Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar ByBig Pink

Whose assets are they anyway?

It has recently been suggested to me quite strongly by two separate Finance Industry experts that no matter the outcomes of the forthcoming criminal trials into the sale of Rangers and the subsequent disposal of the liquidated assets, it is highly unlikely that the sale will be reversed. In fact BDO (the liquidators of Rangers) see the path of least resistance to any remedy (if guilty verdicts are returned) through the professional indemnity insurance held by organisations involved (I am choosing my words carefully here to comply with the rules surrounding the court case).

There is of course still the dispute between the owners of Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland to consider (although depending on the outcome of the criminal cases, that may be moot).

On the face of it, all of this is good news for TRFC and Dave King. After all, one of the main problems they have been facing is the uncertainty over the ownership of the assets, and if BDO are swinging in the direction indicated above, King and his board are free to move forward – you would think.

The recent plans to raise cash from the fans is I think a smart one, but it is still a sticking plaster applied to a gunshot wound. Rangers already have a gate income which is the envy of not just most Scottish clubs, but clubs much further afield. Their problem is their astronomical fixed costs, their dilapidated infrastructure, and possible cash outflow through the fabled ‘onerous contracts’.

Even putting in place a severe austerity package (which may be unpalatable to fans being asked to part with their cash to buy off pesky shareholders who don’t share King’s vision) does not remove the need to capitalise urgently to repair the stadium and build a squad capable of competing in Scotland. So they need to raise cash, and they need it quickly – because soft loans cannot be provided forever.

So the share issue route is the obvious way to go, and to do that effectively, a listing on an exchange is required. However our sources in the financial world don’t think it is possible that this could happen with the current regime for the following reasons (not in order of importance);

  1. They have absolutely no credible business plan to move forward over the next five years – only a commitment to limping on with soft loans;
  2. The current chairman is a convicted felon;
  3. Two directors of the new company were directors of the company now in liquidation;
  4. They have no line of credit;
  5. They are already in debt to the tune of at least £12m – increasing as I write;
  6. They are unable to repay that debt;
  7. There is still a nominal (even if we accept the BDO position above) doubt over the ownership of assets;
  8. The football team does not play in the top league – and European income isn’t coming soon;
  9. The company have astronomical fixed costs which are way in excess of their income.

So even if the doubt over the ownership of assets is removed, there isn’t an easily navigable route for TRFC into calmer waters.

My own conclusion is that perhaps the biggest single thing that is holding Rangers back is Dave King. I really don’t know what his motivation is. There is speculation that he has his eyes on the increasing cash-pot and diminishing creditor list at the Oldco. Some Rangers bloggers are suggesting  that a land-grab play is taking place. I think the former is far more plausible than the latter, but if we take his RRM credential at face-value, it seems to me that the Rangers-minded thing for him to do would be to reverse himself out of the position he is in.

That might enable the company to raise some of the cash they need to repair the stadium, rebuild the infrastructure within the club (players, management, youth and scouting etc.).

Are King, Taylor and Park really in this so they can indefinitely fork out £10m per year? Will Taylor and Park continue to ally themselves with King if he is the impediment to inward investment that we think he is? Park will most certainly not, and my information, from sources very close to him, is that he is done.

The fractures in KingCo are beginning to appear, and King himself may come under increasing pressure to do what is best for the future of the club, which is to remove himself from the equation and allow those better placed to take it forward.

It is often speculated elsewhere that SFM is a Celtic blog, and even those who give us credit for being a much broader church than that will still insist that we are anti-Rangers, obsessed with Rangers, and out to get Rangers.

The occasional outburst of Schadenfreude from commenters aside (it IS a football forum after all guys) SFM is quite definitely not editorially anti-Rangers.

I think the evidence shows that we are nothing of the kind, and it doesn’t do Rangers any favours to conflate our position on the corrupt nature of the governance of the game with that of the Ibrox club – new or old. Where we do discuss Rangers (as we have in this article), it is with an acknowledgment that the money flying around in football makes all of our clubs vulnerable to the kind of rip-off merchants who have wandered in and out of Ibrox in the past few years.

There are many areas where the SFM consensus is unpalatable to Rangers fans. But protecting all of our clubs and their fans from mismanagement is hopefully not one of them.

Also, despite the many rivalries within the game, Rangers are an important focus (old club or new) for tens of thousands of fans. As such they are of interest to ALL of us who support football in this country. Anyway, I tend to be more obsessive about my own club – and find it rather easier to be objective about others 🙂

My own preference in moving the debate forward is to get the perspective of Rangers fans on these issues. I am ever hopeful that we can have Rangers fans engage with the blog and look for areas where we have common purpose.

Nobody at SFM wants Rangers fans to have no team to support. Nobody here wants the SFA to stay unregulated and unaccountable. Nobody at SFM wants people to make up rules they go along just for the sake of a few quid. I can’t believe that Rangers fans don’t share those values.

I agree that Rangers fans are victims of this affair to a large extent, but the culprits are quite definitely not us at SFM. They need to look closer to home to find them.

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,787 Comments so far

neepheid

neepheidPosted on4:45 pm - Nov 4, 2015


What is clear from the accounts released today is that the company is relying on undertakings from individual shareholders to provide the cash to see the season out.

The forecast identifies that the group will require up to £2.5m by way of debt or equity funding by the end of season 2015/2016 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. Further funding will be required during the 2016/17 season, thequantum of which is dependent on future football performance and promotion to the SPFL Premiership. The forecast indicates that an initial tranche of funds will be required in December 2015.The Board of Directors has received undertakings from certain shareholders that they will provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of these undertakings and that the individuals have the means and authority to provide such funding as and when it is required. The Board acknowledge that had these assurances not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the Groups ability tocontinue as a going concern and therefore it’s ability to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. The Board is delighted that this uncertainty has been removed and the appropriate assurances obtained.The financial support to be made available more than covers the projected shortfall for this season and beyond. The Board further understands that additional facilities can be made available as and when required for investment in the team.As such, after making the enquiries referred to above, the Board of Directors believe that there is a reasonable expectation that the Group will at all times have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeablefuture. Accordingly they continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing this report and the statutory financial statements.

These undertakings are clearly not in writing, or we would be told so. These are presumably just gentleman’s agreements, sealed with a firm handshake, no doubt.
That is all well and good- those trading with the company now have the information, and can make their own judgements regarding terms of trade.
But where do the SFA/SPFL stand in this? Would they accept this from any other club in Scotland? What assurance can they have that this club will fulfill their fixtures? 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:51 pm - Nov 4, 2015


“Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase 2h2 hours ago

About those titles (and cups). The SPFL & SFA can re-open the case or it can choose to disgrace and devalue their competitions.”

