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

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author