Good Afternoon.
Announcing outstanding financial successes for Rangers PLC the then Chairman of the club opened his Chairman’s report in the annual financial statements with the following words:
“Last summer I explained that the Club, after many years of significant investment in our playing squad
and more recently in our state of the art facility at Murray Park, had embarked on a three year business
plan to stabilise and improve the Club’s finances. The plan also recognised the need to react to the
challenging economic conditions facing football clubs around the world.
Following a trend over a number of years of increasing year on year losses, I am pleased to report that
in the first year of this plan we have made important progress by reversing this trend. Our trading loss
for last year of £11.2m reflects a £7.9m improvement versus the £19.1m loss for the previous year and
although it will take more time to completely reach our goals, this is a key milestone. We also intend to
make significant further progress by the end of the current financial year. This improvement is the
consequence of having a solid strategy and the commitment and energy to implement the changes it requires”
Later on in the same statement the chairman would add:
“Another key part of our plan is associated with the Rangers brand and our Retail Division goes from strength to strength. Our financial results this year have been significantly enhanced by an outstanding performance in merchandising Rangers products, in particular replica kit, which makes our Retail Division one of the most successful in Europe.”
In the same set of financial reports, the CEO would report:
“To further strengthen Rangers hospitality portfolio, a new dedicated sponsor’s lounge was unveiled this season. The Carling Lounge is a first for the Club and was developed in conjunction with our new sponsor, Carling. ”
and
“Our innovative events programme continues to grow and this year saw a record number of official events including the highly successful annual Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony, Player of the Year and 50 Championships Gala Dinner, all of which catered for up to 1000 guests.
At Rangers, we continually develop our portfolio of products and as a key area of income for the Club, we evaluate the market for new revenue opportunities on an ongoing basis in order to exceed our existing and potential customer expectations and needs.
Demand for season tickets reached an all time high last season with a record 42,508 season ticket holders in comparison with the previous season`s figure of 40,320. Over 36,000 of these season ticket holders renewed for this season – a record number.
For the new season, we are delighted to welcome brewing giant, Carling on board as our Official Club sponsor. Carling is one of the UK’s leading consumer brands with a proven track record in football sponsorship.
The Club also continues to work with a number of multinational blue chip brands such as National Car Rental, Sony Playstation 2, Bank of Scotland and Coca-Cola. This year, we will also experience the evolution of the Honda deal via Hyndland Honda and welcome the mobile communications giant T-Mobile to our ranks.”.
The year was 2003 and in the previous 24 months Rangers Football Club, owned and operated as a private fiefdom by Sir David Murray, had made operational losses of some £30 million.
Yes – 30 MILLION POUNDS.
Of course the chairman’s report for 2003 was written by John F Mclelland CBE and the CEO was one Martin Bain Esq.
As Mr Mclelland clearly stated, by 2003 the club already had a trend of increasing year on year losses covering a number of years and was losing annual sums which stretched into millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds.
However, the acquisition of Rangers Football Club was absolutely vital to David Murray’s personal business growth, and his complete control of the club as his own private business key was more important than any other business decision he had made before buying Rangers or since.
When he persuaded Gavin Masterton to finance 100% of the purchase price of the club, Murray had his finest business moment.
By getting control of Rangers, Murray was able to offer entertainment, hospitality, seeming privilege and bestow favour on others in a way that was hitherto undreamed of, and he bestowed that largesse on any number of “existing and potential clients” and contacts – be they the clients and contacts related to Rangers Football Club or the existing and potential clients of David Murray, his businesses, his banks, or anyone in any field that he chose to court for the purposes of potential business.
His business.
It wasn’t only journalists who benefited from the succulent lamb treatment.
Accountants,lawyers, surveyors, broadcasters, football officials, people in industry and construction, utilities, financiers and other areas of business were all invited inside the sacred House of Murray and given access to the great man of business “and owner of Rangers” while attending the “record number of official (hospitality) events”.
Twelve months on from when John McLelland made those statements in the 2003 accounts, David Murray was back in the chair at Ibrox and he presented the 2004 financials.
In the intervening 12 months Rangers had gained an additional £10 million from Champions League income and had received £8.6 million in transfer fees from the sale of Messrs Ferguson, Amoruso and McCann. Not only that, the Rangers board had managed to reduce the club’s wage bill by £5 million. Taking all three figures together comes to some £23.6 million in extra income or savings.
Yet, the accounts for 2004 showed that the club made an operational loss of almost £6 million and overall debt had risen by an additional £7 million to £97.4 million.
However, the 2004 accounts were also interesting for another reason.
Rangers PLC had introduced payments “to employees trusts” into their accounts for the first time in 2001 and in that year they had paid £1million into those trusts. Just three years later, the trust payments recorded in the accounts had risen to £7.3 million per annum — or to put it another way to 25% of the annual wage bill though no one in Scottish Football asked any questions about that!
By the following year, the chairman announced that the 2004 operational loss had in fact been £10.4million but that the good news was that the 2005 operational loss was only £7.8 million. However Rangers were able to post a profit before taxation if they included the money obtained from transfers (£8.4 million) and the inclusion of an extraordinary profit of £14,999,999 made on buying back the shares of a subsidiary company for £1 which they had previously sold for £15 million.
All of which added up to a whopping great profit of ……… £12.4 million!
I will leave you to do the maths on 2005.
Oh and of course these accounts included the detail that 3000 Rangers fans had joined David Murray in participating in the November ’94 share issue where the club managed to raise £51,430,995 in fresh capital most of which was provided by Mr Murray… sorry I mean MIH ….. sorry that should read Bank of Scotland …… or their shareholders……. or should that be the public purse?
The notable items in the 2006 accounts included the announcement of a ten year deal with JJB Sports to take over the merchandising operation of the club and increased revenue from an extended run in the Champion’s League. However, the profit before tax was declared at only£0.1 million in comparison to the £12.4 million of the year before but then again that £12.4 million had included player sales of £8.4 million and the £15 million sweety bonus from the repurchase of ones own former subsidiary shares for £1.
Jumping to 2008 Rangers saw a record year in terms of turnover which had risen to £64.5 million which enabled the company to record a profit on ordinary activities before taxation of £6.57 million although it should be pointed out that wages and bonuses were up at 77% of turnover and that a big factor in the Rangers income stream was corporate hospitality and the top line of income was shown as “gate receipts and hospitality”.
However, 2009 saw a calamitous set of figures. Whilst Alastair Johnston tried to put a brave chairman’s face on it, the year saw an operating loss of £17.325 million which was softened only by player disposals leading to a loss before taxation of a mere £14.085 million.
Fortunately Sir David did not have to report these figures as he chose to stand down as chairman in August and so Johnston stepped in and announced that he was deeply honoured to do so.
In 2010, the income stream jumped from £39.7 million to over £56 million with the result that the club showed a profit before taxation of £4.209 million.
However, by that time the corporate hospitality ticket that was Rangers Football Club was done for as a result of matters that had nothing to do with events on the football field in the main.
First, the emergence of the Fergus McCann run Celtic had brought a real business and sporting challenge. This was something that Murray had not previously faced in the football business.
Second,the Bank of Scotland had gone bust and Lloyds could not and would not allow Murray to continually borrow vast sums of money on the basis of revalued assets and outrageous hospitality.
Third, the UEFA fair play rules came into being and demanded that clubs at least act on a semblance of proper corporate governance and fiscal propriety.
Lastly,Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tightened up the law on the use of EBT’s which meant that Rangers could no longer afford to buy in the players that brought almost guaranteed success against domestic opposition.
On average, since 2002 Rangers PLC had lost between £7 million – £8 million per year – or roughly £650,000 per month if you like – yet for the better part of a decade David Murray had been able to persuade the Bank of Scotland that this was a business that was worthy of ever greater financial support or that he himself and his MIH business was of such value that the Banks should support him in supporting the Ibrox club whilst operating in this fashion.
Of course, had Murray’s Rangers paid tax on all player remunerations then the losses would have been far larger.
Meanwhile, all the other clubs in Scottish football who banked with the Bank of Scotland faced funding cuts and demands for repayment with the bank publicly proclaiming that it was overexposed to the football market in Scotland.
