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.
ismellafix says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 10:14
Taken from Paul Murray’s interview from the Daily Ranger
“If the board says to all and sundry that this is the wrong thing to do and the SFA among others don’t listen or take action, then how can the club be blamed for what happened next? There was no regulatory control and no attempt to protect the best interests of the club. What more could the club have done to defend itself?”
So Murray effectively blames his namesake, (the owner, probably under pressure from Lloyds) for selling the club to Whyte against the boards wishes.
Strangely I don’t remember this financially astute “board” curtailing Walter Smith’s spending, or recommending cutbacks to ensure they are operating within their means. Perhaps if they had been willing to take these difficult decisions, (or resign from the board as a matter of principle re. the unsustainable way the club was being run), then he and his ever so principled “board” may have been able to avoid the demise of their beloved club. What happened to “protecting the best interest of the club” during these years.
——————–
I’m sorry but I don’t agree.
When Whyte took over, he didn’t pay taxes and the club went into liquidation. Therefore, you can understand why Paul Murray would be blaming his namesake for selling the club to him.
Whether they should have curtailed Walter Smith’s spending or not during the more successful years is a matter for the board at the time and cannot, at this stage, be directly linked to the liquidation. Incidentally, I seem to remember substantial changes to the financial set-up during these years, which was well documented.
Could it not be argued that 3 in a row and keeping the club afloat during hard times WAS “protecting the best interest of the club”?
Andy
I know Wilson writes like its a press release from Ibrox but I think the debenture holder is the likelier candidate. He works for a UK wide paper and BBC, so it might cause a few ripples outside Scotland. Which is what this story needs at the moment.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 10:42
Could it not be argued that 3 in a row and keeping the club afloat during hard times WAS “protecting the best interest of the club”?
————————————————————————————————————————–
Yes that could be argued but it was a gamble.
The same way Leeds gambled that they would be high fliers in the EPL with CL football every year.
However football isn’t like other businesses where you can maybe take a calculated risk. You can’t control the performance of the opposition and you can’t predict when star players are going to get crocked. Euro cash can be taken away from you in 3 minutes of extra time.
As has been documented it is well known that millions ‘invested’ in the club by various parties went down the plug hole.
The club was so hard pushed they had to use a dodgy tax avoidance scheme to pay wages.
They were so scared they had got that wrong that they hampered investigations by HMRC.
No, the writing was on the wall long before Craig Whyte got his mits on the club.
Was it not Alastair Johnson who said a wee while back if it hadn’t been the EBT’s SDM would have just borrowed more money.
Despite having a huge fan base and the opportunity to get their hands on prize & tv money the whole thing was built on tick, the never never and robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As moneysaving expert Martin Lewis would tell you, that is no way to run your life or a business, you have to face up to your debt and do something about and quick. SDM just didn;t do what was required early enough to keep the wolves from the door. For all his business experience he simply got it wrong on many counts.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 10:42
Could it not be argued that 3 in a row and keeping the club afloat during hard times WAS “protecting the best interest of the club”?
————————————————————————
It could of course be argued as a short term gain, I cannot see how that could be argued as being in the best long term interest of the club. This is exactly what was done in the previous years and Rangers lost over a hundred million during the Murray years, overspending will affect you at some point. How it affected the Administration and subsequent Liquidation was simple, due to the past mismanagement, Rangers had no line of credit so when they had a bad season there were no funds to draw on so just stopped paying bills. That situation need not have occurred had they taken the appropriate steps some years earlier, of course that would have affected the YIAR stats and they didn’t want to upset the fans.
So I argue that “No”, this was not in the best interests of the club to live out with your means.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 10:42
Could it not be argued that 3 in a row and keeping the club afloat during hard times WAS “protecting the best interest of the club”?
———————————————-
I think there is some merit in that argument, at least when judged against the mindset of football boards generally, if not common sense. There are many boards stuffed full of ‘faces’ eg ex-players, minor celebs etc, who are there to give a PR gloss, while one or two others actually pull the financial levers, perhaps sailing close to the wind at times (or even all the time). Football is rife with that, from the bottom to the very top clubs, we all know that, and success can bring in a bigger fool with a bigger cheque to stave off the day of reckoning.
What was shocking about Rangers was the reaction of the supposedly more financially savvy board members to see that there was no way out other than to sell the club to someone who had to use future season ticket money to fund the purchase, and then spend tax money to give an appearance of continuing solvency where there was actually insolvency. Those were the points at which the board should surely have realised that the train was headed full speed for the buffers and tried to rally the fans.
ismellafix says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 10:14
““If the board says to all and sundry that this is the wrong thing to do and the SFA among others don’t listen ……”
—-
Is there anything on the public record to show that any formal requests were made by the gutless members of SDM’s board to the SFA asking them to use their regulatory powers to prevent the sale to CW? And if so, on what or which grounds precisely?
And what were the terms of the SFA’s reply to any such requests?
I don’t recall that any statement on the matter was ever made by the SFA.
If there was no statement at the time, I think the SFA would do itself a favour if it slapped the broken-hearted Murray into place by issuing one now, making it clear that the death of RFC is the fault of RFC itself, by the irresponsible actions of its chairman over many years,unchallenged by board, supporters and press.