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on4:56 pm - Nov 4, 2015


@neepheid PMGB has suggested non stneographic journalists might like to ask certain shareholders whether they have made such undertakings.  Is it just the Chairman on behalf of the Board of Directors who has told the Auditors of these alleged shareholder undertakings.  We all know what a relationship said chairman has with truthful statments but do the Auditors know that a South African Judge would require independent corroborative evidence to believe one of the Chairman’s statements?

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on4:58 pm - Nov 4, 2015


http://rangers.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AnnualReport2015.pdf
Having had a quick look through the accounts, the following struck me.

The accounts have been prepared on a going concern basis, that includes the subsidiary’s accounts included in the group consolidated accounts. They are assuming that TRFC are promoted, which a very dangerous and overoptimistic state of affairs.

The wage bill and number of staff has gone down, but since the year-end we have read of several appointments so that may be going up again.

The directors’ emoluments section lists some of the capable executive directors that have left, with Wallace, Nash, Leach and Llambias not having been replaced. It may save money, but at what cost to corporate governance?

Fixed assets appear to be overvalued, particularly the stadium. Try selling the ground for that and see many takers you’ll get. If the ground was home to a profitable venture, then maybe such a large figure may be appropriate, but given the historic losses it seems excessive. Have the rectification costs been taken into account? A lot of those asssets are pledged as security for loans that at the moment the group appears unable to repay.

The cash situation was dire at the year-end, but season book sales since then will have improved it, but then subsequent outgoings will have depleted it. It isn’t really a meaningful figure, being just a snapshot.  However, if you look at the deferred income, it shows £6.2M season ticket money deferred, of which £5.2M is included in debtors and so not received by the year end. Therefore, the cash at bank figure of £1M appears to be season ticket money received.

Loans of £8.75M Ouch.
Open offer £3M proceeds. Spent. Ouch.

Deferred tax. The balance sheet includes a deferred tax liability of £6.3M, which is a notional figure and reflects the amount of CT that would be paid if the revalued assets were sold and the revaluation reserve were realised. That can be discounted, as that sale will not happen any time soon.

The numbers on the balance sheet don’t look good. Current liabilities exceed current assets, with trade creditors alone enough to eat up all the cash. Then there’s that pesky £1.5M owing to HMRC for PAYE/VAT. I’d be interested to know the full breakdown of the £1.8M accruals figure. I assume that includes gardeners pay-offs, agent fees, transfer fees, player bonuses etc.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:00 pm - Nov 4, 2015


“Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase 2h2 hours ago
About those titles (and cups). The SPFL & SFA can re-open the case or it can choose to disgrace and devalue their competitions.”
===============
[Edit / Timed Out]
Is this the final, last chance – absolutely – for the SFA to do the right thing…and become a credible, “trusted and respected to lead” football association ?!

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on5:03 pm - Nov 4, 2015


The Cat NR1 4th November 2015 at 4:58 pm

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

Re the “value” of the stadium etc. Remember that is something called a depreciated replacement value (or somesuch), not a “what would we get if we sold it” value.

I believe bfbpuzzled explained the basics in a previous post.

“PROPERTY MATTERS
The property valuation report from Rushton International dated 14 October 2015 includes a valuation of the company’s
properties under a depreciated replacement cost method at the same date as follows:
l Ibrox Stadium – £62.2 million; and
l Auchenhowie – £13.35 million. This represents a combined value of £75.55 million”

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on5:06 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Any news on the green claim? Also imminent I believe

View Comment

Avatar

alzipratuPosted on5:41 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Just heard national grid having to use emergency supplies. Two things: firstly, bampots get offline so people can cook their tea; secondly, can national grid plug into the rage-ometer coming from the Bears?

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on5:59 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Stevie BC – Is this the final, last chance – absolutely – for the SFA to do the right thing…and become a credible, “trusted and respected to lead” football association ??????
I could not have put it any better and agree the sentiments entirely. I think we have all hoped that one day the SFA would wake up to the fact they have a real problem and now is as good as time as any for them to come out of the bunker and accept their dues; then take their hat and coat and walk out of the bunker for the last time. JC is waiting patiently for your exit no doubt!!
When I started following RTC (and SFM beyond) and cited some of the issues being discussed I was often told it could never be true. Today life feels a lot brighter but the days that follow could still provide some more fresh air if the SFA grow a pair. Of course it might not happen but then again, even yesterday people feared today would not turn up as it has, so never say never.
Time to go home and raise a glass to RTC and SFM and all of us who have followed the trials and tribulations of this on-going soap opera. There may even be some happy people in HMRC and SARS tonight. 
The story continues on page 94…………………..

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:03 pm - Nov 4, 2015


the depreciated replacement cost value of the stadium etc is an accounting convention and no measure of exchange value.
Exchange value would look to the greater of the value of the right to lose £10 million per annum or highest value of the property as a development prospect ie it is possible that the net value is less than zero in either case. 

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on6:05 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Methilhill Stroller
you missed out phil #downfall

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:05 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Neil Patey has spoken ….

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on6:07 pm - Nov 4, 2015


I did actually laugh at the phrase “… the right to lose £10 million per annum …”

Nicely worded.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on6:09 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Flip sake, Neil is spinning like a peery tonight.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on6:21 pm - Nov 4, 2015


bobcobb 4th November 2015 at 1:37 pm #Incidentally, I think a wee light should be shone on an official statement from possibly the only actual legally binding decision made by an actual Scottish Judge in an actual Scottish Law Court (instead of the SFA/SPL/LNS etc.) in this whole affair.
“A scheme involving payments to various trusts set up in respect of executives and footballers employed by the former Rangers Football Club amounted to “a mere redirection of emoluments or earnings” and was accordingly “subject to income tax”.”
And there we have it. Not “holding company” or any other such nonsense. “Former club.” As in not the current one.
It really is a great day.

Don’t forget Judge Colin Bishopp, originally meant to be hearing the UTT appeal

Judge Colin Bishopp said he took into account the financial collapse of Rangers and subsequent fallout into allowing the hearings to be held in public.
He stated: “Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a ‘club’, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:26 pm - Nov 4, 2015


And still BBC Radio Scotland flogs the big lie. The judgement will not affect ‘the company that currently owns ‘Rangers’.
There is a wicked perversity in that attitude, because no intelligent person can seriously believe that all that had happened was that Craig Whyte’s RFC changed hands, a deliberate ,and therefore malicious, denial of truth.
And it’s a much more serious matter if the BBC is allowed to lie, than if the SFA and the RIFC Board are allowed to lie.
There was an earlier item about Glasgow City Council’s training courses for council staff ( eg binmen) in ‘terrorism awareness’ [‘ look out for and report curtains always closed’, ‘have a look in the bins’ etc etc], the reporter saying that there is opposition to this Orwellian ‘Big Brother’ idea.
The irony was clearly lost on those in the BBC who insist on their news announcers  parroting  the ‘establishment’ line that ‘Rangers’ are still alive.
Time for a change of Controller: if he can happily allow untruths to be broadcast in football matters, what other untruths might he be happy  to propagate when under pressure?
Bad cess to him.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:30 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Another item from the accounts is the increase on the internal debt due to RIFC from TRFC.  The amount went up from £15.647M to £18.099M.  I’ve managed to reconcile the increase of £2.452M, by subtracting the annual loss by the parent company of £581K which is funded by TRFC but adding the £3.033M from the proceeds of the issue of new shares by RIFC.