But no one asked any questions about why the bank should act one way with Murray’s club but another way with all others. No one in football, no one in the media and no one from the world of business.
Looking back,it is hard to imagine a business which has been run on such a consistent loss making basis being allowed to continue by either its owners or by its bankers. However, a successful and funded Rangers was so important to the Murray group that David Murray was clearly willing to lose millions year after year to keep the Gala dinners and corporate hospitality going.
Rangers were Murray’s big PR vehicle and the club was essentially used by him to open the doors which would allow him to make more money elsewhere on a personal basis and if it meant Rangers cutting every corner and accumulating massive losses, unsustainable losses, then so be it.
Today, the new regime at Ibrox run the current business in a way which clocks up the same colossal annual losses whilst the club competes outwith Scotland’s top division. Each day we hear that the wage bill is unsustainable, that the playing staff are overpaid, that the stadium needs massive investment and that the fans are opposed to the stadium itself being mortgaged and the club being in hawk to lenders.
Yet, in the Murray era the Stadium was revalued time and time again and its revaluation was used as the justification for ever greater borrowing on the Rangers accounts. The playing staff were massively overpaid and financially assisted by the EBT’s and most years the Chairman’s annual statement announced huge losses despite regular claims of record season ticket sales, record hospitality income, European income, shirt sponsorship and the outsourcing of all merchandising to JJB sports instead of Sports Direct.
The comparison between the old business and the current one is clear for all to see.
It should be noted, that since the days of Murray, no major banking institution has agreed to provide the Ibrox business with any banking facilities. Not under Whyte, not under Green, not under anyone.
Yet few ask why that should be.
The destruction of the old Rangers business led those in charge of Scottish football to announce that Armageddon was on the horizon if it had not actually arrived, yet today virtually all Scottish clubs are in a better financial and business state than back in the bad old days of the Bank of Scotland financed SPL. Some have succumbed to insolvency, and others have simply cut their cloth, changed their structure, sought, and in some cases attracted, new owners and moved on in terms of business.
In general, Scottish Football has cleaned house at club level.
Now, David Murray has “cleaned house” in that MIH has bitten the dust and walked down insolvency road.
What is interesting is that the Murray brand still has that capacity to get out a good PR message when it needs to. Despite the MIH pension fund being short of money for some inexplicable reason, last week it was announced that the family controlled Murray Estates had approached those in charge of MIH and had agreed to buy some key MIH assets for something in the region of £13.9 million.
The assets concerned are land banks which at some point will be zoned for planning and which will undoubtedly bring the Murray family considerable profit in the future, with some of those assets already looking as if they will produce a return sooner rather than later.
However, what is not commented upon in the mainstream press is the fact that Murray Estates had the ability to pay £13.9 Million for anything at all and that having that amount of money to spend the Murray camp has chosen not to buy any football club down Govan way.
Perhaps, it has been realised that a football club which loses millions of pounds each year is not such a shrewd investment and that the Murray family money would be better spent elsewhere?
Perhaps, it has been realised that the culture of wining, dining, partying and entertaining to the most lavish and extravagant extent will not result in the banks opening their vaults any more?
Perhaps, it has been realised that the Rangers brand has been so badly damaged over the years that it is no longer the key to the golden door in terms of business, finance and banking and that running a football club in 2015 involves a discipline and a set of skills that David Murray and his team do not have experience of?
What is clear, is that the Murray years at Ibrox were not good for the average Rangers fan in the long term and that when you have a football club – any football club – being run for the private benefit of one rich individual, or group of individuals, then the feelings and passions of the ordinary fan will as often as not be forgotten when that individual or his group choose to move on once they have decided that they no longer wish to play with their toy football club.
David Murray did not make money directly out of Rangers Football Club. He used it as a key to open other doors for him and to get him a seat at other tables and into a different type of “club” altogether. He did not run the club in a day to day fashion that was designed to bring stability and prolonged financial, or playing, success to the club. its investors and its fans. He did not preside over Ibrox during a period of sustained financial gain.
Mike Ashley will not subsidise 2015 version of Rangers to anything like the same extent that the Bank of Scotland did in the 90’s and naughties.
However, Ashley, like Murray, will use his control of the Rangers brand to open doors for him elsewhere in the sports retail market, and he will use the Rangers contract with Sports Direct to make a handsome profit. He will also control all the advertising revenue just as he does at Newcastle. In short, Mr Ashley is only interested in The Rangers with a view to using it as a stepping stone to achieve other things elsewhere.
However, don’t take my word for any of this, take the opinion of someone who knows.
Mr Dave King is quoted today as saying the following about the current board of Directors who are in charge of the current Ibrox holding company.
“History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”
That is an interesting observation from a man who became a non executive director of the old Rangers holding company in 2000 and who had a front row pew for every set of accounts and all the financial statements referred to above.
Whether or not Mr King is a glib and shameless liar is a matter of South African judicial opinion. Whether or not he can spot someone who puts their own self interest ahead of the interests of Rangers Football Club and the supporters of the club is a matter that should be discussed over some fine wine, some succulent lamb and whatever postprandial entertainment you care to imagine.
I wonder if he has ever read the accounts of Rangers PLC and compared them to the corresponding accounts of MIH for the same period?
This is an extract from the SPFL criteria for clubs to be a member. If what Phil has written is true, that there is a rental payment for Ipox, then the SPFL must know who the rent is paid to. The more this excuse of a football team lingers on the more corruption in the Scottish game will become apparent. SPFL and SFA have only one agenda and tht is to have Sevco playimg in the top league one way or the other.
D4.3 a Club participating in the League must:-
D4.3.1. itself, or through a subsidiary or holding company of such Club, own its Registered Ground; or
D4.3.2. have such other rights of occupation or tenure in its Registered Ground as may be approved by the Board;
D4.4 any ground which a Club or the Candidate Club registers or is deemed to have registered as its Registered Ground, must, by not later than 31st March preceding any Season and for the whole of that Season
Had another read at PMGB’s latest blog, trying to get my head round the ‘rental income’ reference and wondering if this was what Phil was referring to when he said a Sevco watcher had told him it looked like Ashley had come to an agreement with the ‘offshore chaps’.
I had thought he meant he’d agreed to sort it out, to TRFC’s benefit, by buying them off. I was thinking that Mike had some interest in making TRFC profitable, and that to do this he had to get rid of those pesky contracts.
Then it dawned on me (slow, I know), he only owns 9% of RIFC, hardly enough to make a difference whether or not they make a profit! So he has no reason to put his hand in his pocket to rid the club of spivs, as the other onerous contracts, over and above his own, don’t reduce his profitability one bit. In fact, if his plan is to gain more and more control, they help him. Maybe any agreement reached is one that is mutually beneficial, but not to a football club!
I wonder, too, how any such large sums, £3.3m a year according to Phil’s sources, wouldn’t stick out in the accounts, but maybe payment has been deferred for a couple of years, either on a rent free basis, or maybe the first two years rent fell due in December 2014. Six and a half million quid ring any bells, anyone?
I wonder if this ‘agreement’ was reached as Ashley has just discovered this ‘rental’ onerous contract, and Ashley has got the spivs to hold off for a month or two, to allow him time to get all his retail deals in place, with loans all nicely secured, before the spivs come in to lay claim to Ibrox.
Carfins Finest says:
January 27, 2015 at 9:12 pm
Since the start of the season TRFC have had £13 million in loans from mike Ashley. They raised around £4 million with a share issue and started with around £7 million of SB money. That’s £24 million and its not even the end of January. The likelihood is more funds needed before the end of the season. So at the start of the season TRFC did not have the funds to complete their fixtures. Is there not a law against that sort of thing?
————————-
Please don’t forget to add Mr. Easdale’s £500,000 loan to that tally.
Allyjambo says:
January 27, 2015 at 9:53 pm
I hear what you say but then why nove against their man on the Board? What’s that about?
ecobhoy says:
January 27, 2015 at 10:02 pm
Window dressing?
