THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

By

AULDHEID APRIL 22, 2017 at 15:22  (Celtic are in the same position …

Comment on THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight by Homunculus.

AULDHEID
APRIL 22, 2017 at 15:22 
(Celtic are in the same position but tend to keep  the debt level manageable in that it can be covered by a player sale.) hence McGeady, Van Dyke, Forster, Wanyama etc being sold.
=====================================

I agree, but it wasn’t always so. In the year Celtic got to the UEFA final the debt level was about £18m. A conscious decision was made to sort that and that was put in place.

A lot of the Celtic support were very unhappy about that and there was a lot of “We need to speculate to accumulate, spend money to get to the next level” type discussion. The board and Peter Lawwell in particular were vilified. 

Homunculus Also Commented

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
From that video, can I just point something out.

The club doesn’t pay VAT or PAYE, it hands it over.

VAT and PAYE are collected from customers and employees. So what he is actually saying is that he spent money that wasn’t his, to finance a football club.

That is not the same as being unable to pay tax. 


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
EASYJAMBO
MAY 13, 2017 at 11:24

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

EJ my reading of it is that Whyte was negotiating to do the deal from late 2010.

It was completed in early May 2011.

The first load of Ticketus money was paid on 9th May 2011, after Whyte had taken over. That deal was with Rangers. 

It included the money already negotiated prior to Whyte buying the shares, and the money Whyte used to partly fund the deal.

The entire deal was with Rangers, because that was who was selling the tickets, whether Murray owned the shares or Whyte doesn’t really matter. It was basically a roll up of the season ticket sales already agreed (with Murray) plus the additional ones being sold (agreed with Whyte).

It was basically all the same deal, between Ticketus and Rangers. 

It’s really surprising how little Rangers knew about it. 


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
From Lord Hodge, way back when.

It is probably worth noting it was Rangers doing the deals with Ticketus, even after Whyte took over. 

I believe it is false to think of Rangers / Ticketus and Whyte / Ticketus deals. They were the same thing.

Ticketus operates a business of buying and selling tickets for, among others, sporting events. The two contracts with Ticketus, which I discuss below, in summary involve the sale by Rangers to Ticketus of season tickets and an agency arrangement by which Ticketus is to receive the income flow from the sale of the season tickets. On or about 9 May 2011 Ticketus paid £20,300,912 for the first tranche of the season tickets which covered the seasons 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. On or about 21 September 2011 Ticketus paid a further £5,075,213 for the second tranche of season tickets, which covered the seasons 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. I am informed that the expected income flow from the sale of the season tickets is likely to represent about 60% of the cash flow of Rangers in those seasons.


Recent Comments by Homunculus

Moving On Time?
John Clark 21st December 2020 at 23:22

I think the point is that the business has to record the difference between the purchase price of the assets, and their value, in the next set of accounts.

So what they are basically saying (normally) is that we bought that bakery business (for example) for £100 pounds, buy the tangible assets, the ovens etc, are only worth £80 so we paid other £20 for the existing customer base, the reputation etc, and that is just referred to in it's totality as the "goodwill".

As with  lot of accountancy stuff it all just looks like smoke and mirror to lay people like me. 

In Rangers case the tangible assets were, in their opinion worth a whole lot more than what they paid, but they still have to record that figure and like I have been saying, that is the dead giveaway and admission that they underpaid.

I suspect it will be part of BDO's case against the administrator.

As ever this is very much my layman's understanding with apologies to those who actually understand these things.


Moving On Time?
John Clark 18th December 2020 at 18:41

If I remember correctly there was a whole load of discussion wih regards the quality of some of the items and it turned out some was made in China, some was made in India and I think some was made in Europe, I have no idea which manufacturer actually made the stuff but I suspect it was just factories who were able to produce what was required so long as they were given the materials and the patterns.

I don't think that's too unusual but I have no experience in the field. 


Moving On Time?
Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

Clearly the King is dead for Keith.

He has changed sides to the one on which his bread is now buttered.

To be fair on the current board, King's move was a bit off, even for him. He is trying to milk the fans for all he can, the board are not happy about that because that was an integral part of their plan.

They are never going to raise the full amount, certainly not quickly, but I believe he has said they can buy his shares in tranches so he could be getting regular payments from them for quite some time. 


Moving On Time?
John Clark 14th December 2020 at 17:13

I think BDO's £29m civil action against the administrator is more likely to bring out more of the truth than a botched criminal action by Crown Office as reported to them by Police Scotland.

BDO have taken their time, presumably investigated the matter properly and think they have enough to take the matter to the civil Courts. I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf. 

Bearing in mind BDO have probably already spent a lot of the money they have brought in, another £29m would be a nice wee addition to the pot.


Moving On Time?
John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02

 

One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.

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

Absolutely none of that was a factor in the administrator's decision making from what I can see. The creditors were irrelevant. 

They were working towards a pre-determined outcome involving Whyte and Green, There may have been a bit of improvisation when the CVA was rejected and Whyte was no longer required but other than that I firmly believe it was a pre-determined outcome. Let's wait and see what is determined by the ongoing proceedings. 

Remember the sale did not go ahead with the preferred bidder / chosen one. The assets were sold to another company with a very similar name, Sevco Scotland Ltd. No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it. 

The aim was a CVA, a debt free Rangers, still the same club, still in the top division of the league etc.

When that was rejected and liquidation (ongoing) started there was a wee bit of the truth, then the re-writing of history, then where we are now. 

 


About the author