Looking at the AGM resolutions (9,10) re the issue of new shares, it appears that there will not be any major dilution of shareholding by issuing 100s of millions of shares.  There are limits on the total number of shares in each resolution. A 2 for 1 rights issue in resolution 9 capped at 40M shares and a similar number without pre emption rights in resolution 10.   

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on6:35 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Chris McLaoughlin on BBC1 Scotland ‘news’
. . . said that the EBT’s were used by THE CLUB !

if Sevco and Rangers are the same Club, then Sevco must be taken to task by the SFA and SPFL for using a system which was described as second, only to cheating !!!

over to you SFA and SPFL 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:45 pm - Nov 4, 2015


alzipratu 4th November 2015 at 1:25 pm #
‘..So it wasn’t rules they needed, but people of integrity and a system of checks and balances.’
____
Especially, perhaps, they needed   a highly placed Administrator of integrity who might have, on the basis of personal knowledge,  thought it worth while having a wee special check on the finances of a certain club.

View Comment

Avatar

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on6:53 pm - Nov 4, 2015


An update from Mark Daly, BBC Scotland Investigations Correspondent
How Rangers’ dubious tax wheeze unravelled
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34723209

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:59 pm - Nov 4, 2015


easyJambo 4th November 2015 at 6:30 pm #
‘…Looking at the AGM resolutions (9,10) re the issue of new shares, it appears that there will not be any major dilution of shareholding by issuing 100s of millions of shares. ‘
_________
Will the other significant shareholders let the resolutions pass, d’you think, if it doesn’t affect them too badly immediately, and, if gamblers, might in future give them  a few more bob?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:10 pm - Nov 4, 2015


John Clark 4th November 2015 at 6:59 pm

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

I think the big question is who will be allowed to vote JC. If I remember correctly some of the shareholders have had their voting rights removed. I think those were some of the shareholders who Easdale held a proxy for.

Bearing in mind King will need 75% of the people who actually vote, to get his special resolutions through.

It will be interesting to see if there are any Court cases twixt now and the AGM in relation to who can and can’t vote. In fact is it possible that someone will actually apply for an injunction to have the AGM postponed until this matter can be resolved.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:12 pm - Nov 4, 2015


John Clark 4th November 2015 at 6:59 pm #
Will the other significant shareholders let the resolutions pass, d’you think, if it doesn’t affect them too badly immediately, and, if gamblers, might in future give them  a few more bob?
========================
It will depend on whether or not some are allowed to vote. Resolution 11 seeks to deny MASH a vote.  I don’t know if BPH and Margarita will take legal action to ensure that they can vote. Similarly I don’t know how many shares remain in Sandy Easdale’s proxy. 

I don’t expect the small (sentimental) shareholders to buy shares, but I don’t think that they will seek to stop the issue of new shares.  King, the 3Bears, RF and RST will all vote with the Board (they account for 40%)

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on7:16 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Been a very eventful day. The CoS Verdict, Rangers Accounts – and some new furniture arrived at SFM Central.

Our thanks to EddieGoldTop who bought and paid for the furniture but refused to accept payment when he and his driver delivered the stuff.

Thanks a bunch EGT, and a Mr D King has asked for your ‘phone number 🙂

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:16 pm - Nov 4, 2015


The shareholders affected are

Blue Pitch Holdings
Putney Holdings Ltd
ATP Investments Ltd
Norne Anstalt.

Between them they hold just over 10%.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on7:18 pm - Nov 4, 2015


So onwards and upwards. Any odds yet on which English clubs will get the “knock” first.
This is the bit I’m truly looking forward too.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:32 pm - Nov 4, 2015


There seems to be a fatalistic view by some (certainly on STV News tonight) that revisiting the outcome of LNS is a no no.

I don’t accept that.

LNS commission was a commission.  Not the Court of Session.  A commission set up by the SPL chaired by a retired judge to give it gravitas and a quasi legalistic feel.  But at the end of the day it was an enquiry by a football organisation who has much wriggle room in it’s rules.  Indeed it could be said that the commission was set up because the SPL did not have the guts to deal with the problem itself.

But to say that a commissions decisions cannot be examined again in light of new evidence including todays Legal Outcomes, and the now known withholding of crucial evidence (per Auldheid) is frankly not on.

If it takes the same amount of pressure on our clubs and football authorities to get that tribunals decisions looked at again as what happened when they tried to shoehorn Rangers into the top tier then so be it.

The pressure must be kept up.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on7:44 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Iagree with Jimbo about LNS.
My answer is hold a completely new commission based on EBT’S being illegal.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on7:45 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Dipping in and pout of SSB. A bit of a giggle.

Kudos to Alex Rae for taking some pelters on the chin.

Spin now it that the EBTs were legal at the time they operated.
It was the holding company etc

The question then has to be – if the EBTs were legal why were the side letters not passed onto the football authorities as required when disclosing a players contract details as part of the registration process. What were the club, holding company, knight of the realm,  frightened off??

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on7:52 pm - Nov 4, 2015


wottpi 4th November 2015 at 7:45 pm #Dipping in and pout of SSB. A bit of a giggle.
Kudos to Alex Rae for taking some pelters on the chin.
Spin now it that the EBTs were legal at the time they operated. It was the holding company etc
————————————————————————-
Like murder is legal until you’re caught? Sandy Bryson has a lot to answer for. Hope he is hanging his head in shame.
Scottish Football needs Allan Macrae to step up to the plate and clean out the stables….

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:55 pm - Nov 4, 2015


On a side issue.  I spoke today with someone in the know (won’t go further than that but I expect several other posters on here will vouch for the validity of this.)  HMRC and the law takes the view that we as individuals also have a duty to make sure we pay the correct amount of income tax.  That is why we are sent a P60 every year.  We check our earnings for instance and if it is not right we contact our employers or the tax office.

It reminds me of ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ and ‘let the buyer beware’.

So contrary to what I said earlier today, there is every chance that players and execs. WILL be chased for the tax they owe at some point in the future.  As wottpi said, squeaky bum time.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:57 pm - Nov 4, 2015


wottpi 4th November 2015 at 7:45 pm

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

EBTs were legal at the time. So long as they were operated correctly and used for the manner in which they were designed.