@AllyJ
Yes, what kind of deal could MA reach with those in the background? If he’s really ambitious he could buy them out. He has the dosh. Perhaps he’s simply miscalculated or misread the fans, though. He sees the NU supporters turn up faithfully and probably expected the 40-50,000 to continue rolling into Ibrox.
So what now? He sees fewer and fewer fans, though is sitting with most of the assets. What’s his plan B?
The 3 Bears offer was highly unlikely to be accepted . In fact it seems me it was couched in terms which made it unacceptable on purpose.
Lets look at the offer .
“Our final offer to the Board was for a facility totalling £6.5m. A £4.5m tranche of the facility could be converted to equity at a future share issue (which we would partially underwrite). ”
When you examine that , it would require the resolution for disapplication of pre-emption rights to be passed first of all. Now this was roundly defeated only 7 weeks ago. The resolution requires 75% support , yet managed only less than 45%.
No responsible board could possibly accept an offer based on the need for a resolution that was so overwhelmingly rejected only a few weeks ago.Especially when there is a viable alternative available that does not conflict with shareholders recently expressed views
Secondly , it would in any event require the support of the Easdale proxy vote. The Easdales could defeat this resolution on their own. Yet the 3 Bears are trying to sack Easdale. If anything proves they are playing to the gallery , it is this preference for a cheap headline rather than dealing in real world business politique.
“To the extent that this was not converted to equity it would remain available to the club as a loan for 2 years at an interest rate of 2%.”
2 years is not much use for Rangers . They need more than the 3 Bears are offering and they need it available over a much longer period. What happens after 2 years ? Will the 3 Bears roll it over ? will they charge a facility fee ? What will the rate be ?
” A £2m tranche of the facility was for short term working capital purposes to be repaid in 12 months and interest free. £1m of this tranche was available unsecured until the current notice relating to Murray Park expired”
The comments above apply, with even more relevance. The last thing Rangers need is to be constantly looking at a series of deadlines for significant cash repayment.
“It was a condition of our facility that the £3m MASH loan be repaid and that security be given to us over Murray Park, Edmiston House and Albion. Our request for a negative pledge on Ibrox to prevent it being used by anyone else as security was not accepted”
The terms of the MASH loan contains an interest free repayment. Yet the 3 Bears want to fix a 2 % charge to replace interest free money on 33% of the Mash loan. Why would a board recommend an increase in costs ?
Now the 3 Bears have made much play of the fact that Ashley is gaining a further 26% in Rangers Retail. They claim that will cost Rangers more than their 2% interest charge . That claim though is of course easy to make for a headline, however doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The ability of RIFC to receive dividends from Rangers Retail is dependent on decisions made by Sports Direct. Even though RIFC owned 51% of Rangers Retail , prior to this new loan , financial decisions were deferred to Sports Direct based on the shareholder agreement and the articles.
Therefore any decision that Ashley makes that results in strengthening the balance sheet for future growth , rather than paying out profits via dividends to shareholders, cannot be successfully opposed by RIFC.
Its obvious therefore that you cannot claim that RIFC will automatically incur cash flow losses by Ashley gaining further ( short term ) equity in Rangers Retail. What is certain though is that the 3 Bears offer will increase costs and because of the short term nature of the loans , uncertainty will continue to damage the company.
So was the loan offer from the 3 Bears made in the knowledge it could not be accepted, but would provide yet more “Good guy / Bad guy ” headlines ?
Danish Pastry says:
January 27, 2015 at 10:07 pm
My first thoughts were that he might buy them out, but why should he? If his main aim is to tie up the retail side, then he’s achieved that. It would undoubtedly improve his retail income if TRFC were to do well, but not so certain that any increase would cover the cost of doing well. If the rental contract (if it exists) is anything like what Phil said, then it’s going to take a lot more money to buy it back, or take ownership for himself or SD, than it’s ever going to be worth. Why not just leave things as they are while concentrating on the unencumbered assets?
I see Ashley as being in a no-lose situation, with his own men running the board and safeguarding his interest. Whatever happens, he comes out on top. If he commits too much money, though, he might not.
I agree with Resin that Novo expulsion from the training ground is deliberate, especially as it doesn’t save a wage or much in the way of the resources he will have been using up. Plus his club’s new season starts on April 4, and if they do a decent pre-season, Nacho would have been saying his goodbyes in a couple of weeks anyway, at most.
I have no idea who Rangers First are or what their motivations might be, but if Resin is right and it’s a body that has set itself up in opposition to the board, Nacho was taking the board’s hospitality a bit far.
If your invited guests start campaigning to oust you, you need to rethink the situation. But you could have a quiet word in his ear and suggest he train somewhere else. To do it this way is clearly meant to convey more than feeling a bit let down by Nacho’s lack of manners.
Hi Audheid,
I agree that Celtic and Rangers pushed each other and could not afford to drop many points as was shown during the Tommy burns era when he was pipped for the league. He produced one of the most exciting Celtic teams. Celtic could afford a better quality of player now but choose to have a large squad rather than a better quality backbone of the team with Scottish players filling the remaining places.
Rangers under Ashley are likely to have all their income streams tied up. With that handicap, i think they will always be capable of getting a result but will be a top 4 or 5 team, not necessarily a league contender every season.
As Aberdeen have shown this season someone will always rise to take up the opportunity to challenge and Scottish football will benefit. Even with a large squad, Celtic do not have the squad quality to fill every position should an injury occur. Teams need to live within their means, which in turn should provide more competition.
Rangers could beat Celitc on sunday but in reality, it will just be papering over the divisions.
Auldheid says:
January 27, 2015 at 7:39 pm
=======================
I got thinking about how a returning Rangers will make the top tier more competitive. Mark Guidi prompted it on SSB talking about “the edge” bringing the crowds back.
TRFC’s absence means Celtic do not face same risk of losing up to 12 points a season, but so too do other clubs. The difference is that Celtic on balance will not lose as many points to the other clubs as they will take off each other. That is what dulls “the edge”
The edge for Celtic fans came from the “strong” TRFC (pre 2012) result knowing that dropping a single point or even not scoring one more goal could cost the title.
However that strong TRFC is not going to be the same standard of opposition as before. Celtic might lose more than the 12 points not presently at risk, but are the other clubs going to lose the same number of points to TRFC as they did pre 2012?
So if it is “the edge” that brings the crowds in, the question is will the edge in fact return or will Celtic still benefit from the spread of points that the other clubs take from each other?
Always assuming Celtic’s healthier financial state allows them to afford more players of better quality than the rest.
Any mathematicians want to do the sums?
—————————————–
I have only given it 2 minutes thought but here are some points.
1. All other things being equal, the richer a club is, the better the team it should have. (But all other things aren’t equal, which is one reason football is the game it is). Nevertheless, you would expect Celtic, and to a lesser extent Rangers, to prosper relative to other city clubs, who will in turn tend to out-perform the smaller clubs.
2. Self-belief is a factor. Any player currently playing for a diddy team half-expects to lose at Ibrox and Celtic Park. In the old days (i.e. when the Old Firm played in the top division) this made it hard for any diddy team to get any momentum going as pretty much every month they would get a beating off one half of the old firm or other.
3. Derby matches can be levellers – “form goes out the window”
4. If the result is not important, performances will dip (either due to team selection, or players “cruise”). I think you call this lack of “edge”.
I think point 4 is why Celtic may be underperforming, coupled with personnel changes (“one step backwards to go 2 forwards”) and point 2 is why other teams are doing well.
Were there a Rangers in the top division, I think some of these factors would work in opposite ways. Celtic would drop more than their fair share of points in matches against Rangers due to their random nature; other teams will also drop more than their fair share due to lack of self belief. Over time, the Ibrox effect will be dissipated, and sooner or later a team will realise they are good enough. At that point there could be a genuine (non-Rangers) title challenge.
