Rumours


“There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.”  
Winston Churchill

Rarely has the rumour mill surrounding our national game been churning at this speed for this long. In the information gap created by a lack of real news about the Big Tax Case and the daily dollops of PR exaggerations about Rangers’ next saviour being smeared across the print media, something has to feed the insatiable demand for informationScottish football, especially in its Glaswegian form, has long been a fertile breeding ground for rumours.  There has always been a sense that fans were not getting the whole story through the mainstream press and the dramatic events of the last year have done nothing to slow the production of the finely milled football myth.

One legend that keeps coming back around on radio call in shows is the one that says HMRC has recently acquired some kind of legal power to apply the unpaid tax bills of liquidated firms to their “phoenix” successor companies. This is just not true.  (If the people claiming it to be true could also please stop citing this blog a source I would be eternally grateful! :-)) What is true is that HMRC now has the ability to demand a deposit from high-risk companies where it is believed that there is a high risk of non-remittance of withheld PAYE and national insurance. That is a wildly different proposition from actually being able to force a new legal entity to pay the tax bills of an old company- and if a newco-Rangers board does not contain Craig Whyte there is no reason to think that a newco-Rangers would be considered high risk.

Another rumour getting a lot of air play yesterday was that Rangers might go into liquidation this week. In the bizarre world of Rangers at the moment it would be a fool who dismisses any rumour out of hand, but I must confess to thinking that this is highly unlikely. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have no behind the scenes information on what is being said in the private conversations of the joint administrators). It would be a major embarrassment for Duff & Phelps if they were unable to keep Rangers FC trading until the end of the season. With all of the legal powers to cut costs available to them, this should, and would, have been priority number one. As pointed out by the excellent @tonymckelvie on Twitter, there is almost £2m available (11% of the total) from the SPL cash pot for the team that finishes 2nd in the league. (Another 4% is given to each team in the league just for participating. I am assuming that this is distributed earlier in the season). Given the size of offers being reported for Rangers, an extra £2m for the creditors is not to be discounted lightly. So, I am sceptical. If Rangers were to collapse entirely before the season ended, it would be a disaster on such a scale that it would presumably cause even SPL chief Neil Doncaster to roll up the red carpet that is currently waiting to welcome  a newco-Rangers back into the fold without questioning.

Rumours develop where our demand for the information we want to hear exceeds the supply. Even if I get 20 extra tweets a day asking “when will we know the tax case result?”,  I will still not know. It could be today. It will likely be within the next month. However, in theory, we could be waiting for months. Rumours of a 90-day deadline for a First Tier Tribunal (Tax) to publish its findings were simply not true.

Until the crisis affecting Rangers (and the Scottish game more generally) finds some form of resolution and the situation stabilises, we can expect every casual remark and poorly chosen word to spark a frenzy of analysis and fresh innuendo. As tiring as it has been, I see no let up in the drama in the coming weeks. I do hope that I am wrong. One way or another, I just want this story to come to a conclusion.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

2,200 Responses to Rumours

  1. the taxman cometh says:

    Douglas cameron says:
    04/05/2012 at 10:49 am
    0 5 Rate This
    Chris

    The proposal at present would see the sfa membership transfer with the business and assets. As I understand it this dates back to 1873 when the sfa was formed. The company on the other hand dates to 1899.

    – the assets are being sold to a new club, the SFA license can not be transferred from one legal entity to another the reason for this is that SFA licenses use UEFA criteria and there is no mechanism for any transfer

    Continuation of membership is the key to the continuation of the club. That is the time line that matters.

    – the club is RFC(IA) it’s shareholders are shareholders of the club – the new club, whatever that is called, may own iPox and may own Murray Park and may own whatever else it buys from RFC(IA) but it is a new club no matter how much spin is applied, as I have said before – if it was the same club then the shareholders of RFC(IA) would be able to attend the AGM – whenever that is actually held and if it was the same club HMRC would still kill it with the BTC – and TGEF would own 85% of it

  2. The Iceman says:

    @ Johnboy 10.29

    You would think it won’t work. But the mass intimidation triggered by McCoist and Jardine – using the schoolboy book of fascism – may well work in intimidating the authorities to do something against all of the rules – but which they want to do anyway. UEFA intervening is – IMO – wishful thinking – they have stated that it’s up to SFA to sort this out – they won’t save Scottish football from itself – they are more likely to intervene later and punish all of Scottish football rightly for its connivance in this. I hope the SFA knock this tosh on the head – citing – if necessary to protect themselves from the wrath of sandy’s assassins – UEFA rules on player registrations and transfers outwith windows – the signs are, however, not encouraging on that front.