However what they were not designed for was making contractual payments, that was a total no. Payments into the trusts had to be discretionary on the part of the employer. “Loans” out of the trust had to be discretionary, on the part of the trustee.

What Rangers did was to take a scheme, use it incorrectly, hide the fact that they were doing that, and in doing so under-declare something like £45m on which tax was due.

Rangers avoided tax, it is arguable that some people may actually have evaded tax but I think HMRC tactically decided to go down the civil route, to get the ruling they wanted.

As I have said all along, from way back in the RTC days, is the whole thing about loans was specious. The tax was due as soon as the contractually agreed payment was made.

View Comment

Avatar

TheClumpanyPosted on8:00 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Good Evening.
I wouldn’t normally do this but I am pasting my latest blog in its entirety below as I think it might be of interest to the SFM community. It relates to today’s judgement in favour of HMRC, which I see has caught your attention!
Cheers.
The Clumpany
>>>>>>>
Good Evening.
The picture in this piece is a pretty ordinary one, but it represents something very substantial.
It is (obviously) a football. And the chances are that if you saw one of many Rangers players kick one during the first decade of this century, you were being lied to.
And if you saw a player in another Scottish side kicking a ball in a competition involving the late Rangers Football Club you were also being lied to.
Thousands of passes. Hundreds of goals. Dozens of tournaments.
All a lie.
And if you invested a single penny or shred of emotion in Scottish football during that period you were being cheated.
Systematically.
Because the implication of today’s victory for HMRC in the Big Tax Case (assuming there is no successful appeal at the Supreme Court) is that Rangers (IL) fielded players they couldn’t otherwise afford by using payment schemes on which due tax went unpaid.
As today’s judgement says
“Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere. We realise that the fifth respondent [RFC 2012] was in, potentially, a difficult financial position, competing for good players in an international market where other countries may not have the same rigorous approach to taxation as the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the law is clear: the payments made in respect of footballers were in our view derived from their employment and thus the payments were emoluments or earnings.”
While Rangers were doing this, other clubs took expensive care to render into Caesar what was Caesar’s.
You might say that these clubs were at a completely unfair disadvantage as Rangers hoovered up more of the trophies that apparently made them the ‘World’s Most Successful Club’ (sic).
How does that make you feel?
It makes me feel rather pissed off that for the best part of a decade our wonderful game seems to have been a lie. All those goals, all those matches, and all those tournaments.
The reaction of many fans today has been to demand that action is initiated to examine what happened during that decade, and have the option of title stripping on the table.
And they are absolutely right to do this. The implications of the HMRC victory raise too many questions about the very worth and integrity of our game to be swept under the carpet.
The SFA must institute an independent inquiry or process to get to the bottom of the matter, and consider whether sanctions are merited. These issues were most certainly not resolved by the SPL-sponsored Lord Nimmo Smith Commission which looked into the use of side letters.
The game needs to be cleansed, and no stone should be left unturned. Only then can we all try and move on.
Voices are already being raised in the media, questioning the need to go over this ground.
This piece by Graham Spiers rightly calls out Rangers’ cheating and the stain it will always leave on their memory, but then goes on to say
“The judgement of illegal activity by Rangers – if or when this saga is concluded – will leave an ungodly mess to be sorted.
The club paid the ultimate price in 2012 – liquidation. That event has left Scottish football poisoned, with acrimonious debate about Rangers’ history going into overdrive in recent years. But the “newco Rangers” – whatever your interpretation of that – will not be financially affected.”
“A guilty Rangers – if this is the end of the matter – also leaves the Scottish FA in a precarious position. Retrospective title-stripping looks a futile business to me, but it goes on in other sports, and the SFA stand accused of being timorous in the face of the wrongdoing.
Is title-stripping an option? Yes, it is, though I wouldn’t assent to it. The misdeeds have been done, and Rangers FC paid a high price.
What is to be gained in trampling back over history and spearing a liquidated football club with further punishment? There always will be an asterisk in the public mind beside these dodgy Rangers years. I cannot see the benefit in the retrospective expunging of trophies.”
Well that’s all well and good Graham, but the current Ibrox entity continues to maintain that it IS Rangers, and clings to the titles that were apparently stolen from Scottish football. And that doesn’t sit right with me and many others.
Are we seriously meant to buy the fiction that

  • a liquidated company ran a scheme on which tax should have been paid,
  • to maximise its player budget,
  • which an ethereal ‘club’ then used to win trophies that can’t fairly be stripped?

Aye. Right.
Personally, I find it difficult to believe the SFA will do anything other than try and avoid instituting a process which might remove trophies from Rangers, and which risks incurring the displeasure of Sevco fans.
But we have seen a similar movie before. Back in 2012, Heaven and Earth was moved by the authorities to try and place new club Sevco in the top two tiers of the game. The ‘No to Newco’ campaign brought fans of many clubs together to stand against gerrymandering and protect the integrity of our game.
I suspect that something similar may now be required if the SFA is to be persuaded to take action in response to today’s judgement.
And that means politely pestering the boards of our clubs to say that we are not prepared to see the SFA washing its hands of this mess.
All our clubs.
Not just Celtic. Because if Celtic tried to act alone (and I doubt they would), it instantly becomes portrayed as an ‘Old Firm’ (sic) issue, and therefore a pantomime.
Think about it.
And if you conclude that our game deserves better than the epic lie of the previous decade, and if you believe that wrongs ought to be set right, why not contact your club to let them know?
There’s no time like the present.
#KeepOnClumping

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:06 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Sorry to be a pest, this is my last one honest03

I would doubt very much if players but especially the knighted one were not aware that these payments were dodgy.  Celtic used one EBT in April 2005.  (Juninho)  I believe they were advised by one of Celtic’s directors to take nothing to do with them.  Celtic & HMRC came to a settlement in 2008, the tax liability was settled by Celtic.  That’s a full 2 years before Rangers stopped using them.