Just reading about the antics of the bold IGNACIO NOVO
( yes that was how he was described just once on a match programme last year …and I assume the masses ranks know he was probably the first ever ‘Ignatius ‘ to play at a certain very inclusive club )
prompted me to think of those players where Rangers admitted tax evasion on the main EBT case .ie On top of the well known guilty trio on DOS …
Before my time but did the RTC blog ever Cover what the sporting implications should have been on these guilty cases?.Was there any?.I have been asked this a few times and I don’t know the answer .
easyJambo says:
January 27, 2015 at 7:56 pm
53 0 Rate This
EJ, do you know all five of the ‘guilt admitted’?
Danish Pastry says:
January 27, 2015 at 10:07 pm
I don’t think Ashley needs a plan B.
It is now surely clear to even the most deluded of ‘The Rangers’ support that the process of separating any profitable aspect of this business from the massively loss making football business is almost complete.
If Phil is correct and there is a rental payment, of sorts, to be made on a regular basis then I don’t think Mike will bother. He will leverage debt to the point that it can’t, or won’t, be paid back while tying up whatever is left of any part of the profit making side of the business.
Once all of this is done then the club will be sold to the Three Bears/King consortium and they will have to fund the on going football operation while still paying Sports Direct their percentage. It could very well be that there will be a sting in the tale there as well as the club still owe RIFC £18M and it could be the relevant parties will also require a percentage of that debt to finally walk away.
The one bright light on the horizon is that most, if not all, of the highly paid players will come out of contract this summer. They will not be replaced but youth players will be promoted whether they are ready or not. So at least the wage bill will not be as high as it currently is however it becomes even more important that promotion is gained this time round. If they fail to gain promotion this year, the fans stay away, and the youths are forced to play then relegation from the Championship is a real possibility.
Without an immediate buy out and a clearing of Sports Direct loan this situation is now only going one way. The fans will not show forcing the company further into ‘loan territory’ which will result in a further erosion of profit making aspects of the business. This in turn stunts the playing side and hamstrings the club further.
When the Three Bears and Dave King bought their shares at New Year I said that for the first time in thirty months the fans themselves had hope but surely after today the must realise that the game is up.
The fans are the life blood of any club. This set of fans have shown loyalty, unfortunately to all the wrong people, in the desperate hope that things would get better.
The haven’t got better. It’s got steadily worse.
Can anyone point to any single decision that has been made that has made the situation better?
Ever since Craig Whyte walked down Edmiston Drive every decision looks as if it has been pre-planned to gradually destroy a club.
Where the fans go from here I do not know. They have spent a huge amount, financially and emotionally, to ensure ‘the same club’ myth that they now cannot walk away and yet they are a broken and fragmented support, fighting amongst themselves, as their club disintegrates in front of them.
The final straw could very well be a bad result on Sunday. Regardless of the fact that the Celtic support refuse to recognise ‘The Rangers’ as RFC their lunatic fringe may decide that this may be their last chance to show Scotland what they have been missing. This is a competition that Celtic have historically struggled in but if they do go two or three goals up I reckon the game will not finish. This would be the worst advert for our sport imaginable.
For everyone, on whatever side, who are attending the game, enjoy the match and stay safe.
OT
Dundee city councillors really do have a sense of humour, they have appointed John McClellend to investigate the alleged financial mismanagement of the VA project. Quality political trolling
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/former-rangers-chairman-appointed-to-investigate-dundee-v-a-costs-1.809283
Well, John is something of an expert in the field
jimlarkin says:
January 27, 2015 at 12:04 pm
“Rob Devine in the Metro, obviously can’t be a journalist either but likes to call himself a journalist”
—————————————-
The article is rather rabid but it does contain the revelation ‘…following the disgrace of liquidation in 2012’.
It appears that the CQN advertisement has caused a seismic shift in the MSM narrative.
scapaflow says:
January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm
1
0
Rate This
OT
Dundee city councillors really do have a sense of humour, they have appointed John McClellend to investigate the alleged financial mismanagement of the VA project. Quality political trolling
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/former-rangers-chairman-appointed-to-investigate-dundee-v-a-costs-1.809283
Well, John is something of an expert in the field
——————-
Didn’t expect the Courier to be the organ that played the right tune.
“Mr McClelland, who was chairman of the now-defunct club between 2002 and 2004,”
McCaig`s Tower says:
January 27, 2015 at 10:48 pm
5
5
Rate This
__________________________________________
The edge?
Look m8, there is only one ‘football’ match on this weekend that is worthy of the build up.
Aberdeen vs DUFC?
It has all of the positives you describe and none of the negatives. That is where the football is at. That is the sporting contest. That is where the fans (rather than the thugs) will be. That is the advert the game in scotland needs.
And it is largely ignored.
Sunday is an irrelevance in footballing terms.
Celtic playing some new club who have run out of money already?
All the rest is politics, diplomacy and quite probably violence. But not sport. And not something we should be aspiring to here. A decent sports channel wouldn’t even show it. Although as a snuff movie it probably has merit.
The salivating hacks are complicit in every blow struck and person injured by their dereliction of sport and incitement of such spectacle.
They are no better than Milly Dowlers phone hackers.
Tailothebank says:
January 27, 2015 at 11:10 pm
Just reading about the antics of the bold IGNACIO NOVO
( yes that was how he was described just once on a match programme last year …and I assume the masses ranks know he was probably the first ever ‘Ignatius ‘ to play at a certain very inclusive club ) prompted me to think of those players where Rangers admitted tax evasion on the main EBT case .ie On top of the well known guilty trio on DOS …
Before my time but did the RTC blog ever Cover what the sporting implications should have been on these guilty cases?.Was there any?.I have been asked this a few times and I don’t know the answer .
======================
The strategy for the LNS investigation was to insist ebts were not irregular. There is a blog going back over Regan’s interview with Alex Thomson ready for perhaps next week where, with the benefit of hindsight and what we now know, makes the dependence on the regularity of ebts an observable central plank in minimising the degree of wrong doing to simple misregistration, that if not picked up at the time does not render a player eligible post event.
It was also on the regular nature of ebts that the case of no sporting advantage was justified in that no case of sporting advantage was made to support that claim if it was not wrong for any club to arrange its tax efficiently within the rules.
However in LNS’s own words he refers to a registration so fundamentally wrong that a player had to be ineligible from the outset.
The thing about De Boer was RFC failed to tell the SFA in 2000 of De Boer’s side letter, their duplicitous intent became clear in 2005 when they actually lied to HMRC about its existence, compounded in 2012 by their administrators concealing that fact along with other evidence from HMRC from LNS himself. It is difficult to see that there can be any other interpretation than that from 2000 onwards there was a fundamental and deliberate attempt to conceal what a player was being paid from the SFA, which involved a later lie to HMRC and then concealment from SPL lawyers.
The type of ebt in question was judged in 2010 as irregular by an FTT looking at an appeal by Aberdeen Asset Management but LNS was in no position to know this as no information to inform him was provided by those who had or knew the DOS ebt history. Thus the whole case built around the regularity of all the ebts used by RFC is flawed as far as irregular ebts are concerned (and the others are still under appeal).
De Boer’s registration has to have been ineligible under LNS’s own ruling of a fundamental case of misregistration because of the nature of the way RFC dealt with both SFA and HMRC. Thus De Boer has to be ineligible from the outset because he was paid by an ebt whose full nature was deliberately kept from civil and football authority which was not set up within the tax rules.
Now what football rule was actually broken I am not sure, certainly not the registration ones that the Commission were bound by, although they can still apply to the other BTC ebts still under appeal, but in keeping the De Boer ebt info away from LNS, whoever is responsible appears to have snookered the whole investigation, unless they wish to claim that HMRC’s reason for pursuing the tax owed outside the six year time frame which was RFC were either fraudulent or negligent is not a fundamental matter.
Folks might remember Harper McLeod said they would pass the HMRC letter covering DE Boer along with the side letter and RFC’s reply to the SFA. That HMRC letter was dated Feb 2011. I got a whisper that they have it but nothing definite.
Resin_lab_dog says:
January 28, 2015 at 12:05 am
No 1 son is making the trip to support United, its the kind of brain injury you get if your born in Ninewells
ecobhoy says:
January 27, 2015 at 7:54 pm
4
2
Rate This
Auldheid says:
January 27, 2015 at 7:39 pm
Your inbox is full and not accepting PMs
============
It should be OK now.