And everything that a disappointed carpet-bagger of a ‘supporter’ who was outsmarted by a more practised carpet-bagger has to be largely discounted.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 10:42
…………………………………………………..
If memory serves me correctly….the majority of expenditure under smith at that time happened after the club were beaten by Kaunus and knocked out the CL…therefore it is fair to say the level of expenditure sanctioned was at best irresponsible..
It appeared to be an expenditure in persuit of winning the SPL in order to ensure CL group stage money for next season…the problem with that is…it is a huge fiscal gamble…the prize money for winning the SPL was insignificant…in hindsight from what we now know the amount spent was unjustifiable as a business plan.
It now looks exactly like what it was….a desperate attempt to prolong what clearly was a spirraling debt issue in the hope a miracle or mug would come in and buy the big black hole!
Sadly Hugh Adams was correct on his analysis of Murray….and Murray’s EGO made sure Hugh was proved correct…
Murray created all the elements for the club to die….Whyte merely finished the job Murray had created to the point of no return.
And lets not forget those in the Scottish MSM who were tasked with ridiculing Hugh Adams as some sort of fantasist with a grudge against Murray…played their part in this saga..
When you look at little pieces of information in isolation…they don’t stack up to much…when it is all added into the mix….then we are looking at one almighty fiscal catastrophy orchastrated by Murray…protected and hidden by the Scottish MSM…and knowingly ignored to the point of collusion by the Scottish Football Association…
Only with their support and help could Murray have achieved such a disaster…and only with their support and help can Green continue with this omnishambles…
A wee note on recent events and European Football
http://wp.me/p1G95H-lk
Craig Whyte did not kill Rangers. He bought a business hemorrhaging money estimated to be at least £1m per month. He used the tax and NI contributions to prolong the inevitable. Rangers needed a wealthy, (multi-millionaire) benefactor to save them. None were forthcoming and as with any other distressed animal, the vultures will start to circle. Craig Whyte used his nous in the insolvency sphere to try to make himself a quick buck. Whether he has managed or not, time will tell.
As many posters have already said the demise of Rangers was not the fault of CW. He was probably the only realist who when looking at what Rangers were, soon realised there was probably no future, especially after another european failure. Without a successful CVA involving the dumping of huge debts and the shafting of many creditors, (which he tried to achieve), the club was doomed to be consigned to the history books.
And the rest as they say is history…………
jimlarkin says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 09:15
25 0 i
Rate This
smudger was also on radio shortbread (08.30ish)
smudger quite happy to mention 1 year since ADMINISTRATION, as the big event and liquidation was just another minor event, then rangers attempt to get back to – where “they” were a year ago.
why won’t they focus on the LIQUIDATION and what it means,
as rangers are NOW in LIQUIDATION, and sevco5088/sevcoscotland/sevcotherangers HAD to START in division 4 in scotland.
———————————————————————————————————-
First rule of liquidation club, never talk about liquidation club.
(or is it company?)
Administration / liquidation? Seems the generally acepted view is that Rangers went into admin and flirted with liquidation before recovering miraculously.
See, for example, this piece:
“Since being plunged into administration during the 2011/12 season Rangers have gone through a turbulent time. They have been on the brink of liquidation and were subsequently demoted to the Third Division. However, the 2012/13 campaign has been highly positive on the pitch with the Gers sitting top of the league and a comfortable 20 points clear of second-placed Queen’s Park.”
Ref: http://www.jacksons-security.co.uk/News/sports/rangers-fc-weigh-up-stadium-expansion-2529.aspx
@Shield,
“Could it not be argued that 3 in a row and keeping the club afloat during hard times WAS “protecting the best interest of the club”? ”
So, being the best team in Scotland 3 yrs in a row goes hand in hand with keeping the club afloat, does it? I read once that with costs at about £45m, the non-salaries aspect of this was about £14m. That would be a salary cost of about £30m, with most of that – around £25m at a guess – on players’ salaries. Thats with turnover in the region of £35-40m.
£25m on player salaries is not by any stretch of the imagination ‘keeping the club afloat’. 75%+ salaries to turnover ratio likewise.
There are, I guess, a number of Scottish Football club chairmen currently involved in keeping their club afloat. Their activities will vary but they will definitely not involve spending 75% of the club turnover on player wages.
If a club HAS to be the best in Scotland to stay afloat it is doomed. If Rangers are currently looking to return to this scenario they too are doomed.
Link to the audio of AT on Radio Scotland this morning, sourced from KDS:
https://soundcloud.com/#celticresearch/atomobbc/s-Zyom5
I listened to this again, the other journalist that AT refers to is Glasgow based, again a different newspaper and newspaper group.
There’s little doubt that Rangers were probably not being run in a proper business fashion and this was the reason they ran into financial difficulty. However, it’s been said previously, that football is a different business entirely.
My argument is – it is undeniably impossible to say that this was the reason for them being liquidated.
Also, as I said previously, I understand Paul Murray’s point about feeling aggrieved that CW was allowed to take over a football club and treat it like one of his many suspect ventures. Again, I would encourage people to try and separate the CW liquidation from the general ongoing running of the club beforehand. Afterall, the general running of the club is, I suspect, similar to that of many clubs in both Scotland and England i.e. spending money they don’t have.