Given the grapevine between ‘the Old Firm’ as was, why didn’t Rangers take heed?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:08 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Red Lichtie @ 7.52

i think that’s the choice to be made.  If the findings of LNS are to stand because of “lack of appetite (c) Richard Wilson the proven failures in the setting of the commission terms should draw fire and take casualties.  The clubs should be going to Doncaster and Regan (at the very least) and saying ok, here’s the sword, it’s entirely up to you who falls on it.  That they won’t of course is entirely down to knowledge that they’d instantly be done for unfair dismissal with the triumvirate immediately pleading, quite correctly, the Nuremberg defence.  But then that’s kind of the point.

the clubs en masse should be saying publicly now that they can’t be seen to be doing nothing.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:10 pm - Nov 4, 2015


jimbo 4th November 2015 at 7:32 pm #
‘…There seems to be a fatalistic view by some (certainly on STV News tonight) that revisiting the outcome of LNS is a no no.’
_______
Richard Wilson was almost gabbling hysterically on ‘Sportsound’ , damn near wetting himself, as he desperately tried to push the view that in way would the LNS matter be re-visited. This was not a considered, objective view: more a panic reaction at what would be the inevitable reversal of Nimmo Smith’s view that there had been no ‘sporting advantage’.
You’re quite right: a judicial panel set up on a wholly false premise, and then further compromised by the ‘selection’ of the evidence put before it, as well as by charlatan and man-of-straw Bryson, MUST be ignored as being a nullity, and all of its findings and conclusions dismissed as irrelevant.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:10 pm - Nov 4, 2015


So what a day it’s been. My last post before I left for work this morning somewhat gloomily forecast the media would spend the day berating HMRC, and telling us ‘Rangers didn’t need to die’. Then all that changed, changed forever, with that momentous ruling from the COS Judges. I have to say those gentlemen have given me faith in our Justice system with this ruling based simply on ‘common sense’. Forget fancy tax lawyers who tie courts in knots. All we ask is that people pay tax on their earnings like the rest of us have to. We could all see what had happened but for a while the law seemed prepared to be an ass. 

I do not believe Scottish football can move on unless there is at least a caveat recorded against every honour won by Rangers over the EBT period. While I feel the authorities will still resist any such move, I can still console myself that David Murray has finally been exposed to the extent he has. No single person has been as ruinous to the Scottish game as this man has, yet now his cheating is finally laid bare for all to see. I have no truck with the honours system and never have had, but for those who do then surely a man who has behaved in this way should not be allowed to keep his Knighthood. 

View Comment

Avatar

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on8:13 pm - Nov 4, 2015


EBT beneficiaries (Shouldn’t that be emoluments now BBC Scotland News?)
1 September 2015 From BBC Glasgow & West Scotland News
This table contains the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the Murray Group Remuneration Trust, and how much they received through that trust.
It also lists the names of people where the BBC has seen evidence that they received side-letters – a promise to make contributions to their individual sub-trusts.
BBC Scotland asked everyone in the Employee Benefit Trust scheme featured in the documentary Rangers: The Men Who Sold the Jerseys, broadcast in 2012, about their use of the trust.
None would tell us anything about their EBTs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34118126T
Time for any journalists (as opposed to “churnalists”) out there to question those individuals on the list about the “taxable emoluments” they received on which Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions has yet to be paid. Personally, I’d start with those operating as “football pundits” on UK media, particularly those who work for our BBC!
When Rangers saw the taxman, they just went off their heads!
I just can’t get enough! I just can’t get enough!

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on8:15 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Been so much going on today that I’m unsure if anyone has commented on the note in the accounts to the effect that the figures are flattered by £1.3M of one-off rental and security staff income from the Commonwealth Games rugby sevens and a Scottish international.
This also caught my eye : “… there was a net cash out flow of £12.2 million from operating activities compared to £5.7 million in the prior year.” Ouch!
“The forecasts indicate that further funds will be required early in December 2015. The Board have received undertakings from certain shareholders comfirming that they will provide financial support as it is required.”
Would CD, rather than the Board, not have usually noted that there were irrevocable commitments to that end by said parties?
Will the SFA/SPFL now be seeking guarantees that funds will in fact be available as the date these funds are required is just around four weeks away!
Does the HMRC victory now scotch any idea DCK had for sisting oldco?
In any other industry this company would be a dead duck. With all of the cr*p we are reading/hearing and the sense of deja vu pertaining it is clearly a parrot on life support (as a famous comedy group might have said).
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:17 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Homunculus 4th November 2015 at 7:10 pm #
‘I think the big question is who will be allowed to vote JC
‘easyJambo 4th November 2015 at 7:12 pm 
‘…It will depend on whether or not some are allowed to vote.’
_________
Thank you, gentlemen both..

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on8:24 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Homunculus 4th November 2015 at 7:57 pm

Indeed. The problem as I see it, regardless of what was published today appears to be that the oldco failed to follow the advice of Baxendale-Walker because the players agents could not trust the discretionary nature by which the EBT scheme would have been above board.
Therefore can it be argued that as soon as the side letters were produced they were operating the EBT in an illegal manner regardless of whether or not they were legal at the time?

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on8:26 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Tony – Phil was included as he used to post and my comment was all inclusive – even to those who sadly passed on and those who stopped posting but will no doubt feel the same despite that.
I really do think SFM should be asking the SFA what they now intend to do to right the wrongs so Scottish Football can move forward. Seems that 41 clubs have got their houses in order and one still has not despite being given another chance.
If Dundee, Hearts or Hibs had the same set of accounts and debts the SFA would likely be all over them and any others like a rash. A new brush and some good sweeping very much needed at the Hampden bunker.
Always hope that one day it will come to pass. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:28 pm - Nov 4, 2015


redlichtie 4th November 2015 at 8:15 pm
‘..Would CD, rather than the Board, not have usually noted that there were irrevocable commitments to that end by said parties..’
_____
Yes, I actually looked for CD to say something along the lines of ” we have satisfied ourselves that there isevidence of those commitments” , or some verification.
But then I went back to the top, and read that the Auditors are only reporting to the Board, and no one else. So, the Board’s word would appear to be good enough.
A peculiar idea of ‘independent audit’, to my accountancy-ignorant mind! Geez, we took more care with the staff tea-fund’s accounts!

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on8:30 pm - Nov 4, 2015


I think if you read this tweet from Paul Brennan, It is pretty clear that Lord Drummond Young is saying that Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement is not worth tuppence.
He has been superseded, by a real judge, in a real court. There is no wriggle room for the SFA not to re-visit the decision. It has been invalidated by a judge. Bold as brass !  In fact I would go as far as to say it is almost a legal instruction to the SFA 

https://twitter.com/CQN/status/661937981213773824

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:33 pm - Nov 4, 2015


TheClumpany 4th November 2015 at 8:00 pm #

This piece by Graham Spiers…
“A guilty Rangers…Is title-stripping an option? Yes, it is, though I wouldn’t assent to it.”…
=============================
Erm, well Mr.Spiers this is where your lack of self-awareness is glaring.
The value of your ‘assent’ 09 wrt any RFC/TRFC stories is actually worthless.
You tried to be cute by blowing in the wind every so often, but in the main you didn’t add anything to Scottish football fans’ knowledge of this saga than the likes of Keef.
If I had relied on Spiers et al for my footie info, I would probably now be siding with the TRFC fans – exasperated about how everyone is out to get the Ibrox club !
Thanks to RTC/SFM, IMO not one of the SMSM print sports ‘journalists’ has any credibility.  232323

You know where you can stick your ‘assent’ Mr. Spiers ! 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on8:34 pm - Nov 4, 2015


I note that the club, or is it the holding company, has released an official statement saying today’s EBT verdict has nowt to do with them. (Somehow DCK has suddenly forgotten about the re-merger plan)

If the official view from Ibrox is that the Holding Company myth is the flavour of the month you would think they would have the decency to highlight to fans of the football club that from today’s accounts the club is £18m in debt to an external lender and therefore no further forward than when SDM sold it to Whyte for £1.