McCaig`s Tower says:
January 27, 2015 at 10:48 pm
Cheers. One other factor I forgot was not only were RFC financially doped up in the 10/11 years from 2000 but other clubs were struggling with debts that limited them more than RFC’s debts did RFC.
That is no longer true and with it looking like a higher portion of football income not going on to the field of play at Ibrox then the financial gap between TRFC and the rest will not be the one that made them more than likely to take maximum points off the majority of their opposition.
What I’m saying is that if Celtic keep their wage bill at its current level the wage gap between Celtic and the rest will be greater than the wage gap between RFC and the rest (assuming of course they stay within an affordable wage range.
Looks like a case of domestic FFP would benefit all clubs but probably Celtic most although that is not why I advocate its introduction. It also suggests clubs below Celtic will not be playing second fiddle to a TRFC paying what it owes and any of them could become the main competitor(s).
GoosyGoosy says:
January 27, 2015 at 7:22 pm
86
2
Rate This
I have to say
Theres no such thing as a bad advert
Only adverts you remember and adverts you don`t
There were people on Bear sites posting and talking about the advert who also claimed not to have read it.
There were newspapers attempting to belittle the advert despite having printed similar obituaries in 2012
So IMO
The advert achieved what it set out to do
It got widespread publicity in the rest of the Scottish media
And it got it for free
It galvanised the media to refute it using barefaced lies
___________________________________________________
Warning: Back of the envelope stuff:
The story was picked up by TV news.
They reckon the rule of thumb is that placing 1 TV ad costs about £7 per 1000 adult viewers.
(And this is based the viewing figures for the TV show, not accounting for value lpost to those who get up and make a coffee!)
Reporting Scotland News typically gets about 500,000 viewers, so they got conservatively £3500 worth of exposure on the back of one single bulletin.
Add in STV and the lat eveing news and midday. Must be worth £20K of TV exposure alone. Then add in the papers, radio and new media.
I reckon CQN got 30-50x exposure value (“Column inch equivalents return”) on their initial outlay.
Conservatively.
With that level of financial guile, who knows, they could possibly even make a going concern out of TRFC.
Chapeau.
Tincks says:
January 27, 2015 at 7:21 pm
“Phil’s latest…(Slow lingering near death)”
————————————
I thought the ‘rental’ increment suggested by PMcG sounded familiar and perhaps similar to the ‘Sale and leaseback proposal’ posited on CQN just over two years ago. My link to this information was active a couple of weeks ago when the topic re-emerged but now it is no longer functioning. Does anyone have a copy they are able to post?
Not sure if there are sub judice issues here.
@AllyJ & @Justshatered
If no Plan B from MA then he must also be pretty confident that current polis investigations and upcoming trials will not affect his current moves/asset grab.
Btw, those big-spending bears still have an escape route to exit with a profit. Current share price is around 32p. They could, in theory, sell up and walk away. Ok, a seller needs a buyer, of course. As Barca suggests, their plans always looked (and still look) like a lot of desperate face-saving posturing. Either that, or their plan emerged after a very liquid lunch.
Time running out for the common sense option, for all of the support, of selling their Sevco shares in order to lay the financial foundation for Third Rangers in a newco newco.
The front page of today’s Daily Record has Ashley being ‘summoned’ to Parliament to give answers. I believe the issue is being raised by the same MP who in 2012 went live on TV to demand HMRC simply take what they can get and leave Rangers alone (I paraphrase). Collection of taxes in full and on time underpins our democratic society, but that is what the MP demanded. I know who I think should be summoned to Parliament and it’s not Ashley.
On another note the Record headline will do wonders for bears who are unable to think for themselves. It puts Rangers on a pedestal way above what any British football club is, was, or ever should be. Why on earth does any MP, Rangers fan or not, truly believe this issue is of such national importance? It beggars belief.
Re the potential lease fees on Ibrox.
That’s circa £8m over 30 months. Meanwhile the stadium crumbles. If this has legs I expect the usual fury and desperation from the supporters.
But who to pin blame on and is the whole thing just a jovial yorkshiremans pension or an octopus tentacle?
I have always semi-wondered why the false claim of ‘relegation’ of Rangers from the SPL was such a potent part of the continuing survival myth and enthusiastically propagated at every opportunity.
Reading over LNS – yet again – I noticed the following esp [8] which is self-explanatory but whose actual importance I hadn’t fully understood,
From LNS:
The truth manipulators are fond of quoting LNS when it suits but ignore him when he blows their fantasies out of the water.
A club couldn’t hold membership in the SPL but only its owner or operator and LNS makes it clear that Newco Rangers was never admitted to the SPL – and still hasn’t been – so how on earth can it be a continuation of Oldco which lost its membership on 3 August 2012.
On the issue of the separate DOS and EBT Trusts, LNS stated:
The question is clear. Who supplied this duff info to LNS? Was it accidental or was it intentional to ensure that Rangers walked-away on the most serious charges which would have entailed title-stripping.
We already know that guarantees were provided to Rangers long before the tribunal sat that there would be no title stripping. Was LNS told that and, if he was, why isn’t there a note to that effect in his tribunal decision?
And if he wasn’t told what does he intend to do about it? Indeed what does he intend to do about the mince he was fed over the earlier DOS scheme which was clearly designed to provide Rangers with a Get Outa Gaol Free card?
Senior officials of the SPFL, the SPl, the SFL and club officials are aware of went down here and are keeping quiet. Why?
And what about the SMSM – why have they never asked the questions that need to be asked or does it take another paid advert to bring the truth to the Scottish People?
readcelt says:
January 28, 2015 at 8:09 am
Re the potential lease fees on Ibrox.
That’s circa £8m over 30 months. Meanwhile the stadium crumbles. If this has legs I expect the usual fury and desperation from the supporters.
But who to pin blame on and is the whole thing just a jovial yorkshiremans pension or an octopus tentacle?
———————————————————-
Well if it is true then the money can’t have been paid out of the club or it would have been spotted by the auditors even with a blindfold on. This is a business with pennies in the till that is staggering from one month to the next financially.
If it has been paid under disguised payments then that would be a criminal matter involving anyone directly concerned or who kept quiet about it.
And for sake of argument say I was the guy that the rental was paid to. Do you think I would sit back and not get my payment every month when I knew the whole dung-heap could collapse at any moment and I could whistle for my money.
Obviously I might have a claim against the liquidator but will he or the court be happy about my secret deal. I doubt it. I have serious doubts about this unless there is concreate evidence. There’s a lot of clever spivs involved and one thing they do try to be careful about is not breaking or bending the law in a way that could lead to jail time.
upthehoops says:
January 28, 2015 at 7:00 am
Why on earth does any MP, Rangers fan or not, truly believe this issue is of such national importance?
____________________________________________
I think most of these tin-pot MPs are not so bothered about national interest, it’s more the case that they are full of self-interest. Add that to a goodly dose of ‘entitlement’ surrounding the football club he supports, and it becomes his duty as a defender of loyalty to Her Majesty. But not Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, it would appear!
Still, it might backfire, and pique the interest of some proper MP(s), who might have a bee in their bonnets about multi-million pound tax avoiders and evaders. That is, if there are actually any MPs who put national interest before self-interest!
Crazier and crazier! From the DR:
Should inexperienced fans not be getting singing lessons as well? ‘Honest M’lud I never heard the song before and just sung along with the choir – even the cops knew the words and were joining in’ 🙄
ecobhoy says:
January 28, 2015 at 9:09 am
=========================
If these monthly payments re Ibrox are really being made, they will certainly not be described as rent. It has been well established that according to the Land Registry records, TRFC are the owners of Ibrox.
There may be some cleverly structured agreement under which TRFC must pay monthly sums to some offshore entity, or in default transfer title to them. Those payments would be very like rent, but would not actually be rent, in the absence of a lease.
So, how would such payments be described? Possibly as a staged “finders fee” to Green, for example, as a reward for obtaining Ibrox for the company so cheaply. That’s just an example I made up, by the way. Or simply described as “Commission”, a category used as a catch all in many accounts. However such payments are described, the auditors will simply want to ensure that the payments are made against proper invoices. They might want to check the existence of an agreement underpinning the payments. Subject to that, there would be no audit problem, in my view.
