The Vice Closes

Avatar By

Nope.  So points deductions it is then.  Fine by me. …

Comment on The Vice Closes by Smugas.

Nope.  So points deductions it is then.  Fine by me.

Smugas Also Commented

The Vice Closes
It seems so long ago now since we dealt with the basic tax impropriety at the root of all this.

Remind me, did the side letters provide any sort of indemnity to the recipient (the recipient of the loan funded by the investment sub trust put in place by the main trust for the ultimate benefit of the spouse or child that is 02) if HMRC were to come calling regarding back tax or did they only commit to making the initial non discretionary (oopsie)  payments to the trust? 

I seem to recall from the FTTT quite lengthy discussion regarding Mr .. (I forget the colour now but it was clearly McLeish) and the assurances his agent and advisors sought before accepting what was being proposed by Murray’s team.


The Vice Closes
A simply gorgeous moment for regular shortbread listeners tonight following on from the discussion above.  In a recorded interview with Johnathon Watson (I assume of only an excuse fame, I missed the start) he was asked, oddly, what his favourite (away?) game was.  He plumped for Rangers Marseilles in 92 and you could vividly imagine the producer settle into his armchair as the tales of wee Coisty, wee Durranty, wee Hatelyey spewed forth.  

As if required, my imaginary producer eggs on interviewer Macintyre “go on son, get to the cheating son, won the CL by default n’that…”. Kenny duly obliges and the conversation turns to Bernie Tapie and his indiscretions.

“Oh I quite agree” says Jonny and then launches into a quite wonderful tirade about stripping titles just like those cheating athletes…

GGARRRROOOOGAH goes my imaginary producers klaxon as he spits out his beverage launches himself from his seat and ushers Kenny onto Ian Macall discussing Ayr Utd vs QoTS.

Very funny.  One wonders if sidekick Tony Roper put him up to it.


The Vice Closes
Dastardly.

sheeesh sheeesh sheeesh sheeesh (that was Mutley by the way)


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

Avatar