Speaking of time travel, given the nonsense being spouted to keep the fans on-side one would think Charlie Green was still at the helm 

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on8:40 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Today most people on here are rightly congratulating themselves, and others who are no longer here, yet questions remain with regard to this on going sore within Scottish football.
It has also been stated elsewhere that there is still the right of appeal by RFC and whether they do or not is entirely up to their Liquidators so there may yet be legs in this story.
My main issue here though is not the stripping of titles/trophies won leaving blank spaces as a testament to wrong doing. No, it is the unavoidable fact that, as grubby and distasteful this whole episode has been, there is absolutely nothing in place to stop it happening again. No rules have been altered to prevent wide scale miss registration of players. That in itself is unacceptable to me. People within the corridors of power live blissfully ignorant of the stain that this issue has left on our sport. They have appeared weak and leaderless simply because the problem was at the door of one of the best supported clubs in the country. That is not acceptable either. 
Financial results produced today show that there is a large shortfall for ‘The Rangers’ business. Is that good governance? Of course it isn’t. Why is it allowed when any financial benefits accrued will not cover what is required?
My anger is equally split between RFC, SFA, SPL, and my own club. There is an old saying “you cannot fart against thunder” and I can do nothing about the first three but I can and will be contacting my own club regarding this debacle and more importantly the neglect shown, not only by my club, but by all in not pushing for meaningful change at Hampden.
Whether RFC appeal, and even win it, is not the point. No one that supports any club in our sport can say that what has gone on in the last five years is acceptable and sweeping change is required.
I have always felt that the money I spent on season tickets was taken under false pretences. I watched an illusion of competition that was tacitly condoned by the league authorities and the Association. What has happened since has only re-enforced that opinion. Do I find that acceptable? No I do not and at this moment I am no longer sure that I will be back for another season.
In my opinion it is time the clubs stood up and be counted with a full vote of no confidence in the structure of the SFA as it currently stands.

View Comment

Famous song

Famous songPosted on8:45 pm - Nov 4, 2015


So, Alloa face a weekend trip to the fabulous Ibrox Stadium. We will be playing opponents who have racked up big losses for the third year on the trot. They have £8.75m external and £18.1m internal debts. They openly admit to the begging bowl being out, in order to see Xmas. Their founder, Charles Green, is (removed at the insistence of the Famous Legal Department). Their current chairman, David King is (removed at the insistence of the Famous Legal Department).

They claim a history 6 years greater than ours. The actual figure is minus 134 years. The claim is based on the pretence that they “really” are Rangers. This was stripped bare, today, as the rough equivalent of claiming that your financial backers are Lehman Brothers. Their children and grandchildren will quietly walk away from this sham. If it continues.

Our current footballing form was described to me, correctly, this week, as “dismal”. By a Sevco supporter. Oddly enough, I’m full of optimism. If not in the short term, but for the rest of my life.

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on8:46 pm - Nov 4, 2015


It’s not Instant Karma, but could we be about to see an irony overload?It’s not unreasonable to assume that:-TRFC fans will increasingly blame the SFA for the lack of governance that allowed a procession of chancers to bring their club to ruination especially if the court cases find some ex officers of the club guilty and the club/company shares the punishment, (just as they blame the SFA for allowing CW into RFC)-These same ex officers who might have gotten away with it if they hadn’t been too greedy, pushed the limits so far with the obscene amounts pilfered / squirreled / contracted away from the IPO that even the compliant Scottish establishment woke up and took notice of switcheroos and unusual administration practices -As a tide of revolt against the SFA beaks gains traction, other clubs who previously felt the need to keep their heads down will join in, uniting fans against corruption-As part of his defence in the current court cases or at a hearing for the unpaid fine by the SFA, CW uses recorded conversations that will prove very difficult for certain figures -in all the fury at the SFA and todays court decision, its realised even by RFC fans that DM (thats David Murray not Derek McInnes) should also have been looked at more closely by the SFA and especially by the Scunner Campbell (remember him?)- DM / CO are charged with bringing the game into disrepute -As a result of new found integrity, those in the SFA who ditched the aforementioned integrity to keep the status quo and commercial gains, find themselves out on their ears -As a result of the UTT appeal decision, the same club lie is finally nailed- unfortunately for rangers fans of every level of decency, it will likely be too late, as come near the end of the season with TRFC finally ready to achieve promotion (to an expanded division, i’m assuming the SPFL hedge their bets again and push through a late change in rules) all monies now run out, no loans of the soft or the harder variety can be found, and remaining directors resign or otherwise give up the ghost choosing not to be charged with insolvent trading.-the club that was seen as too big to fail can’t find a sufficient number of skilled directors or money from its 500m fans to carry on-Administration then Liquidation.-Again.
This time, no club 12, or 16 or 18, just expulsion.At that point, title stripping might just be on the table for those years of financial doping / player ineligibility No team with no actual legal name nor licensed corporate existence play Brechin in an early season cup tie this time.In a few years a reborn club will likely arise, playing from somewhere in other colours (no, i didn’t say orange) – good luck guys, honest.
Here’s to karma, ( clink of glasses ), it wasn’t quite instant, but in the grand scheme of things it was quite quick!
I was going to include a certain Mr Bryson in this fantasy, as part of a reconvened panel to look at the eligibility of RFC players with EBTs, with him also being charged with the disrepute thingy, but then I remembered that he could not have been wrong before he was found out to be wrong, so scrap that.
Off for another wee drinky, what a day it’s been.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:52 pm - Nov 4, 2015


From the official TRFC site .

 
WE WOULD like to correct some misleading information that has been circulating on what is described as the “Big Tax Case”.
For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers have not lost the case. There is no question of any liability impacting on our Club, its history or any member of the Rangers International Football Club plc Group.
The Rangers Football Club and the entities which currently own and manage it are not party to these proceedings nor do we have any say in what happens. The proceedings are a matter for those affected by them.
We note that the assessments for tax which were the subject for appeal and which are referred to as the Big Tax Case relate to Murray Group Holdings Limited, Murray Group Management Limited, The Premier Group Property Limited, GM Mining Limited and RFC 2012 PLC (in liquidation).Article Copyright © 2015. Permission to use quotations from this article online is only granted subject to appropriate source credit and hyperlink to http://www.rangers.co.uk

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on8:52 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Having had a quick look through the accounts, the following struck me.
The accounts have been prepared on a going concern basis,
They are assuming that TRFC are promoted, which a very dangerous and overoptimistic state of affairs.
=====================================================
Norwich Cat (forgive my informality)
But preparing accounts on such an outlandish assumption as qualifying for a sporting, even beats all known bean counting tricks in my career!
Thank you for your analysis of the published bumph, to which, historically, I have attached no particular importance, especially emanating from the Govan area of Glasgow.
I note that the announcement of the £7.5m loss is a distinct improvement on the previous period reported loss of £8.1m…such financial probity is indeed to be admired!