A good example is the arrangement to pay Mr Bishop a monthly retainer for PR work, which was evidenced by SoS recently. Nice professional invoice, authorised payment by the FD, properly recorded in the books- no auditor is going to ask in detail what Bishop actually did, if anything. It’s all in order for audit purposes, end of story as far as they are concerned.
I’m not totally convinced myself about these alleged payments for Ibrox, by the way, but it’s possible. And given what has gone on at Ibrox over recent years, I certainly won’t be surprised if it is true.
Clearly money floods in then out of Ibrox fairly quickly and no doubt there are some onerous contracts but as opposed to all these shady and mysterious deals I keep going back to the old SDM accounts and Bill Millar’s man Jon Pritchett assessment of the situation.
T’Rangers have a 50k plus seater stadium to maintain and even at half full the crowd is larger than any other stadium in the country bar one. That costs a lot of money per game along with all the general day to day add ons.
They have an expensive training centre to operate.
They are a Billy Big Baws club and have lived like Kings for years be that the wages paid to players and non-playing staff, the freebies, the travel arrangements etc etc
Lets not forget until the recent settlement Aberdeen running a relatively modest operation were £15m in debt.
They simply need to cut their cloth. However when you have a ‘mass’ the size of T’Rangers there is a point that it is difficult to go below in terms of cost cutting as you then fail to meet statutory requirements, therefore the revenues (perhaps plus soft loan money) need to match the expenditure or its ‘Go Bust’ time.
Llambias can slash away at costs but Ashley will know there is a point where they can go no further. As long as he can keep the business at that point while skimming of the income streams he sees as being to his and SD’s benefit the club will run along nicely and keep on the right side of the law and the taxman. However what the product on the park will be like is anyone’s guess.
IMHO a decent team could emerge every so often but they will be nowhere near the dominant force the fans have been accustomed to.
It is the balancing act of getting fans back through the door that needs to be Ashley’s next move otherwise the experiment may be brought to and end.
My guess is that may involve a deal with RRM so that while they may not like it, he can have them by the short and curlies to do his bidding in the same way Green had McCoist to flog season tickets.
As Phil Mac said a wee while back it is he who is willing to kill it that will win in the end.
Correct.
Without checking back Phil described the payments as “Rental type” payments. Several things are key here. Firstly, as Neepheid says they are not Rent and will not be recorded as such. They can still, however, be perfectly legitimate payments if a contract is entered, in just the same way as I pay rates on my house. One would assume that said contract will be admin, even liquidation proof, but instead will be tied in some way to “if you want to be 11 men in blue playing out of Ibrox then you will pay me x.” Thirdly, it is still unclear to me that if a negative pledge or similar is included in the same contract “Pay me x and if you default I get the keys” if that would show against the deeds as such. Again as Neepheid says, they own the place. They have the deeds. There is no security. But…
And finally, and this is what should interest the bears most to be honest. To what end is the money going? Phil choosing “rental type” payments intrigues me. Intriguing because it simply infers a payment going out, a payment that appears to be in some way index/performance linked incidentally, to literally no end, just like rent. It just allows you to be there. Don’t pay? Don’t be there. Fundamentally it is not like a mortgage. You don’t eventually pay enough rent and get the deeds. You just pay, and pay, and pay.
Phil’s blog refers to a “sort of rental income”.
In a normal landlord/tenant relationship there will be a service charge included on top of and with the rent payments. The service charge will include such things as lighting, heating, paintings and decorating, general maintenance, security, cleaning etc. The cost of the service charge will be an amalgamation of these individual contracts/costs with a management fee added for the time and effort in arranging all of the above.
TRFC are not a tenant. There is no indication that rent is being charged. What has long been rumoured are the onerous contracts although we have not seen hard evidence of such up to now.
What could the £278k pcm disappearing off shore be about?
Well, perhaps when the onerous contracts were put in place, (sparky, heating engineer, security, catering etc), someone arranged themselves a nice little management fee for doing next to no work other than administering the onerous contracts. Maybe instead of invoices from the contractors going straight to TRFC Ltd, (as would be normal where there is no landlord) they pass through an off shore post box for “checking and approval” prior to payment.
Just a theory.
Good Morning
As many have said on this site, and it is what accountants do, follow the money.
In today’s high tech world the payments are traceable and HMRC and Serious and Organised crime have the resources to trace the money.
The recipients will eventually be revealed.
As for the MP calling for MA to be brought before Parliament this is pathetic. It may not be palatable to everyone but business is business.
He would do better to call SDM and his cohorts at the Bank of Scotland who cost the taxpayer, some of whom this MP represents,Millions, to come before an Inquiry and reveal all.
On a day when the SFA were to wield their big stick at Mr. Ashley he ups the ante and secures total dominance.
Don’t suppose we can expect a statement from the SFA?
Those who support a team that has risen from the ashes are too late in waking up to smell the coffee. The train has left the platform.
MA has, in my opinion, given them only enough to get to the end of next month and all else is subject to what the SFA do.
The SFA have left themselves no wriggle room and if they climb down they should resign en masse.
Wottpi
Correct. As I said yesterday this is the true definition of Armageddon per Regan.
The Rangers model doesn’t work. An austere Rangers in the 1st Div (and certainly not 2nd or 3rd) doesn’t work because if they do well nobody bothers. If they do badly nobody cares (enough to go). They need ‘the edge’ (forget who’s term that was) of the premiership to fill that damn stadium. It was so much easier to do when they were winning proper stuff (no offence intended to lower league diddies) hence Regan’s approach, that if we can get them back to winning stuff then THEY’LL have a fighting chance.
I would have actually enjoyed writing that (the factual accuracy of it, not kicking them when they’re down ya de ya) , had it not been for the rest of the clubs complicity in trying to recreate that very situation which could only be damaging to themselves. And I’m still not buying this unsponsorable garbage either!
neepheid says:
January 28, 2015 at 9:42 am
ecobhoy says:
January 28, 2015 at 9:09 am
=========================
If these monthly payments re Ibrox are really being made, they will certainly not be described as rent. It has been well established that according to the Land Registry records, TRFC are the owners of Ibrox.
There may be some cleverly structured agreement under which TRFC must pay monthly sums to some offshore entity, or in default transfer title to them. Those payments would be very like rent, but would not actually be rent, in the absence of a lease.
——————————————————————-
There is clearly some kind of issue over the ownership of the stadium of that I have no doubt and the note from the auditors in the accounts flags that up.
As to hundreds of thousands of pounds being channelled out – no matter what term is used to disguise that it is effectively rent – year on year up to an estimated £8 million IIRC – sorry I can’t go there.
It would require a widepspread and continuing criminal conspiracy stretching across a number of different Boards and utter negligence of the Auditors in not spotting these cash flows especially if they are going offshore. And that’s without considering money laundering regulations.
I’ll suspend belief on this one till something other than speculation surfaces. And tbf to Ashley I have no doubt that if this was happening then he would know by now and would have notified the relevant authorities.
I don’t have a shadow of doubt about that. It may well be, of course, that he has reported the issue and that investigations are underway behind the scenes.
Hoopy 7 says:
January 28, 2015 at 10:04 am
2 0 Rate This
…As for the MP calling for MA to be brought before Parliament this is pathetic.
———
#GE 2015 looms large on the horizon. Probably also why certain politicians take to dressing up in fitba kit and doing heidies in front of press folk instead of turning up to vote on vital issues.
The @jimlarkin point above about what Ashley should really be asked about at WM is spot on.
In trying to save some time and to get on with some work can someone provide me an answer to the following.
Even if the three Bears and King win the EGM and take over does the new board still need the 75% vote for the wider share issue a la the AGM resolution 10 or can the new board change the percentage points to knock out any Ashley/Easdale alliance given their circa 36% shareholding/proxies?
More wheels have fallen off the wagon ❗
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-official-fan-group-delivers-5056080
wottpi says:
January 28, 2015 at 10:29 am
75% required under company law afaik.