  3. steve-b says:

    Douglas cameron says:
    04/05/2012 at 10:49 am
    _______________________________

    Nice try!

    fact is rangers are being liquidated so they die off and the Share or current place in the spl will be transfered to a new football company that contains the name rangers and bought a stadium and traning facility to play their football.

    If you want continuation then you will find rapid vienna and other teams looking for payment of debts, and try explaining your continuation to HMRC …..no didn’t think so!

  4. Para Handy says:

    Chris says:
    04/05/2012 at 11:01 am
    ====================
    Even if a Club were to leave and play in a newly formed Atlantic League, as it would have to be UEFA sanctioned, they would be required to maintain their SFA license. The SFA license effectively transfers between all competitions and I suppose in some way is UEFA/FIFAs proxy.

  5. WOTTPI says:

    Is it not the case here that many fans would have sympathy for a smaller club if it were in this position.
    A board of directors being made up of well meaning local businessmen whose abilities may be limited. They encourage some fans participation in the running of the club but have a ground in need of improvement and a small fan base with which to generate income. They live from hand to mouth on the scraps thrown frm the big table but eventually get into bother having tried everything possible to keep the ship afloat.

    On the other hand we have a massive club with fans aplenty and a owner/Chairman who is a Captain of Industry and regonised internationally as per the name of some his companies.

    They have everything going for it. While they had gone through a fallow period, with a new direction, a modest investment in the player transfer market and a bit of concentration in developing their own young talent, all combined with a bit of prudence they are guarenteed to continue their history of sharing major titles (and prize money, TV revenues etc) with the main rivals. This almost guarentees annual European football and access to even more funds.

    However they were not happy with that – they wanted the world and used every scam in the book to try and get it. And when it all blows up in their face they still want their cake and to eat it too.

    It is the greed/avirice and lack of an apology that sickens most decent minded people.

  6. andypandymonium says:

    Johnboy says:
    04/05/2012 at 10:29 am

    Doncaster definitely doesn’t think that’s how it works….he is openly promoting the switcheroo in general business company……what I would like to know is whether the rest of the SPL Board agrees with his world view. I have asked my club’s Chairman who sits on the SPL Board for an answer. I have not received one yet. Perhaps those contributors to this blog whose clubs are represented on the Board could do likewise. It may save us all much heartache if we know that the clubs are behind this scheme. We can then walk away and leave the cheats to it regardless of the legal intricacies.

  7. Douglas Cameron

    I could tie myself in knots trying to untangle your sophistry. Let me just cut through it by saying that you have totally contradicted yourself from the off.

    Your first posting this morning opined that Rangers were merely doing what lots of other companies have done.

    Your subsequent postings are essentially a set of highly contentious arguments that Rangers being a club are different to normal companies.

  8. minesastella says:

    I have to admit to be totally perplexed by this newco / oldco / CVA / liquidation situation. Let me explain………

    Let’s say I am a creditor…..in this for £27m.

    As part of my due diligence, I would have cast my over the assets of the company I was lending to and lo and behold…..assets of £120m+ including a stadium, training facility and a playing squad. Looks like a reasonable risk I tell myself then (although I should maybe have paid more attention to off-balance sheet risks such as HMRC!).

    So what am I to make of this Miller fellow appearing from nowhere, offering £11.2m for all of those assets and leaving behind a shell with NO assets other than a cash sum of £11.2m, and some debtors who still owe money for players and a potential debtor called Collywer Bristow who is unlikely to part with one thin dime.

    Not only that, but I’m to take my place in the queue alongside HMRC, but way behind the administrators.

    As the year before last year’s accounts were audited and approved, an £11.2m payment for £120m worth of assets do not look like a reasonable deal for me at all, and a liquidation could realise significantly more than that for the stadium and the training facilities alone…….I understand the players’ registrations become assigned to the football association.

