. Since the new year, they have paid off a lot of the old football debts, say £2m, and bought the car park and Edmiston House for £2.5m. Sponsorship income is a big secret, so unlikely to be a big number. Say £1m for the 6 months to June, plus another £1m for broadcasting, shirt sales, etc. Adding all this up I estimate that by 30 June, excluding 2013/14 season tickets, the cash left in the bank will be approximately £6m.

If they can shift 38,000 season tickets at an average of £300, that will give them just over £10 million, which I am sure Green will want in by 30 June. So they should start next season with about £16m in the bank, but facing at least £24 million day to day expenditure before the next injection of season ticket money in June 2014. Add McCoist’s “war chest” of £10m, and that makes total expenditure of £34m over 12 months, covered only by matchday receipts, TV money, etc. If those total £8m (which would be a great achievement), the company would still have a shortfall of £10m, in fact the cash would have run out by 31 December 2013.

Of course the company could just make it through to the arrival of the 2014/15 season ticket money without that warchest, but 2014/15 would be even tighter, and with no cash at the outset, income and expenditure would have to be balanced, so at a time when they would presumably be playing at a higher level they would be savagely cutting the wage bill. Plus no money to buy players.

It seems to me that in reality more money will be required by the end of next year. Or more likely, the SFA will have to come good yet again and engineer a rapid elevation to the SPL, probably this summer.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:16 am - Mar 4, 2013


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 09:22

Lord Nimmo Smith– and the Hare and the Tortoise

http://wp.me/p1G95H-I0

___________________________________________________________________________________

BRTH

Well said. Agrees with what I have been saying since the result and then goes even further in terms of asking why other matters were not considered.

However as in the law and other walks of life, the lawyers fighting a case will only ever do what their client wants, or can afford.

I find LNS’s findings strange but as someone else said (apologies for not recaling who) McKenzie seemed to accept meekly accept Bryson’s alternative construction of the rule.

Let us not forget that it is the fans who want to get to the bottom of this and look into the minutiae of the case, the tax law and the footballing rules so they can be assured the game is played on a level field.

However over the summer the SPL seemed more than happy allow to do everything possible to let T’Rangers back into their cosy little club and, failing that, attempted to broker a deal that got them as high on the pyramid as they could.

Is anyone surprised that they, as a body, did not go in guns blazing.
Ogilvie and Bryson were just more than happy to assist in keeping the grubby little secets hidden away for a bit longer.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on10:18 am - Mar 4, 2013


@ScotlandSky: Charles Green coming up at 10.30 on SSN with reaction to Rangers financial results.

View Comment

Ian58Posted on10:25 am - Mar 4, 2013


I wonder if £23 a minute is a record loss rate for a 4th tier club?

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on10:27 am - Mar 4, 2013


nowoldandgrumpy says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 10:18

He should be on Jackanory not SSN.

View Comment

spaldingbhoyPosted on10:28 am - Mar 4, 2013


Brenda, thanks for restarting the clock for V Lunny, however I think you may well have a world record on your hands this time….

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:30 am - Mar 4, 2013


T’Rangers interim results in full

http://www.iii.co.uk/markets/?type=aimnews&articleid=8894368&action=article

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:35 am - Mar 4, 2013


It’s an expensive business raising cash.

RIFC spent £4.373M raising funds (see note 13).

That equates to approx 12.7% of the reported sums raised.

View Comment

spanishceltPosted on10:36 am - Mar 4, 2013


I find this part of the financial review interesting,,,,,,
” I am glad to report that, as of the date of this announcement, only £251,000 remains to be paid in relation to the £2.8m of football debts we undertook to pay in the SFA licensing agreement,”

Now this financial statement is UP TO the end of December 2012 and shows a loss of 7 million however it was only a couple of weeks ago that The Rangers were making the payments of a fair bit of these “football debts” so are they saying that the losses up to December include these payments or are these payments on top of the losses shown?

If they were losing 1 million a month to December then you could add on another 2 million for Jan and Feb plus the football debts paid since December and you could be talking about 10 million to now.
All their extra cup games income was included up to December also.

Looking through it there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on and it will be interesting reading when they produce the audited accounts necessary for SFA licensing before the end of April.