Dear RFB,
We are not selling Season Tickets at the moment. Please re-apply for your position of self importance round about April/May time when your application will be duly considered!
Your etc
The Board.
ecobhoy says:
January 28, 2015 at 10:38 am
merci buckets.
from STV
”The founder of the parent company of collapsed parcels firm City Link has been given a grilling by MPs over the way thousands of workers heard on Christmas Day that they were losing their jobs.
MPs from two select committees lined up to deliver a series of damning attacks on Jon Moulton, founder of Better Capital.”
——————————————————————–
I wonder if the man who was in charge of the parent company of Rangers Football Club, when it was sold for £1 because of the crippling debts owed to HMRC – as HMRC lost all those £millions in revenue for hospitals and schools and nurseries – and who’s family subsequently bought assets from the parent company for £13,000,000 but the assets will be worth up to £80,000,000
. . . will be ”grilled” in Parliament ??
Kicked into touch until 2 March & 16 March:
Danish,
So after the February pay cheque whereupon their finances become, and I quote the CEO directly here, “Perilous” again.
When’s the due diligence for tranche 2 finished Mike? Ah, about 9.10 on the 3rd March apparently. I think I can maybe see what you did there!
Before Regan, the SFA applied the rules without the need for Law Lords and legal eagles, whether fairly or not is another matter. Now they seem completely ineffective unless its a small club like Livingston.
and the SPFL, what happened regarding the £250,000 fine
Has Doncaster managed to get any money for SPFL sponsorship yet ?
what a shambles.
Danish Pastry says:
January 28, 2015 at 11:01 am
Kicked into touch until 2 March & 16 March:
@ScottishFA: NEWS | Disciplinary update: Rangers FC and Michael Ashley – http://t.co/3qToXBHvrV http://t.co/f50v3zFPxY
========================================================================
This says that a “procedural hearing convened” to agree a principal date for the “undue influence” hearing, but the principal date had already been set as 27th Jan when the complaint was made. “Principal Hearing date: Tuesday, 27th January 2015” http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=14110&newsCategoryID=1
So a procedural hearing has replaced a principal hearing without explanation. Is this what passss for world class administration in Scottish football? A very thin disguise for being utterly out of their depths in a situation they worked shamelessly to create.
SFA = Shear Fear of Ashley
Smugas says:
January 28, 2015 at 11:05 am
5 0 Rate This
Danish,
So after the February pay cheque whereupon their finances become, and I quote the CEO directly here, “Perilous” again.
—
I could be wrong, but I always think when I hear or read this that what people really mean is “parlous”.
MaBaw says:
January 28, 2015 at 11:10 am
14 0 Rate This
Before Regan, the SFA applied the rules without the need for Law Lords and legal eagles, whether fairly or not is another matter. Now they seem completely ineffective unless its a small club like Livingston.
and the SPFL, what happened regarding the £250,000 fine
Has Doncaster managed to get any money for SPFL sponsorship yet ?
what a shambles.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
At the very best
The SFA strategy may be to withdraw the license after TRFC have played their last game of the season
From the SFA statement:
The following hearing dates were determined:
Michael Ashley – Monday, 2nd March 2015
Rangers FC – Monday, 16th March 2015
So two separate hearings for two separate parties. To what end?
2nd March – “Mr Ashley, you’ve been a very naughty boy, here’s a big fine for you to pay out of petty cash”
16th March – “We know it’s awful. You poor wee thing, taken over by that nasty man. Obviously not your fault so don’t worry about losing your licence/any points.”
And, by the flippin way. Rangers FC??????????????
Who the hell are they in this matter. TRFC or TRIFC or both?
Note for Reagan and co, if McLelland can get a position back in finance with his track record,don’t bother updating your cv,there must be a lot of questionables in lofty positions willing to employ similar questionable folk of the same ilk.
Ps. What happened with your application Stuart for the EPL post you applied for,we should be told
As for the MP calling for MA to be brought before Parliament this is pathetic. It may not be palatable to everyone but business is business.
…………………..
This will be the same MP who supported £30b worth of austerity cuts then?
ecobhoy says:
January 28, 2015 at 9:39 am
Might I dare to suggest, that just this once, it might be a good idea for the police to ignore those songs and reserve their efforts to keeping the two sets of supporters apart?
Let’s face it, the songs are going to be sung regardless of this new found willingness to do something about it. There are also going to be songs sung that no one can claim are sectarian by nature, that will wind up one lot much more than any with religious or political inferences. There is no way to stop it happening.
It could be, of course, that the ‘sectarian’ songs those naïve police officers are being taught to recognise, go something like, ‘you’re not Rangers anymore, you’re not…’
Esteban,
I think you’re being generous!
Tincks,
I’ll allow a degree of latitude for short handedness in the same way I’m sure Hearts various hearings were listed as Hearts FC as opposed to Heart of Midlothian etc etc.
That said, this is the very crux of OC/NC. The fans can follow an ethereal brand and the media can wax lyrical about a franchise all they like. The SFA can’t. They do not have that luxury, whether they would very much like to or not. To be clear it is partly their fault that they do not, having omitted to follow the rules previously. If they condone the liquidation-bypassing-continuity myth then they write off the integrity of the very game they are there to protect. I would be interested to see their justification for that.
But, as I’ve said above, I’m not as precious as to jump on their every Email and sign off even though I’m sure I should.
Allyjambo,
I’m more interested to watch them supposedly wade into a massed choir to lift an offender, given that it is in complete contrast to the previous policy!
Doom & Gloom ?
So the plan seems to be that The Rangers will slash costs to the bone, dump overpaiid journeymen and live on their gate receipts minus onerous contracts, whilst MA pockets retail, sponsorship and advertising revenues.
If The Rangers get promoted this season and manage to sell 30,000 STs at an average £300, that’s £9mil gross, £7.5mil post VAT. Take away say £3mil in onerous contracts. That leaves a clear £4.5mil plus cup runs.
How much do mid table SPL clubs spend each year in comparison ?
Ach, Old Tom English deserves a good thrashing (so to speak) for some of his nonsense, but in general he is one of the better out of a (thoroughly) bad crop in the SMSM. Today for example a perfectly readable column on McInnes. As long as it’s not too complicated a subject he’s not that bad… Treat yourself with some fluffy journalism for 5 mins, do your blood pressure some good to get away from the TRFC/SFA/Ashley shenanigans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31008622
Some affa quick readers here!! Thumbs down before you could have had time to even read the column! 😆
See these players that keep going on about the ‘Old Firm’ match… well this guys got it! Nail on head hitting stuff.
Damn, thought it was the Glasgow Herald, just noticed the ‘ie’ in the web address. Oh well, doesn’t affect the accuracy of the piece!
http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/new-firm-but-old-foes-celtic-and-rangers-get-ready-to-rumble-in-cup-clash-30943268.html
Can anyone believe this man describes himself as a ‘journalist’ in his twitter profile?
________________________________________________
Matthew Lindsay @MattLindsayHT · 4h4 hours ago
@jonarmour Rangers fans would rather have on-field mediocrity and financial transparency than Champions League football and Mike Ashley.
___________________________________________
He’ll be basing that on the anger displayed by Rangers fans with David Murray once they discovered the level of ‘financial transparency’ he utilised when bringing them Champions League football!
A lease is not an encumbrance on title deeds. If I recall correctly and I may be out of date only leases over 20 years needs to be registered at the Sasines. A lease over one year needs to be in writing. One if in spiv mode would have a lease of one year, unless there is a notice to quit or notice given by the tenant that lease automatically renews on the same terms. That does not need to be mentioned in deeds because it does not affect ownership. This year to year on tacit relocation is very common. So there might be a rent going out perhaps even of £1 per annum if charged coupled with a ‘service charge’ which might be based on turnover of the business.