    So why as a creditor would I allow this transfer of assets (my only opportunity to realise my investment) to a newco, leaving my debtor (oldco) as a toxic rump of debt that I have no chance of being paid from?

    Come on Ticketus…grow some balls!

  9. Doon the slope says:

    Juniblu

    Please keep your garbage for your lodge meetings. And remember, when you are marching this year and you notice a smirk on the faces of most of the passers-by, dont puff your chest out with pride. They are laughing at you, a collection of truly ignorant and moronic individuals who should have been put to bed 200 years ago.
    Pay your bills.

  10. Hugh McEwan says:

    Douglas cameron says:
    04/05/2012 at 10:49 am

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

    And people describe Rangers as arrogant and supremacist. One wonders why.

    If what you have described happens it will be through yet more cheating.

    Scotland’s shame.

  11. joe mccormack says:

    Apologies if I’ve missed this but what is the name of the Newco that will be created prior to the season end?

    Is it RFC(IA) or Newco who will compete in the 2 remaining SPL games?

    Is moving the assets to Newco leaving the debts in RFC(IA) not the usual modus operandi of one CW? Was this not the reason for his directorship ban?

    The only difference I can see is that the switcheroo is taking place with no attempt at concealment whatsoever.

    Newco is Newco….but somehow we are being told that this is Newco with a difference…no liquidation, no loss of history, etc etc.

  12. steviefrombelfast says:

    Regardless of whether Doncaster and co want Rangers to remain in the SPL or not (and I strongly believe that he does) his overwhelming desire will be to avoid the need to actually make a decision. Guys like Doncaster just like certainity and a cast-iron rule book to live by. If there is no sub-clause 5) iv) a) to cover a situation they wet their trousers. Hence the move to have clearly defined ‘rules’ in place for such situations in the future. Govern by formula.

    If Bill Murray can pull this switch off ‘legally’ then Doncaster & Co will breathe a mighty sigh of relief. If legally there is clearly no ‘liquidation’ then its carry on as before with no decision to make. Likewise if Murray fails completely and they go under then Doncaster & Co will be disappointed but hey nobody can blame them. However if its all foggy and open to interpretation as to whether this all counts as ‘liquidation’ and thus there are actual decisons to make then Doncaster will be changing his trousers several times a day.

  13. Torrevieja Johnbhoy says:

    What time are D&D in court today.Is our roving reporter in attendance.Could anyone spring a wee surprise?.

  14. Johnboy says:

    More SFA rules:
    “Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure . . . in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership.”

  15. Good Morning.

    I will confess to an intake of breath and some considerable anger as an immediate reaction the the pronouncements of Duff & Phelps yesterday and the interpretation of the consequences of that announcement that was provided over the airwaves.

    I have also spoken to a number of people from various backgrounds who have expressed unbridled disgust at the thought of The Miller Plan being allowed to result in Rangers FC simply walking away from all properlegal and fiscal sanctions and obligations whilst retaining a place in the top flight of Scottish Football. Some of the people concerned were journalists, some were friends in the professions who follow various football clubs or indeed none at all, and others were of another category altogether- just ordinary people who see tax coming off their wage slips each month.

    Of even greater interest was the reaction of some people involved in Sport generally. You know the type– PE teachers, Health Club coaches, Football Coaches, those involved in Netball and other sports.

    A clear message came across which is that if this plan is allowed to work with the Result that Rangers are saved with no penalties and the big Hoose stays open with complete and utter disregard for what has happened then Football will have suffered a major social blow in this country.

    Parents and coaches will recommend other sports for kids to follow as the perception will be that Football is in effect a “bent” sport– where rule non compliance or “cheeting” at the very top level is not only permitted but is actually facilitated and encouraged to preserve the “money” in the game. Other sports do not get anything like the money that football gets, with the result that some take the view that football is already an unworthy populist sport which delivers a poor product in return for the level of investment it receives. The Miller plan will just confirm that notion and add the allegation that football is essentially “fixed” at the highest level.

    Who would want to encourage their child into such a sport?