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:57 pm - Nov 4, 2015


A thought, just for people to consider and maybe comment on if anyone has specialist knowledge.

Now this ruling has been given is there any prospect that HMRC will try to repatriate the funds currently sitting in sub-trusts. Or has all of the money been paid out in “loans”.

If it has been paid out in loans then the loanee is effectively a creditor of the trust, in which case could HMRC do anything to recover that money.

Bearing in mind Mr Cohen’s specialties.

“Malcolm leads the firms’ National Contentious Insolvency Team, this team is dedicated to recovering assets through litigation, cross border investigations and uncovering fraud.”

Pure speculation but I would appreciate anyone’s thoughts.

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on8:58 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Apologies for the formatting horror above, it was pasted in and went all wrong, couldn’t correct in time.

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on9:01 pm - Nov 4, 2015


paddy malarkey 4th November 2015 at 8:52 pm #From the official TRFC site .
 We note that the assessments for tax which were the subject for appeal and which are referred to as the Big Tax Case relate to Murray Group Holdings Limited, Murray Group Management Limited, The Premier Group Property Limited, GM Mining Limited and RFC 2012 PLC (in liquidation).Article Copyright © 2015. Permission to use quotations from this article online is only granted subject to appropriate source credit and hyperlink to http://www.rangers.co.uk
====================================================
….and all companies in liquidation….so go tell it to the Marines!

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on9:02 pm - Nov 4, 2015


StevieBC 4th November 2015 at 8:33 pm #TheClumpany 4th November 2015 at 8:00 pm #…This piece by Graham Spiers…“A guilty Rangers…Is title-stripping an option? Yes, it is, though I wouldn’t assent to it.”
      ——————————————————————————–
    The article here. 
http://m.heraldscotland.com/sport/13944277.Spiers_on_Sport__The_truth_hurts__but_not_as_much_as_the_damage_done/
    “David Murray will go to his grave nursing sorrow over what befell the old Rangers”
And how many former employees are nursing sorrow at having their pension fund filched? Some of them may now be in their graves, and others cold and hungry. Maybe he should feel a touch of sorrow for them
    That’s a Dick of an atitude from Spiers. Much more Dicky than the heading that it is “irreversible”……….Oh do you think so?.
     I don’t give a sh*t about the damage he did to his club, it is deid, and cannot be reversed, but the damage to the integrity of our sport is more important, and that can and will be reversed.  
   I expect my club’s mailbox to be bursting at the seams over the next few days. 
   

View Comment

Avatar

RPMcMurphyPosted on9:03 pm - Nov 4, 2015


All of the hyperbole around Rangers claims of “above board” is rendered useless by the known existence of side letters hidden from view.
 
Gloves off!   To the many fine upstanding Rangers fans, I appeal to you to think of the goings on, detach yourself for a minute, imagine even, that this is another Club in the middle of the mire. Really give it some thought. Are you embarrassed? I am, and I don’t support your club.
 
Old or new? You can’t have your cake and eat it!  You either have legitimate claim to all the victories achieved pre 2012 in which case you have to live with the stigma of previous sins as well as the weight of stung creditors hanging around for evermore. Alternatively, you can stick with the new creation and lobby to rid it of the parasites sticking to it like shit on your shoe. Prepare yourself for a long shift in the trenches with this one.
 
Really New !  Here’s a novel idea. Ditch the aforementioned entity, regroup, mobilise and launch a Real Rangers for Real Rangers fans. It will be a tortuous road fraught with many potholes but you’ll be astounded at how rewarding it may turn out to be and you would be equally amazed at the respect your new pride & joy would command from all decent supporters of football in this country and beyond.
 
Without even scratching the surface of the accounts published today (2.5m doesn’t pay Mike Ashley and he ain’t going away), you cannot simply accept what has gone and that what is there now is the only option, it has to be something else!
 

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on9:06 pm - Nov 4, 2015


BP et al.
Are we now at the point where a formal letter from the SFM is drafted and sent to the SFA/SPFL, copying EUFA/FIFA, asking for the LNS commission to be re-run in the light of today’s findings and the clear errors in the LNS report resulting from restricted terms of reference (timescale missing out the WTC) and information subsequently found not to have been presented (CO’s knowledge of all things WTC/BTC) or presented in a perverse fashion (hello Mr Bryson)?
The letter should state that football fans of all persuasions in Scotland have lost confidence in the authorities in much the same way as was recently seen with FIFA.
We need EUFA/FIFA to start cleaning up the mess in our game – doing their proper job – as they hold ultimate responsibility and we cannot count on the national organisations to do their duty.
Scottish Football needs a strong SFM.
PS Off for a wee dram of a particularly nice malt.

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on9:09 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Whilst there is a degree, justifiable or otherwise, as the the latest decision as to the EBT nonsense perpetrated by RFC(IL), it must always be borne in mind that putting this all to one side (I know it is difficult!), we should forever be aware that  the immediate outcome from the Ibrox implosion was the “Big Lie” from the SFA and its machinations to ensure “continuity” of the Govan team.
We should always bear this in mind…and constantly revisit the erudite posts of John Clark(e) who has tirelessly pursued this line.
In my opinion (copyright John Clark(e))

View Comment

Avatar

RPMcMurphyPosted on9:13 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Admin

Apologies for the post with all the gobbledygook can you delete please 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:25 pm - Nov 4, 2015


The Daily Record ‏@Daily_Record 37m37 minutes ago
Rangers hit out at EBT speculation and insist there’s no threat to club or it’s history.
 
Good to see that the Record managed to get the apostrophe in the right place …… “it is” indeed “history”.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:25 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Was thinking about the first tier tribunal and the UTT earlier on and chuckled when the Court of Session used terms like ‘self evident’  ‘common sense’  what a put down for these esteemed minds, with the exception of Dr. Heidi Poon.  The one who should be hanging his head in shame most tonight is Lord Doherty.   How on earth did he not see the obvious?  All of us have for about 4 or 5 years now.  And he had the advantage of Heidi Poon’s judgement in front of him. Legalism that’s how, when ‘The Law’ becomes more important than people & common sense.  Trying to be clever.  Maybe trying too hard to be neutral.