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
ismellafix says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 12:02
Craig Whyte did not kill Rangers. He bought a business hemorrhaging money estimated to be at least £1m per month. He used the tax and NI contributions to prolong the inevitable. Rangers needed a wealthy, (multi-millionaire) benefactor to save them. None were forthcoming and as with any other distressed animal, the vultures will start to circle. Craig Whyte used his nous in the insolvency sphere to try to make himself a quick buck. Whether he has managed or not, time will tell.
————————
CW DID kill rangers – it was his plan all along.
He certainly didn’t have teh resources to save a dying patient, so he put it out of his misery (whilst lining his own pocket no doubt)
However, instead of promising moonbeams, new bumper contracts and warchests, he could simply have sold sold sold
Naismith, Davis, Jelavic & McGregor could have raised £15M
He could have jettisoned half the squad – especially the high earners
Instead of stiffing the creditors he could have had them all round and explained the problems – some of them would have reduced their bills or given longer terms
Then he could have gone to the fans for a share issue – he could have dressed it up as raising the funds to meet the BTC bill IF it lands
He could have been open and honest
And simply enough, if the bears didn’t like it – then, and only then, he could have put the club into a “conventional” admin
i believe the fact it was CW (and his reputation) that led to BoS insisting they were repaid in full as part of the terms of the sale – they knew what was coming and in order to pay them….he sold the season tickets
BoS have a big role in the demise. they could have insisted on sales, cost cutting and an increase in the repayment schedule (rather than full settlement) but they didn’t
indeed, if CW had been honest and put them on track to stop bleeding money, and the bears walked away, then they would have no one to blame
It remains to be seen if CG will reign in the spending. Doesn’t look like it so far, and if he does will the bears will support him?
In the end it all comes down to the bears demanding success over Celtic – they cannot/will not accept anything less – even if it means their club dies
On this anniversary, we should all pause for reflection.
Perhaps the below piece, created by one of the bear(ly literate)s, will remind the reader of the glory days of poetry when William McGonagall walked this earth:
——
It’s a year to the day, when it seemed like Rangers, were going to drift away.
There we stood, in work and in pubs. No more they said, of the football club we love.
One hundred and forty years, our glorious past, surely the 54th title won’t be our last?
Run to the ground, by inconsiderate fools, this is our club, and they’d broken the rules.
The fans tried to gather, together as one. But the future looked bleak, all Whyte done was run.
‘We don’t do walking away’, was the rallying cry. It was from Ally McCoist, hes Gers til he dies.
The players took cuts, we’ll be forever grateful. And continued to play, for the light blues faithful.
A day in late March, they stood 10ft tall, we won the derby at Ibrox, the fans had a ball.
The season was over, the fans were confused. We’d took punches and kicks, we were battered and bruised.
The Blue knights couldn’t save us, for some all hope was lost, but a man called Green, he fought for the cause.
Imposters left the club, and betrayed the fans. They were our heroes for years; we were shocked to a man.
Some players stayed, and were loyal to the shirt. They became cult heroes, unlike the backstabbing dirt.
Super Lee McCulloch, hes a bear through and through. Alexander, Wallace, Little, and the youth players too.
We were ready to fight back, had a squad full of wains. But we needed the license, to start winning games.
Our corrupt football authorities, were bleeding us dry. They all worked together, and hoped Rangers would die.
But Ally and Green, in our corner they fought. They made sure we had a team to watch, and some players could be bought.
In division 3, is where Rangers would play. It didn’t matter to us, we’d be there night and day.
Its been a tough year for bears, the whole world over. At times hard to believe, it wasn’t Roy of the Rovers.
We’ve been all over the country, in numbers some can only dream. We’ll travel anywhere, to see our glorious team.
Looking back over the year, its bean quite surreal. Thank god we have a football club, and Green sealed the deal.
At times hard to take, but we’re on our way back. We are Rangers Football Club, courage and pride we do not lack.
So this February bears, go out and support your team. Be forever grateful, of the four lads who had a dream.
——
Now go and wash your eyes out.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:12
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
———————————————————
That is correct, I will give you that one!
But… and it is a big but… It is only considered “Borrowing” when there is a plan to pay it back…
Does anyone have a clue as to when LNS is due to report back? Just with all this fevered activity seems something is in the offing. Glad to see RTC back don’t give in to threats, intimadation, p**h stained alkie’s and police scare tactics.
madbhoy24941 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:39
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
———————————————————
That is correct, I will give you that one!
But… and it is a big but… It is only considered “Borrowing” when there is a plan to pay it back…
————-
We can only assume that the club did plan to pay back the money to the bank!
You are of course referring to the EBT’s where the players borrowed money from the trusts. A completely different matter and one that was legitemate until proven otherwise. Was it morally wrong?….well if seeking to pay as little tax as possible is morally wrong, then yes.
My business is morally wrong, may I add.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:48
My business is morally wrong, may I add.
================================
how so? are you paying employees for their labour through an EBT telling them that it’s technically a loan so as to save PAYE and NI?
madbhoy24941 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:39
3 0 i
Rate This
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:12
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
———————————————————
That is correct, I will give you that one!
But… and it is a big but… It is only considered “Borrowing” when there is a plan to pay it back…
———————————————————————————————————————–
And of course it is not just football clubs, many a supposed succesful business like those run by SDM over extend themselves on borrowed cash.
How is it we can hear reports of companies being in profit when the reality is they owe the banks or others cash?