    Beyond that, however, yesterday brought such an amount of utter tosh and hoo haa that it was hard to keep up. In the past two days the statements from D&P, McCoist and just abouit everyone else have sought to confuse,obfiscate,obliterate and just plain hide anything that appears to be remotely close to the truth.

    That Truth is that Bill Miller is not trying to buy Rangers PLC at all but instead is making it very plain that this is an asset sale. Now the Administrators have the power to sell the assets. Ibrox, Murray Park, The Goodwill, the business and everything that goes with it. In essence they can sell the business of Rangers PLC but not the PLC itself.

    So lets stop and consider what Miller will buy. We know all about the physical items such as the ground or the training facility– anyone can buy them at any time. Rangers PLC could have sold or transferred the stadium or Murray park to MIH at any time in the last number of years and it would have changed nothing in terms of the league structure or participation.

    Dunfermiline do not own their ground yet participate in the league because the rules allow you to.

    The point is that by selling the assets per se– you have not sold “The Club”.

    No- “The Club” is something more than that and from the SPL rules I have printed below you will see that there has always been a distinct difference between “The Club” and the owner or operator of the club– and it is the owner and operator who holds the SPL share– seemingly for the club.

    Miller, may argue that he is buying the business and so preserving the History etc etc.

    Well of course I will be astonished if he is buying the trading history! Will he betaking on the VAT number for instance? How about the PAYE registration? In each case the answer is not a chance. Therefore he is not purchasing the full operating day to day business of Rangers PLC is he?

    No he wants the assets of that business but definitely not the Business history– and I’m afraid that business history must include whatever recognition and success was attained by the existing business– so you take it– or leave it.

    But look at the definitions below as per the SPL rules. You will note that at all times it is the “Club” that faces compliance with the rules, the rewards from the rules of play, and the sanctions for breaking the rules.

    So- If as D& P are saying- Miller is buying the club, then he must also buy into the notion that he is taking on the obligation that the “Club” has to other clubs in the league and UEFA in respect of transfer fees and fiscal compliance for example.

    He must also be taking on the rules of the league as they apply to the “club” not the owner of the club. Those rules also talk about penalties that apply if the “Club” suffers an Insolvency event or a series of insolvency events. So imagine if Miller buys the assets, and registers his new co as the so called owner of the “Club” in terms of the legal agreement between himself and D&P which has, as we are assured, clauses that relate to a CVA in respect of Rangers PLC.

    In terms of that agreement, Miller cannot be the sole owner of the club because the agreement contains- or I presume they will contain- conditions that relate to the debts of Rangers PLC. If Rangers PLC don’t complete a CVA and end up in Liquidation, then how does that square with the SPL rules below? Is that another Insolvency event, and how could such a situation possibly be deemed as being wholly and completely separate to “The Club” as defined in the rules? If it is part of the overall Insolvency process then further sanctions would apply in terms of these rules to “The Club”.

    In short, whatever this deal can be described as, it does not bring the insolvency of the club to an end nor does it see the club itself cleansed of any fiscal wrongdoing and non compliance in terms of the SPL rules and the articles of the SFA. Memebership of the SFA is another matter worth looking at as I don’t believe that any deal between D&P and Miller which does not involve the sale of the club (debts and all) confers membership of the SFA on the buyer—unless those debts are dealt with simultaneously by way of an accepted CVA.

    Whatsmore, if it is then later revealed that “The Club” completely misled the league over a period of years— with regard to player registrations and compliance with fiscal rules– then the provisions below allow for the punishment of “The Club” and not the owner of the “Club”, who is deemed to be a separate person legally.

    We have discussed at length on here the reasons why you couldn’t punish New Co for the failings of Old Co– and a reasonable argument can be made for such a philosophy. However here you are not getting a clean New Co which has severed and broken all ties with old Co, and more importantly you are not looking at “New Club” as opposed to “Old Club”. You are being told that this will be Old Club but without any responsibility or liability for past actions.

    Both Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan may well want to do everything to ensure that there is a Rangers, but to be honest that is not their job. The fact is that there is not a single businessman or woman in Britain or Europe who wants to buy “The Club” and preserve it. It has far too much debt, it is hopelessly insolvent, has been run shamefully and corruptly for decades, and in terms of the sporting rules it is a club which has no place in Association Football going by the rules of the game by which every other club plays.