View Comment

Ian58Posted on10:37 am - Mar 4, 2013


Brenda @ 09:26,

You may want to recalibrate your clock.

Mr Lunny is now at -£294216 and counting.

View Comment

54andDEAD (@StMiley)Posted on10:37 am - Mar 4, 2013


A lot to be said for an old experienced head.

Always been envious of my father who was born in 52 and got to witness the greatest years of both Celtics history and that of Scottish football. He has forgotten more great players than I have had the pleasure to see in the flesh.

Getting on a bit now, though far from over the hill, his mind isn’t as strong as it once was – that is, when his youngest son has attempted to explain the intracacies of the Rangers debacle these past 18 months as gleaned from many hours/days reading forums and blogs, a mind more used to paper and radio media has found it too much to take in. Happier to dismiss my explanations and predictions, stating quite simply –

‘Their friends will help them, they always have’

And so they did.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:39 am - Mar 4, 2013


Brian Stockbridge, in the Interim Report:

“The Club continues to progress with legal action against players of the Rangers Football Club plc who objected to the transfer of their contracts to Rangers Football Club Ltd. Further details of this action will be communicated in due course.”

Going by past form, they’ll probably “win” those cases as well – whether they do or not. 🙂

View Comment

iamacantPosted on10:39 am - Mar 4, 2013


“£251,000 remains to be paid in accordance with the terms agreed”

Still a DEBT FREE club Mr Green???????

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:54 am - Mar 4, 2013


spanishcelt says: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 10:36
——————————
The statements made by Green and Stockbridge are dated 4th March, so will reflect the position on football creditors, today, rather than 31st Dec, i.e. the £251,000 will be correct as of today.
——————————-

There is an odd use of words on the share offer (note 12).

RIFC PLC issued 24,242,757 new ordinary shares at the placing price of 70p
….. and
7,437,999 new ordinary shares were subscribed for at the placing price of 70p

It leads you to query the difference between “issued” and “subscribed”, which is what “goosygoosy” has been getting at re the fundraising. i.e. are the placing shares fully paid up?

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:58 am - Mar 4, 2013


easyJambo says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 10:35

It’s an expensive business raising cash.

RIFC spent £4.373M raising funds (see note 13).

That equates to approx 12.7% of the reported sums raised.
========================================
Does this include the cash owed to the WUO?.

As an aside.in my limited experience unaudited accounts tend to paint a rosier picture than the actuality.
Although the figures may be correct,I’d bet they’ve been presented in a way that looks better than they actually are!
what the figures show though,is TRFC cannot break even without someone pouring money in(again),or massive cost cutting.

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on11:01 am - Mar 4, 2013


I think the “Fair Value Adjustments” are really interesting.

As I understand it, the difference between what they paid £5.5m and what they believe those assets to really be valued at.

The “brand” for example, they paid £0 for that, and believe it has a value of £16m. Properties plane and equipment, paid £1.5m and believe their real value is £6.5m. “Negative goodwill” of about £20m

So, in short, why did Duff and Phelps sell this business, these assets to Mr Green for so little and why was it done in such a manner, with no actual bidding process.

Who was looking after the best interests of the creditors.

Hopefully BDO will have something to say about that aspect.

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on11:04 am - Mar 4, 2013


Maley’s Bhoys ‏@MaleysBhoys
Section 11. in the notes at the bottom of the documents. Deferred tax liabilities. pic.twitter.com/vGhYOXUxkp
View photo Reply Retweet Favorite More

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on11:06 am - Mar 4, 2013


from above.

https://twitter.com/MaleysBhoys/status/308532988415709184/photo/1

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on11:06 am - Mar 4, 2013


@MaleysBhoys: Deferred tax liabilities of £7,817,000.

@MaleysBhoys: @Atari2600hero number 11 of the notes, away down at the bottom beyond the directors reports etc.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on11:07 am - Mar 4, 2013


Maybe mr lunny’s on holiday or on a ‘night out’ with the ‘greatest administrator’ he seems to be missing a lot of what’s going on out there? Bomber’s not a happy bunny 🙂 those pesky officials 🙂

View Comment

Leave a Reply