THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

By

Can anyone who was in attendence in court expand on …

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

Can anyone who was in attendence in court expand on the basic numbers presented (within the confines of what can be said obviously)  (I’ll also credit johnjames here for having a stab at it too earlier this week).

As I understand it Whyte (Wavetower) were required via the SPA to provide 18m for Lloyds repayment, 5m for immediate player investment, 5m for working capital (was the HSE debt within this figure?) and circa 3m for the wee tax case.  It is alleged that he mortgaged STs from season 11/12, 12/13, 13/14 and 14/15 to do this.  However it is now apparent from court that Murrays oldco Rangers were potentially in debt to Ticketus for up to £6m.  But surely these were also mortgaged on the same 11/12 set of STs?

im not too concerned about the legality issue, the law is the law after all, I’m just struggling to get my head round the base arithmetic.  One cake, how many slices sort of thing!

Smugas Also Commented

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Thanks EJ.  As I said, there is only one ST cake.  It doesn’t matter how you slice it up (and despite your best efforts and patience I confess to still being a little confuddled but that’s nothing new) it’s the same cake.  

Im off to a dark room with my slide rule and abacus!


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
WOTTPI

“…Regan will stay, complete his task and head off no doubt with a large pay off…”

or, as they say in the trade, doing an Ogilvie.


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
I’m no supporter of Salmond but I was always of the opinion that he did what all well meaning (read vote seeking) politicians do which was to blithely call HMRC in ignorance of the quantum of tax outstanding and the conduct of Rangers towards, particularly, HMRC and more generally Scottish Football in the ten years previous and asked could they agree a sum (notice, contrary to popular myth he did not request any reduction) to which HMRC replied, equally correctly, “on your bike.”

whilst the institution stuff was clearly smoke blowing I never really understood why everyone got so hung up on his intervention.


Recent Comments by Smugas

Fergus McCann v David Murray

reasonablechap 5th November 2020 at 08:24

I think that certainly in recent years, it would be much more accurate for it to read…

"When you pull on that jersey you are not just playing for a football club, you're playing for a PLC"

Sorry, me no understandy…

I thought the separation was an accepted given now no…?


Fergus McCann v David Murray
You have to remember Menace the “being out” and the positive test are not necessarily related.  As I understand it, Players 1-4 can be out and player 5, who is within just one of 1-4’s training bubble can test positive for the fan to struggle. 


Fergus McCann v David Murray
Agreed wottpi.  Aberdeen in a way actually called their bluff and said ok we’ll play.  The approach now seems to be that we’ll all simply avoid there being a repeat rather than address what I personally think is inevitable at some point.

and FWIW I still wouldn’t agree with giving “them upstairs“ executive powers to do what they deem fair.  They negated that possibility a long time ago.


Fergus McCann v David Murray
The issue would have been (I think) how does the SPFL order a game to be forfeit if “the offending side” is standing there ready to play? 

What will happen if for instance in the hypothetical match City versus Utd, 4 of City’s players and families are pictured in Dobbies having lunch in close proximity and the pictures hit the Rags websites?  Or, as is perfectly possible, 2 from each side?

i assume that’s the purpose of tomorrow’s zoom call with managers and captains.
 

Similarly I’m not sure on what grounds the SG could act.  They can order the postponement, as they did, not the forfeit.

and of course, if City happen to be top 5 premiership and Utd are part time, is it even fair to apply the play or forfeit rule?
 


Fergus McCann v David Murray
Absolutely Homunculus, particularly the last line. Which is what I suspect will make it completely unworkable.


About the author