    What we have here is someone who wants to buy the right to sell to the fanbase of Rangers PLC. To exploit the fans of the ailing club and to exploit the rules of football to make a buck or two. That has been the position of Rangers FC during its past two ownerships– a point most eloquently put by Barca earlier in this blog.

    This is a purchse that does not have the interests of Football or sport at its heart, nor a deal that even has Rangers and their fanbase at its heart. It is a deal which is shady and shoddy in every respect.

    If Regan, Doncaster and others allow this in the face of their own rules which clearly do not envisage such a conivance in terms of corporate and club liability and compliance, then genuine and proper competitive sport in this country is at an end, and there would be no good reason for any individual or company to invest in sport at all in the future.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————

    A2.5 The Membership Criteria are:-.
    A2.5.1 A Club participating in the League must be a member of the SFA.
    A2.5.2 A Club participating in the League must have registered or be deemed to have registered its ground in accordance with Rule H6.1.
    A2.5.3 A Club participating in the League must:-
    9
    A2.5.3.1 itself, or through a subsidiary or holding company of such Club, own its Registered Ground; or
    A2.5.3.2 have such other rights of occupation or tenure in its Registered Ground as may be approved by the Board.

    A2.5.7 Clubs and the Candidate Club shall from and including 1 January 2010 comply with the Financial Disclosure Requirements

    A4 The owner and operator of a Club participating in the League shall become a member of the Company by acquiring one Ordinary Share therein at par for cash, such Ordinary Share to be acquired, through the Secretary, in accordance with the provisions of the Articles of Association. The owner and operator of a Club ceasing to be entitled to play in the League shall cease to be a member of the Company and shall relinquish its Ordinary Share at the end of the relevant Season in accordance with the Articles of Association.

    A6.8 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event that Club shall be deducted 10 points. Where the Insolvency Event occurs during the Season, the points deduction shall apply immediately. Where the Insolvency Event occurs during the Close Season the points deduction shall apply in respect of the immediately following Season, such that the Club starts that immediately following Season on minus 10points.

    A6.9 Where an Insolvency Event or in the event that such Insolvency Event is part of an Insolvency Process that process, continues and/or is subsisting for more than one Season then, for each such Season, during the whole or part of which such Insolvency Event or Insolvency Process is continuing and/or subsisting, the Club concerned shall be deducted 10 points or, as the case may be, shall start each such Season on minus 10 points.
    A6.10 In the event that a Club shall take, suffer or be subject to more than one Insolvency Event during any one Season and the immediately preceding Close Season, which, in the opinion of the Board, are not part of the same Insolvency Process, then that Club shall be deducted 10 points in respect of each such Insolvency Event or, as the case may be minus such number of points, as reflects the number of Insolvency Events which that Club takes, suffers or is subject to during that Season and the immediately preceding Close Season.

    A7.1.1 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the Company and each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and to comply with:
    (a) these Rules and the Articles of Association;
    (b) the SFA Articles and the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA;
    (c) the Laws of the Game; and
    (d) the terms of the Settlement Agreement insofar as such terms apply to the members of the League for that Season.
    A7.1.2 Nothing in these Rules shall relieve any member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the SFA to comply with the applicable SFA Articles for so long as it remains a member of SFA.
    A7.2 Such agreement shall have effect from the date of the Club’s admission to the League and terminate upon the Club ceasing to be a member thereof (but without prejudice to any rights or claims which may have arisen or arise in respect of
    16
    circumstances prior to such date and to any Rules which, by their terms, establish rights and obligations applicable after such date).

    C9.1 If any Club defaults in making payment of any sum or sums due to the Company and/or to another Club the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, under these Rules, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any debt due by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.
    C9.2 If, in the opinion of the Board, there are grounds to believe that a Club may not fulfil or be able, on the basis of information available to the Board, to fulfil all or any of its fixture obligations in Official Matches in the course of a Season then the Board may withhold, retain and/or defer payment of any sums which would otherwise be payable and/or be expected to be paid by the Company to such Club until such time as the Board is satisfied that such fixture obligations have or will be fulfilled.
    C9.3 The Board may require interest to be paid to the Company and/or to such other Club by such a Club in default on such a sum or sums so due and the balance or balances from time to time outstanding until paid in full, at the rate of 2% above the base lending rate of the Bank of England as same may vary from time to time compounded on the first day of each calendar month and the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, under these Rules, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any interest so payable by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.
    C9.4 This Rule C9 shall be without prejudice to any sanction in relation to such default otherwise imposed in terms of these Rules.