Many companies expand for fear they will be bought out by a bigger company that use even more borrowed cash to buy them over.
Frankly it goes well beyond football, the world’s economy is just one big mess. Nearly every country is in debt but who the hell to? Who actually has all the money?
Its just plain daft and for some reason we all go along with it- end of story.
wottpi says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 14:07
madbhoy24941 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:39
3 0 i
Rate This
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:12
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
———————————————————
That is correct, I will give you that one!
But… and it is a big but… It is only considered “Borrowing” when there is a plan to pay it back…
———————————————————————————————————————–
And of course it is not just football clubs, many a supposed succesful business like those run by SDM over extend themselves on borrowed cash.
How is it we can hear reports of companies being in profit when the reality is they owe the banks or others cash?
Many companies expand for fear they will be bought out by a bigger company that use even more borrowed cash to buy them over.
Frankly it goes well beyond football, the world’s economy is just one big mess. Nearly every country is in debt but who the hell to? Who actually has all the money?
Its just plain daft and for some reason we all go along with it- end of story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who actually has all the money? ALL money is created as debt. That’s what fractional reserve banking does for us. It is all a scam to enslave the world population. 🙂
wottpi says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 14:07
I agree wottpi, it goes beyond both football and the remit of TSFM. Ignorance is bliss, as far as I’m concerned, when it come to the frightening world of the current banking system.
Precisely why I argue that up until CW took over, Rangers were doing nothing out unusual………financially!
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:12
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
—————————————————-
You only have to look at Real Madrid and Barcelona, two of THE most successful clubs at the moment to see the truth in that. But when a club overreaches, particularly on the basis of never-never money, and as a result plots a sharp fall from hubris to nemesis, the downside then is that they deserve all the scoffing and scorn they get. In Rangers case, not accepting that, and seemingly not wanting to take a forensic look at what caused the problems, only makes them look ridiculous in the eyes of many supporters of other clubs.
Who killed Rangers ? maybe one for that investigative journalist now at Ibrox.
The reality is I suppose SDM put it into intensive care and CW turned off the life support when he realised he had been left something in a vegtable state. CW having been sold a turnip was a bit like Comical Ali during the first Gulf War telling everybody everything in the garden was Rosie and there was no Allied troops in Bagdad whilst we can see them all in the background
Technically, yes, White did kill Rangers, but he’s not the reason they died. He was brought in to do two things: administer the coup de grace and be the goat (or sacrificial lamb, if you will) for Sir Mintalot. He did the first one but it seems like he covered his bahoochy against the other.
scottc says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 14:14
Who actually has all the money? ALL money is created as debt. That’s what fractional reserve banking does for us. It is all a scam to enslave the world population
++++++++++++
Banks at the height of the banking crisis were lending out money they never had. I think good Banks used to lend about 3 times more than they actually held in reserve and at the height some were lending 20+ times. One big ponzi or a credit card where in the end you cannot even pay back the minimum payment because you have taken that much debt on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8
There is a world of a difference between sustainable, manageable debt and unsustainable debt and the debt levels Rangers were operating at were simply unsustainable and unmanageable. When Rangers were in deep financial trouble and were originally served with the bill for the BTC, did they prudently and sensibly make provision? No; instead they splurged yet more in the transfer market and because of this every director of Rangers at that time bears a degree of the blame for what happened.
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Borrowing money is not cheating or immoral. Paying players through dodgy tax schemes and deliberately hiding/failing to declare the intricacate fullness of players contracts is both immoral and cheating
What we are really talking about are schemes which take advantage of bad drafting to go way beyond the intent of the regulations. The people who create these schemes know full well that they will almost certainly be closed down.
Where these grubby people and their equally grubby clients make their money, is in exploiting the gap between setting up the scheme, and the under resourced bit of HMRC which deals with them, closing it down.
In the interim, they hide behind a sort of legal fiction, that what they are doing is perfectly OK, because no one has ruled on their particular absurd interpretation of the regulations yet.
ismellafix says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 14:51
If spending borrowed money to win titles is cheating then the leagues are full of them.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Borrowing money is not cheating or immoral. Paying players through dodgy tax schemes and deliberately hiding/failing to declare the intricacate fullness of players contracts is both immoral and cheating
————-
Paying players through an EBT has been judged to be legitimate and is as morally wrong as many businesses are throughout the UK.
Failing to declare the full details of payments to players, if proven, is in breach of SFA rules. I wouldn’t say it’s cheating and isn’t best decsribed as being immoral. Just wrong and it shouldn’t have happened.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:01
You would agree then that breaking the rules has consequences, and if the consequences for say an amateur team who incorrectly register a player by for example, putting on the wrong date or signing in the wrong place, results in explusion from a cup competition, or a game being marked as 0-3, then the same consequences should apply in this case?
scapaflow14 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:10
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:01
You would agree then that breaking the rules has consequences, and if the consequences for say an amateur team who incorrectly register a player by for example, putting on the wrong date or signing in the wrong place, results in explusion from a cup competition, or a game being marked as 0-3, then the same consequences should apply in this case?
————-
If they have broken the rules then, of course, there are consequences. The consequences should be fair and consistent. This isn’t up for debate surely?
Would you then agree with my original point – CW is respnsible for RFC going into administration and subsequent liquidation; and, until proven otherwise, RFC should not be described as cheats?
