THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight


It is unlikely that Rangers were “in debt” to Ticketus …

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

It is unlikely that Rangers were “in debt” to Ticketus per se, as that is not how Ticketus operated. 

They did not provide loans. They bought season tickets in advance at a discount and sold them at face value via the club, their profit was the discount. As far as the supporter knew they were simply buying the ticket from the club.

If there was “debt” it was just the same as any other season ticket holder. They pay up front, and their debt is reduced as games are played, whether they attend or not. Every season ticket holder at a club is a creditor until the last game they have paid for is played.

The difference with Ticketus was that they were no longer a creditor once their last ticket was sold on to a supporter. I imagine the “debt” was the fact that the games had not been played and their tickets had not been sold at that time. Once those tickets were sold and Ticketus received the money then there was no debt.

The fact that Rangers were using them prior to the sale to Whyte is indicative of, at the very least, cash flow problems. 

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
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

Who Is Conning Whom?

Former Rangers favourite Gordon Smith has hit out at the Ibrox board for their bitter response to Derek McInnes’ snub.
Gers released a statement on Thursday night after learning the Aberdeen boss had turned down the chance to return to his old club as manager.
It said they had “endorsed” the 46-year-old’s decision to stay put as they hinted he was not up to managing “a massive club like Rangers”.
The statement added: “We continue to consider candidates but will only appoint someone in whom we have full confidence and who feels he is ready for the job.”
But those words have perplexed former striker Smith – who also previously served at Ibrox as director of football.
He told Sky Sports News: “I find the whole thing astonishing.
“It seems strange that it takes so long to make the appointment, then when Derek turns it down they come out with this statement saying it was probably the right thing that he stays at Pittodrie because really they were trying to assess whether he was the right person for the job and the fact he is staying at Pittodrie proves he isn’t the right person.
“It’s almost like they are saying he didn’t have the bottle for such a big role.
“It absolutely is an embarrassment for the Rangers board. They are trying to say now that he wasn’t the number one candidate.
“I just don’t understand how they can say that.”

Who Is Conning Whom?
I think it’s reasonable to assume that Rangers would have offered Derek McInnes personal terms which at least matched those which he has at Aberdeen so there have to be other reasons that he did not want the job. I just thought I would have a think about what those might be and jot a few down.

1, He is happy at Aberdeen and doesn’t actually want to go anywhere.

2, The other club did not want his backroom staff as part of a package and he likes working with them.

3, Rangers would not pay the compensation so he would have had to breach his contact and then be sued by Aberdeen. He was not willing to do that.

4, He did not want to work under a Director of Football. Or the specific one at Rangers.

5, He did not want to work for the Rangers board, either not liking or not trusting them. Possibly both.

6, He did not want to manage a team whose support turn on people, and whose expectations far exceed reality.

7, He knew that he would have to seriously re-build the squad and knew there simply weren’t the resources to do it properly. (See 6)

8, He did not want to put his family through the consequences of perceived failure (See 6)

I’m sure other people can come up with more good reasons for declining the post. The point is, there are a lot of them.

The only plus seems to be “But we’re Rangers and we’re massive”.

The problem with the plus side is … well it isn’t really true.

Who Is Conning Whom?
DECEMBER 7, 2017 at 22:32

Is that the £29m that was mentioned in the BDO update EJ.

Who Is Conning Whom?
I am neither Derek McInnes or an Aberdeen supporter.

Sorry if anyone is shocked by that revelation.

However if I was I would find that Rangers statement insulting and condescending.

The position of Rangers manager requires an ability to win football matches and the mentality to cope with the demanding off-pitch environment that goes with being the Rangers manager. This is a critical aspect of our assessment of any candidate during the interview process.

After the two games against Aberdeen, we requested permission to engage with their manager to assess his readiness and willingness to consider the Rangers position. This was declined. We were subsequently made aware by Aberdeen’s statement that, at this stage in his career, it would be best for him to remain in his current post. We endorse that position because moving to a massive club like Rangers is a big step with concomitant risk. We continue to consider candidates but will only appoint someone in whom we have full confidence and who feels he is ready for the job.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Who Is Conning Whom?
Already posted.

About the author