Anyhow this is from 20/11/12 The Telegraph, was looking for who the other two were on the 1st tier tribunal.  Remember when the press accepted Rangers died?:
Rangers win ‘Big Tax Case’ appeal over use of Employee Benefit TrustsThe institution formerly known as Rangers Football Club has posthumously won its appeal against the tax bill presented to them in regard to its use of Employee Benefit Trusts (from 2001-10) during the tenure of former owner Sir David Murray.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:26 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Rangers statement is as expected.
 
It’s nothing to do with us folks. We are a new, sorry different, sorry no, we are the same club with no connection to the old, sorry, the same club.

View Comment

Avatar

theredpillPosted on9:28 pm - Nov 4, 2015


May be of interest,
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/11/04/ebt-come-home/

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on9:41 pm - Nov 4, 2015


You can’t help but think that the date for publishing the accounts was planned to coincide with the EBT appeal result, but I suspect the board expected a somewhat different outcome.
But anyway, the accounts. Is there not a single Rangers fan anywhere questioning why it is still necessary to include a going concern warning a full 8 months after the arrival of the King and his millions?

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on9:45 pm - Nov 4, 2015


So, the E.B.T.s were ’emoluments’.  Taxable earnings in other words.  If income tax has not been paid on this income, it’s hard to see H.M.R.C. ignoring this now.  Is it not likely the case that Hector was holding back pursuit of the EBT recipients until they had won their case?  
It has to be asked though, to what extent were the recipients victims or accessories to the fraud perpetrated on H.M.R.C.?  I also wonder whether their Lordships’ “common sense” utterance could be a coded pointer to ‘criminal’ intent. 

View Comment

Flocculent Apoidea

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on9:56 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Cast your mind back to 11th of September.  Back to when Keith Jackson gave us “Dave King vows to bring back Oldco: ‘They say we’re not Rangers anymore.. I want to put that behind us'”
So, Keith – what’s the latest on this one?  Does he still want all the creditors to be paid in full? How’s that going to happen?  I don’t expect an answer while KJ is in MASH-bash mode.
On a separate matter for those of an accounting background, what use is a valuation of Ibrox when the company won’t even use it as security, never mind sell it?  It’s not really an asset, then, is it?

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on10:02 pm - Nov 4, 2015


theredpill,

Very disappointed in the BellaCaledonia piece. For a supposedly Scottish news outlet, Mike Small makes the cardinal error of viewing the fallout from today as a Rangers v Celtic issue – forgetting that there are another 40 clubs in Scotland who have been damaged by the cheating that has gone on unchecked.

So disappointed in fact that I – for the first time ever – made a comment on someone else’s site.

I know Small means well and is attempting to portray the truth of the matter, and he gets some credit for that, but to begin from that false premise is tantamount to saying that everone else is happy with the situation.

Very sloppy, lazy and ill-informed.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:05 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Hugh Adams (ex Rangers Director):

(Courtesy of etims)

“They weren’t included in the contracts. They definitely weren’t. That was the whole point of them.
‘If they’d been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.
‘I don’t think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.
“When I was on the board, I knew all about them. I just didn’t know the details of them. They became accepted. The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.
“All the directors heard about them but didn’t take them seriously because they didn’t appear in the books. People didn’t want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).
‘You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn’t give a damn one way or another.
‘When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble. They were doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.
‘They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they’d get away with it forever. ‘
‘The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don’t give a damn where it’s coming from.’
————————————

The point being, they were aware.

View Comment

Avatar

Hoopy 7Posted on10:07 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Good Evening
Great in fact.
After 3 long years RTC has been vindicated, Judgement has been issued but the Bears and the smsm are still in denial.
If you look at the Title of the Judgement the 5th mentioned defender is designed as
“RFC 2012 PLC (In Liquidation) (Formerly The Rangers Football Club PLC)”
This is unequivocal and calls a lie to the statement issued by TRIFC tonight.
There is no doubt the club died and with it their history
Sooner or later they will get it.
The latest blog by SFM asks whose assets are they
I believe that this question cannot be fully answered without an analysis of the facts and we cannot go there because of the live case, however I would refer you back to the Scottish Judiciary site and the most recent Judgements in the Court of Session,
Scroll down to a Judgement issued on 27th October 2015 in the case of Chalmers v Chalmers.
Just read this case and the cases mentioned therein and think of Sevco5088/Sevco Scotland.
 

I would also disagree with the financial experts who say that a liquidator will not go in a certain direction.
I am near the end of a live case where naughty liquidators and lawyers were replaced by a liquidator from a top 6 firm.
The money involved is between £5-7M and it has taken almost 8 years.
This Sevco saga has a long way to run given the sums involved and 10years to go through the whole system, up to and including the Supreme Court, would not be out of place.
 

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on10:08 pm - Nov 4, 2015


On the subject of journalistic input today, I think some of you are a bit quick on the trigger with Graham Spiers. His conclusion re LNS is one thing, but to come out and say unequivocally that “Rangers cheated and the truth is unpalatable, the damage irreversible” is quite a tectonic shift.

The one thing we should be keeping an eye out for is a Traynor-esque reversal of that opinion sometime in the next few weeks.

For today though, I think imparting those harsh truths in the MSM gets Graham Spiers a pass.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:15 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Sorry, should have more correctly said from a poster on etims.

View Comment

Flocculent Apoidea

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on10:16 pm - Nov 4, 2015


“When I was on the board, I knew all about them. I just didn’t know the details of them.” 10 
That makes as much sense as oldco/newco.  The rest of it suggests directors were not up to their jobs.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on10:21 pm - Nov 4, 2015


The statement from Ibrox for some reason makes me think of the peoples popular front of Judea

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:28 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Tris at 10.02

as did mark daly in his ‘how it unfolded’ article linked here earlier.

regarding trying to bullet point the events of today I personally thought the summit between ‘the panel’ and Sevco not paying the LBS fine received surprisingly little reaction.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on10:29 pm - Nov 4, 2015


Trisidium 4th November 2015 at 10:02 pm #theredpill,
Very disappointed in the BellaCaledonia piece. For a supposedly Scottish news outlet, Mike Small makes the cardinal error of viewing the fallout from today as a Rangers v Celtic issue – forgetting that there are another 40 clubs in Scotland who have been damaged by the cheating that has gone on unchecked.
So disappointed in fact that I – for the first time ever – made a comment on someone else’s site.
I know Small means well and is attempting to portray the truth of the matter, and he gets some credit for that, but to begin from that false premise is tantamount to saying that everone else is happy with the situation.
Very sloppy, lazy and ill-informed.
============================
As well as all the clubs in UEFA competitions that were beaten by a team on financial steroids. The losses to clubs caused by the cheating isn’t just an internal Scottish issue.

Troodat

View Comment

Comments are closed.