Businesses that conduct their tax affairs to minimise tax exposure is one thing, but a whole other category are businesses who dress wages up as something else to avoid paying PAYE and NIC.
This is recognised by HMRC. They have these forms of aggressive tax avoidance in their sights.
Not all tax avoidance is aggressive tax avoidance.
Would you then agree with my original point – CW is respnsible for RFC going into administration and subsequent liquidation; and, until proven otherwise, RFC should not be described as cheats?
——————————-
by not paying the VAT/NI/PAYE – Rangers were cheats though
so, they cheated. (with or without the EBT debate) by faling to pay social taxes
also, they have admitted not registering the full contract details with the SFA (in at least 5 cases) so they cheated again!
Also, i don’t think the BTC confirmed it was OK to pay wages through an EBT – I think they simply said that HMRC failed to prove these were contractual payments and that HMRC regarded them as loans to be repaid. slightly different
Why do you think so many RFC players got EBT loans – just a wee bonus on their salary or was it an enticement to come and play at Rangers
Also, given the club went into liquidation with huge debts – can a PLC justify handing out such amounts as discretionary bonuses?
All in all, on every level….they cheated
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:20
I would agree that the immediate catalyst for the eventual liquidation was Mr Whyte’s actions, but, his reign was the result of the actions over a long period of the previous board. To blame Mr Whyte for all the ills that have befallen rangers, is frankly stupid, and I don’t believe that you are stupid.
On the matter of the registration of players, I await the LNS panel verdict with interest, just as I await with interest the judgement of the UTT. I would submit that the FTT result was not nearly as clear cut as many in the Rangers fraternity would have us believe.
I also await the next performance of the Chuckle Brothers with , if anything, even greater interest.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:48
You are of course referring to the EBT’s where the players borrowed money from the trusts. A completely different matter and one that was legitemate until proven otherwise.
——————————————————————————————————
EBT’s may have been part of this phenomenon, but there is more to this financial mismanagement than a bit of tax dodging. For decades RFC appeared to have a champion who would dip into his deep pockets to ensure the high standards of success were maintained. (Before 1986/7 RFC won 4 league titles, in the 28 years since they have won 17, and the fans now demand it) Then we discover that Minty did not have as much money as we all thought, indeed it was HBOS who were bank rolling MIH and RFC. The share issue that flopped and Murray stepped in to save the day with 50 million…..of HBOS loans. The financial wrecklessness of those years and the impotent directors of MIH, HBOS and RFC, have left the economy in the deepest recession in living memory. The taxpayer had to bailout the debts left by Murray, and the country now struggles under the wieght of 6 years of austerity, with another 6 to look forward to. Fred Goodwin, David Murray et al now embody that disasterous period, and as a taxpayer it turns my stomach to think of the vulnerable people who are taking a kicking, whilst my taxes pay off the debt of RFC…………RFC, who draw support from one of the poorest cities in Western Europe and who shamelessly spunked 10’s of millions of other peoples money, then stand in the court of session with their pockets turn out pleading poverty………tRFC who think they can now reappear cash rich and debt free and the rest of us will look the other way and pretend this ‘great institution’ has something to offer us? They do, pay the debts, or be forever branded cheats and thieves.
Rant over (nothing personal Shield, I’m glad you contribute)
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:01
——————————————-
Paying players through EBT’s has not been deemed legal, giving them a loan has been deemed not illegal in an appeal system which is still ongoing. That may seem a little pedantic but in actual fact, it is very relevant in the context of what is about to happen in the coming months.
Part of the problem that I, and others have is that there is a line being peddled that “Rangers won the big tax case” or that EBT’s are legal (meaning you can apply them to every situation) when this is far from the truth. For that reason, we need to appear pedantic when questioning the spin.
Some posters on here will tell you that Rangers cheated, and in many cases I believe they are wrong or at least using the wrong terminology. But in some cases I believe they are correct, Rangers have in fact cheated. There are millions of pounds of unpaid tax that they have acknowledged not paying, there are players who received tax benefits they should not have received (see small tax case and at least 5 players from BTC or Dodds leaving package), Rangers have accepted that. But unfortunately this is somehow lost in the BTC mire, I don’t believe there are any doubts that someone, somewhere, feels cheated by David Murray, Craig White or even Charles Green while running or being part of Rangers Football Club.
Cheating is an emotive subject but a clear enough term, did Rangers do anything not within normal accepted rules to gain an advantage over their sporting competitors?
It’s like this crazy argument about players falling in the box when nobody touched them, some think it is acceptable and part of the game, some not. For me it is nothing to do with legality or morals, it is simply cheating!
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:20
I certainly would not agree with the idea that it was all CW’s fault and that “RFC should not be described as cheats.” Knowingly withholding registration documents from the football authorities is against the rules of Association Football ergo Rangers were cheating. For years.
You also seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that Rangers did not pay the VAT or PAYE in their final year of trading. Not Craig Whyte, but Rangers. There seems to be a fallacy that Whyte trousered the unpaid taxes when the reality is that he used it to keep Rangers trading about 3 months longer than they otherwise would have done. In effect they were cheating.
And that is wiothout mentioning the wee tax case. Tell me again; was that ever settled? Or did they cheat with that too?