If I werea spiv and I have been called worse I might do such a deal knowing that if the entity dies the stadium etc would revert to me and that it needs the stadium to survive so it will remain in occupation. Neat stuff and nothing in the public domain disallows it.
tcup 2012 says:
January 27, 2015 at 9:54 am
First part of loan
Pay himself back and security over MP,Albion carpark, Edmonson house and another 26% of RR
____________________________________
ecobhoy says:
January 27, 2015 at 11:41 am
Even better than good! For his £2 million extra he also gets a floating charge over all Rangers assets excluding the stadium
__________________________________
Sorry I am probably being a bit dense here but can someone explain…
Why would Mike Ashley lend TRFC money to pay himself back? Effectively he is writing off debt.
If you owe me £3 and I lend you a fiver to “pay me back”, the net result is I have given you £8 but you only owe me £5 ergo I have written off £3.
Or another way to look at it is, rather than merely “putting in an extra £2” (and still being owed the original amount) – I have put in £2 and am now owed that £2 (because the other £3 is “paid back” i.e. written off) so I am now owed £2 when before I was owed £3, plus I’ve just shelled out another £2 for the privilege. (In total I’ve paid out £5 for a £2 debt = £3 write off)
I’m struggling to see how this is the absolute masterstroke people are talking about but I’m sure Mike Ashley has all sorts of onerous terms attached that make it well worth his while.
Allyjambo says:
January 28, 2015 at 1:43 pm
15
0
Rate This
Can anyone believe this man describes himself as a ‘journalist’ in his twitter profile?
________________________________________________
Matthew Lindsay @MattLindsayHT · 4h4 hours ago
@jonarmour Rangers fans would rather have on-field mediocrity and financial transparency than Champions League football and Mike Ashley.
___________________________________________
He’ll be basing that on the anger displayed by Rangers fans with David Murray once they discovered the level of ‘financial transparency’ he utilised when bringing them Champions League football!
_____________________________________
TRANSLATION: The 3B will be keeping their hands in their pockets. ‘RRM’ are skint. At least when it comes to bankrolling the Ibrox set up. But they expect to be lauded as saviours nevertheless.
mcfc says:
January 28, 2015 at 12:49 pm
19
1
Rate This
Doom & Gloom ?
So the plan seems to be that The Rangers will slash costs to the bone, dump overpaiid journeymen and live on their gate receipts minus onerous contracts, whilst MA pockets retail, sponsorship and advertising revenues.
If The Rangers get promoted this season and manage to sell 30,000 STs at an average £300, that’s £9mil gross, £7.5mil post VAT. Take away say £3mil in onerous contracts. That leaves a clear £4.5mil plus cup runs.
How much do mid table SPL clubs spend each year in comparison ?
MCFC, I know we can hardly be called ‘mid-table’ this season, but I’m pretty sure that £4.5m is significantly higher that Motherwell’s total turnover, our budget will be £1.5 – £2m at the most
mcfc says:
January 28, 2015 at 12:49 pm
19
1
Rate This
Doom & Gloom ?
So the plan seems to be that The Rangers will slash costs to the bone, dump overpaiid journeymen and live on their gate receipts minus onerous contracts, whilst MA pockets retail, sponsorship and advertising revenues.
If The Rangers get promoted this season and manage to sell 30,000 STs at an average £300, that’s £9mil gross, £7.5mil post VAT. Take away say £3mil in onerous contracts. That leaves a clear £4.5mil plus cup runs.
How much do mid table SPL clubs spend each year in comparison
_________________________________________________________
£4-5m is the entire turnover of ICTFC. Doing OK at the moment.
Although we do lose our best players to the likes of the dons from time to time.
On field offering is of a desirable standard on the whole.
One cuts ones cloth, y’see.
I guess the answer to my question was in the rest of Eco’s post January 27, 2015 at 11:41 am :
Gets an increase in the Rangers Retail Ltd shareholding from 49% to 75% and new shirt sponsorship money.
Gets to nominate another 2 directors.
Gets a dividend from RRL to pay the lease cancellation charges for the unprofitable Rangers retail stores that SportsDirect took on the running of. Could amount to up to £400k or £800k.
Gets fixed charge over the club’s registered trademarks.
________________________________________________
I’ll hazard a guess that all adds up to comfortably more than the write off
One other thing that needs to be noted is that 12 players are out of contract at end of the season
http://dothebouncy.com/main/threads/rangers-have-12-players-contracts-that-expire-in-2015.63097/
Here are the 12 players:
Lee McCulloch
Kenny Miller
Kris Boyd
Ian Black
Jon Daly
Bilel Mohsni
Stevie Smith.
Kyle Hutton
Richard Foster.
Steve Simonsen
Lee Robinson
Sebastian Faure.
Means that with no manager, no assistant manager and no scouts, Stevie the IT guy is going to be busy in the summer trying to assemble a team whatever league they find themselves in. Looks like MASH will be expected to cover the writing of signing on bonuses for new players at the very least in the summer………
Not quite sure with that many players coming in (and others like Peralta leaving) that the new manager will be organised as well as Ally was 2 years ago to form a team so quickly – makes the odds of the CL music being heard anywhere near Govan anytime soon even more remote…
The transfer windae “slams” shut next week. We apparently have 14 first team players down sevco alley out of contract in the summer and so allowed to speak to new clubs and sign new deals with them now and yet ……nothing…. Not a peep, not a hint not a one of them or their agents publicly punting them or pushing them in the media or elsewhere . No interest in them whatsoever from anyone.? …surely that cannot be correct. Why are none of the so called sports journos trying to get them moves i know some of them will be on money just now they cannot possibly hope to relicate but they still have futures to tie up but we hear nothing. Just seems really weird to me, maybe its just me ?
MoreCelticParanoia says:
January 28, 2015 at 2:13 pm
Why would Mike Ashley lend TRFC money to pay himself back? Effectively he is writing off debt.
If you owe me £3 and I lend you a fiver to “pay me back”, the net result is I have given you £8 but you only owe me £5 ergo I have written off £3.
————————————————————–
I don’t think this is the way it works. I have lent you £3 from my left pocket. Now I lend you £5 from my right pocket (which you use to pay me back the £3).
So I get my original £3 back (into my left pocket) and you now owe me £5. In effect I have lent you an extra £2.
However I can spin this as I have lent you £5 (and that is £8 in total). I haven’t written off any debt. And every time I lend you money, I extract an extra pound of flesh.
Now talking to myself …. I did say I was being dense.
It hinges on the definition of the term “paid off”
If it means “paid off” in the way the banks used to at the height of the credit bonanza of the 2000s where if you owed them £1000 they’d offer you a loan of £4000 that would “pay off” the £1000 and finance a holiday in Majorca, but have the net effect of bundling it up with the new debt and you now owing the bank about £7000 with capital and interest over the life of the loan. That is most certainly not a write-off, but then again I wouldn’t consider the original amount to be “paid off” in the true sense.
I’m out my depth ! 😳
I’m not an expert in city small print but have had two or three pesky questions for a while.
I was debating them with a Rangers pal last night who bought in at the last opportunity a couple of years ago and still has his shares.
He is a pretty shrewd guy who genuinely doesn’t know.
When RIFC raised all that money from fans and institutions from their float should they have explained in their prospectus about any particular leakages like direct or indirect payments to continue to play at Ibrox?
And were they ( the fund raisers) honest about specifically what/why they were raising money for in the prospectus – and what they planned to do with it?
Finally – is keeping to what they said a legal requirement with potential repercussions?
Ecobhoy 8.56
You remind me of an error in that extract from LNS.
Newco never at any time were an Associate Member of the SFA.
They became an Associate Member of the SFL and had 14 days to apply, like any new entrant to the SFL, to the SFA for Associate Membership of the SFA.
They never did. Newco joined SFL on 13 July. They never applied to SFA for Associate Membership.
They got an invented conditional SFA membership to cover them from 27th July to 3 August until SFA then transferred the full membership of oldco to Newco.
The normal rules for applying for SFA membership were ignored and it is not clear why. We can only speculate that it was a condition of purchase placed by Green for the obvious commercial benefits it provided, a point not lost on SFA or SPL I imagine.
The ad idea on LNS is growing on me if SFA fail to answer questions being put to them also related to those same DOS ebts.
Mccaigs tower…..unfortunately as well as the £8 MA has now taken your trousers as security and the belt has a flaoting charge on it