And one final observation/question…perhaps you would care to tell me why a football club as big as Rangers – one trading just like most other clubs according to you – was sold for a quid to a man with a rather chequered business history?
scapaflow14 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:29
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:20
I would agree that the immediate catalyst for the eventual liquidation was Mr Whyte’s actions, but, his reign was the result of the actions over a long period of the previous board. To blame Mr Whyte for all the ills that have befallen rangers, is frankly stupid, and I don’t believe that you are stupid.
——–
I’m not blaming CW for everything. I am simply saying that he was 100% responsible for RFC going into administration and that if someone more responsible had taken over, they might still be playing in the SPL today. Albeit, struggling due to the major cutbacks required.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:37
Your problem there is that the previous board had created such a mess, that the only type that would be interested in taking the club on would be a bottom feeder. What should be concerning you now, is the very real possibility that the only difference bewteen the old and the new is their shoe size….. only time will tell.
Arabest hit the nail on the head there. It really turns the stomach of any fair minded, hard working taxpayer the way Rangers behaved under Murray and latterly Whyte. Cash rich and debt free indeed. I won’t have as much a problem with that mind you when the titles are stripped and the 140 years of unbroken history nonsense is finally put to bed. As it should have been last summer.
Would you then agree with my original point – CW is respnsible for RFC going into administration and subsequent liquidation; and, until proven otherwise, RFC should not be described as cheats?
_____
To use another analogy, CW may have been the helmsman when the boat hit the rocks but it was the previous helmsman who had set the course. Saying “here, take the wheel,” at the last minute does not absolve you of responsibility for all that happened before.
That vessel has now of course sunk. However the wreckers got some bits off it and bolted them on to a bright shiny new ship. Whether this new one is already holed below the waterline, we will know shortly. And don’t believe the cook when he tells you there is no horsemeat in the galley!
Phil MacGiollaBhain (@Pmacgiollabhain)
14/02/2013 15:39
I just heard a well placed little whisper that the LNS inquiry is nearing a verdict.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 14:17
1 8 Rate This
wottpi says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 14:07
I agree wottpi, it goes beyond both football and the remit of TSFM. Ignorance is bliss, as far as I’m concerned, when it come to the frightening world of the current banking system.
Precisely why I argue that up until CW took over, Rangers were doing nothing out unusual………financially!
=============================================
From around 2008 Rangers were the corporate equivalent of the walking dead…. financially.
EBT’s were always a risk – and perhaps still are – for every company who used them. Rangers version of the scheme was so poorly implemented, that – once uncovered – no-one within MIH or Rangers seriously believed that they (Rangers) would not eventually be liable for a massive bill.
I think there was a degree of optimism over the MIH employee’s sub-trust payments; but the RFC side letters showed pretty conclusively that the vast majority of the football player sub-trust payments were contractual. Of course, there was an arguable case – indeed, their case, for now, prevails; but it was generally considered that HMRC’s arguments were much more compelling.
Prior to the verdict I calculated that Rangers had a 10 – 20% chance of winning the FTT(T). I think they now have perhaps a 25 – 33% chance of prevailing at the UTT.
But, if Rangers had lost the FTT(T), I think they would only have had perhaps a 5 – 10% chance of overturning that decision at the UTT.
There is no evidence that HMRC were ever (ever!) going to agree a CVA. So, prior to the FTT(T) decision, any potential buyer/investor was facing an 80 – 90% probability that the club would be liquidated.
It was under this cloud that Craig Whyte was set to work. He may have administered the fatal blow in 2011/12; but there was no realistic alternative business plan for at least 3 years before his reign began.
The planned time-scales may have gone awry – due to the early exit from Euro competitions and the delayed announcement of FTT(T) determination; but there is no possibility that CW – or any other new owner – would have spent any of their own cash in an enterprise that was simply waiting to implode.
So far, every official decision has been FOR RFC/Sevco – i don’t see LNS breaking that trend
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:57
Not every decision has gone for them, otherwise there would have been no need to trot off to court?
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:56
HirsutePursuit, I’d be interested to know your assesment of the intentions by either the Blue Knights or Brian Kennedy. Surely they would have made the same assessment. If so, were we fed a pack of lies from them also? (they were adamant that a CVA would have worked).
Shield2012. Their CVA’s might have stood at least a better chance of working. The Blue Knights proposed (from memory) something like a 42p in the £ solution for creditors. They were told to go away. Disappear. There was only going to be one buyer. Charles Green.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/my-budding-media-career-cruelly-delayed-im-not-on-sportsound-tonight/
bbc sportsound discussion on The rangers and social media tonight has been pulled
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 16:06
Perhaps the conduct of D&P in this regard would be fruitful, I certainly hope BDO think so
angus1983 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 12:26
Administration / liquidation? Seems the generally acepted view is that Rangers went into admin and flirted with liquidation before recovering miraculously.
See, for example, this piece:
“Since being plunged into administration during the 2011/12 season Rangers have gone through a turbulent time. They have been on the brink of liquidation and were subsequently demoted to the Third Division. However, the 2012/13 campaign has been highly positive on the pitch with the Gers sitting top of the league and a comfortable 20 points clear of second-placed Queen’s Park.”
……………………………………………….
Astonishing how some can publish a bare faced lie and pass it off as a fact!
It’s as if this so called demotion prevented liquidation…..a liquidation that took place last year….a demotion that never actually took place….
Rangers Football Club PLC still existed when The Rangers Football Club Limited where granted entry into SFL3…
The continuation of lies and dishonesty will only get worse if we allow it to go unchallenged!
andy says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 16:15
Noticed Paul’s blog and Scotzine twitters
It looks like it may be a one off with no-one from the T’Rangers camp being free to appear.
However it will be interesting to see what happens if broadcasters can’t get someone to represent T’Rangers next time round or the time after that.
.
Surely at some point they will just have to proceed and issue the Newsnight type comment that “Invitations were made to representatives of Rangers and/or their supporters groups to participate in this debate/article but these invitations were declined”.
Showing my age – that should have read….Scotzine TWEETS!!
Borrowing in itself is not the problem, an unsustainable financial model is. There is good spending-borrowed-money, which is not cheating (to smooth out cashflow over summer months, or allow larger capital projects such as a new ground or upgrading facilities) and bad spending-borrowed-money, which is (flashing the cash to hoover up players to keep them out of other clubs’ hands then sticking them in the reserves, paying salaries that you can only afford to repay if you go on a run of champions league quarter-final appearances). If your repayments depend on crossed fingers that a sugar daddy will appear or local authority will bale you out whatever happens (see Chelsea / Real Madrid), you absolutely HAVE to be successful on the pitch or face a very public disgrace (see Leeds / Rangers).
shield2012 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 16:06
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 15:56
HirsutePursuit, I’d be interested to know your assesment of the intentions by either the Blue Knights or Brian Kennedy. Surely they would have made the same assessment. If so, were we fed a pack of lies from them also? (they were adamant that a CVA would have worked).
—————————————
The Blue Knights wanted to pay D&P (from memory) around £1m and let the majority of the Ticketus contract continue – thereby taking £27m out of the creditors list. If they had a 10 – 20% chance of success (re the EBT case), staking £1m or £2m to win £20m of assets wasn’t a bad bet.
Brian Kennedy made the point that he recognized that Rangers were not a viable business opportunity and that any investment needed to be viewed in a philanthropic way. In any case, because of his difficulties in South Africa, I’m not sure that he was legally able to make any personal investment. In the most part, take his part in proceedings with a fair degree of scepticism.
” Their CVA’s might have stood at least a better chance of working. The Blue Knights proposed (from memory) something like a 42p in the £ solution for creditors. ”
A CVA will not be countenanced by HMRC where there has been non-payment of VAT, PAYE or ENIC. End of. 42p in the quid offer might as well have been 99p – it would have been refused.
HMRC operate this policy due to the moral hazard any other might represent. Businesses up and down the country would use such tax for working capital with a view to arguing poverty later. Kick the tax bill down the road a bit and hope to get away with some – you’d be stupid not to try it!!
Watching the exchange this afternoon, hat off to all involved. I have heard many decent debates from bears, well put over and well thought out. But the whole episode with D&D is where every reasoned debate falls over, scullduggery at every turn to ensure that the full extent of what took place would never come to light, and debate can be formed at a later date in the form of denial.
CO is hand placed, TGEF hand picked, CG hand picked. D&D hand picked. Lord Hodge, LNS and BDO look suspiciously like part of the plan or at least unwilling to be against it. And for what? Only the blind will see it for something other than what it was. Cheating. And failure to accept that is what it was, will guarantee the stigma for a long time to come.
sheild2012.
CW was at the wheel when you went into admin, but admin was an unavoidable certainty, particularly after you went out of Europe. RFC were spending more than they brought in, not because of CW but because of the previous regime. It is for this reason, combined with the tax cases both Wee and Big that Murray sold RFC for £1 to the Motherwell-born Billionaire.
What CW did, out of complete necessity, was avoid settling the Wee tax case and used PAYE/NIC as cash to get by. Even if Richard Branson or the Dalai Lama was in charge Rangers could not have avoided administration; they had run out of cash, run out of credit and run out of ideas.
Not paying over tax collected and creating schemes to avoid paying tax, or even evade paying tax, was designed to give Rangers an advantage, an unfair advantage. This was cheating, cheating the Revenue and cheating the rest of the competition.
What Rangers never really attempted to do was live within their means. Why? Who knows but I guess that’s what other Diddy clubs do, plus it would hand the advantage to Celtic; anathema to everyone connected with the Club.
No, much better to run the ship aground, scuttle it and hope to reemerge on the other side ‘debt-free’ and ‘cash rich’, but the stark reality was most folk in Scottish football saw that you’d lived on tick, never taken your medicine (cutting cost, reducing quality, breaking even) yet expected to be able to restart where the oldclub left off. Sure you’d paid some debt off but your outgoings were still too much if you didn’t get European football every year.
These, sadly, are the facts. The emergence of newco/club into Div 4 has nothing to do with hatred, and very little to with Whyte either. Rangers were built on sand, or more accurately cheap credit, when that ran out, you hit the wall.
HP,was it not D King who had problems in SA.
ratethisthenyabampots says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 16:12
Rate This
Shield2012. Their CVA’s might have stood at least a better chance of working. The Blue Knights proposed (from memory) something like a 42p in the £ solution for creditors. They were told to go away. Disappear. There was only going to be one buyer. Charles Green.
Is’nt this the big point very seldom covered here. All the other consortiums around at the time were mere window dressing. There was never a chance of any of them getting their hands on RFC. The whole thing was a sham and Green was selected back in February 2012 to take the helm and steer HMS Cashcow in the pr designed course. IMHO.
Charles Green….
The man with the midas touch ? or the man with the silver tongue ? or maybe just the man who brings toxicity wherever he turns up (usually not for very long )
Lets look at his history
Sheffield United
Before we look at the period when Green was involved, lets look at where they are today.
Last 3 years financials
Financial Year ended 06/12 Loss £12.98 million
Financial year ended 06/11 Loss £13.59 million
Financial year ended 06/10 Loss £18.79 million
Turnover dropped over a 4 year period from £32 million to todays £10 million
Naturally its balance sheet looks like it has been on far too many nights with Campbell Ogilvie and Chic Young , as the business teeters on the edge of insolvency, with the subsidiary football club insolvent to the tune of £29 million and the plc down to its last few coppers, enough to cover approximately 5 weeks at Sheffield Uniteds current rate of collapse
The funny thing is Green is extraordinarily proud of this, quoting his involvement in the prospectus and bragging about it on a regular basis
Any reasonable view would say this is a basket case business.
However what did Green achieve in his very short time at Sheffield United ? Well he certainly didn’t leave a legacy of success or build a profitable business model. From a business perspective Sheffield United have been a disaster.
In the 11 years following Green riding into Sheffield and making many of the claims he makes today about Rangers, they lost money in 10 of those years. In the last 20 years they have played only a single solitary season in the Premier League, and are currently in the English 3rd tier
Regardless of what Green now claims , he was an unmitigated disaster at Sheffield United. Nigel Spackman lasted 8 months and Steve Bruce lasted a year, both complaining bitterly of boardroom interference from Green.
There’s quite a bit more to be written on Green, however, that can wait for another day Rangers fans should be very worried. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Green has either the business ability or track record for the job required. His relevant history at Sheffield United suggests another disaster looms, and with Stockbridge being a novice and Malcolm Murray floundering around like a man desperately in need of a life raft, there appears no safe haven from Hurricane Chuckles
Tic 6709 says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 17:07
6 0 Rate This
HP,was it not D King who had problems in SA.
======================
Sorry, of course. DOH! 🙁
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/one-year-after-rangers-administration-1709656
From 09.14 on. Backs up what we know. The info from “inside the room at Ibrox” about CW panicking for 30mins until D&P were appointed administrators is very enlightening. They are all linked.
Looks like a picked a prescient time to discuss the “mythology”!
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/12-months-on-exploding-the-myths/
C’mon mods, get my post out. Of moderation !!
[BP – nothing in moderation BB]
It is cheating to play players in matches when you know that they are not properly registered because you have not disclosed all the financial payments they will get for playing to the authorities despite the rules indicating that you should. When you know that they should not be playing, but you play them anyway – that is cheating. You are hoping to gain an unfair advantage in doing so.
If any team has done that unknowingly, it is an error. Nonetheless, the unfair advantage gained is overturned.
If any team has done that knowingly – it is cheating. That team are entitled to be called cheats.
ratethisthenyabampots says:
Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 17:34
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/one-year-after-rangers-administration-1709656
From 09.14 on. Backs up what we know. The info from “inside the room at Ibrox” about CW panicking for 30mins until D&P were appointed administrators is very enlightening. They are all linked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You bet he panicked. Remember that at that time he had an agreement with David Grier to do a quick, clean administartion, shed the debt and hand him back the club, debt free for a total of £500k. It had to be D&D for him or the plan was lost
In the face of strenuous objection by HMRC, Lord Hodge appointed the apparently heavily conflicted administrators, Duff & Phelps. I think it was last July that LH then asked D&P to report on that suspected confliction. Has there been any progress on that? Will it be quietly forgotten? It would be strange if the professional body is not very concerned.
I’ve shared this elsewhere previously, but here is part of an email I sent the Record Hotline:
BTW, have none of the Record’s fans-with-NUJ-cards got the price of a Sunday Times (£2.20)? Their Rich List is published today, and no mention of your mannie Whyte. Net worth, therefore, somewhere south of £70million. Some “billionaire”.
I sent it on May 8th, 2011. And I don’t pretend to be uniquely knowledgeable, they must have had dozens pointing out the same or similar. So much for the penny not dropping until much later.
when we discuss the DM EBT issues , did payments that were not part of the players contract start then or did they start in the SFL div 1 era ?
sorry should have said did payments that were not part of the players contract start during the SPL era or did they start in the SFL era ?
Danish and madbhoy24941.
Sorry for not responding until now.
You’re right that my observation was unfair on Tom English as he has been (mostly) one of the better commentators. So my apologies to Tom. That said, it really wrankles with me when Whyte is blamed 100% for Rangers demise…. and that seemed to be the inference of Tom’s comment about the failure to pay £15m.
Listening to BBC Sportsound just now and it seems Stuart Cosgrove and Graha Spiers agree with me.
on the first administration day it is worth mentioning one hero of this omnishambles
Alistair Murdoch McOist
Without whom Rangers FC may not have lost to Maribor and Malmo and the extra european income would have meant that the Tax and NI would have been paid
And liquidation avoided at least for another season