  16. paperbhoy says:

    minesastella says:
    04/05/2012 at 11:27 am

    I have to admit to be totally perplexed by this newco / oldco / CVA / liquidation situation.
    _____________________________

    You’re not the only one. I’m baffled.

    Are they really suggesting that, having cheated and stolen in secret for the past 15-25 years, now that they’ve been caught out, their answer is to continue to cheat and steal in the full glare of the public eye?

    And the SPL and SFA are prepared to look the other way while the rest of the country and the world watch it happen?

    UEFA will not distinguish between old and newco, hence their 3-year ban, but the SPL and SFA are ‘giving comfort’ that newcheatco can carry on where the oldcheatco left off. FFS!

    And still we have a beneficiary of the EBT scam heading the governing body, undoubtedly more interested in preserving himself than the national game. What a pox-ridden shambles. How the F*CK can all and sundry involved in Scottish football stand idly by and watch this destruction of the game unfold?

    My doomsday scenario was that if they were punished their answer would be to take everyone else down with them. That’s effectively what appears to be happening, because surely the game, from a fan’s perspective, cannot survive this disgrace?

  17. Hugh McEwan says:

    joe mccormack says:
    04/05/2012 at 11:42 am
    =====================

    The SPL will finish during the due dilligence period (two weeks) so there probably won’t be any NewCo created.

    If it is it will be during the close season and that’s whn all of the sales of assets will occur.

    The funny bit will be the players contracts, or lack thereof.

  18. Tommy B says:

    Are we actually looking at having two rfc’s at the same time, one who will play games of football and one playing games with the business and tax authorities? I admit to being confused totally by most of what is going on, but I’m also guessing that there is a chance that the whole thing will fall apart. Last year the fans and msm were excited about the takeover headed by CW, fast forward to present times and a very similar scenario is unfolding with BM heralded as a pioneering saviour.
    Scottish football will be a laughing stock throughout world football, the establishment club is being defended and protected by our governing bodies, and their defaulting on debts being praised and supported by the msm. I will not be seen to either encourage or support such actions. My money will be spent elsewhere in future, and I suspect that there will be thousands like me.

  19. Chris says:

    Para Handy says:
    04/05/2012 at 11:15 am

    It’s an example, that’s all. Rangers were formed in 1872 but the date of formation is recognised as 1873 when they held their first GM.

    They didn’t join the SFA until a year later (hence all their first season games were friendlies)

    Membership of a national association is not required for a football club to exist. Neither is membership of a league. The football club might not be much use to anyone without those if they want to generate income as a business, but it doesn’t detract from the fact they are completely independent of one another.

    Rangers existed before they became SFA members – ask any Rangers fan who knows his history.

    Rangers are today the same football club which formed in 1872/1873, regardless of their membership of ANY football body. That football club is constituted by its shareholding and has been ever since it took the conscious decision to incorporate.

    Selling their players to another club (New CLUB, owned by Bill Miller or anyone else) or selling their stadium to another club or even a supermarket chain, it doesn’t matter, changes nothing.

    If the football club transfers its membership of a body such as the SPL of the SFA, it remains the same Rangers Football Club, formed 182/1873, incorporated 1899 no matter the assets it continues to hold (or lack thereof). The club is now formed of lots and lots of shares, distributed far and wide but each and every one a small part of Rangers Football Club.

    The “value” of the assets Rangers Football Club holds is a reflection of the value of those shares, but even when they have no value like at present, owing to the massive discrepancy in those assets’ value Vs the club’s liabilities, nothing changes the absolute irrefutable fact that the shares “are” the club.

    Just like any other club who incorporated as a PLC. Just like Celtic.

    They can sell the tangible things they own like bricks, mortar, playing staff, whatever. The original club is these days a body corporate known as a PLC and constituted by its shareholding.

    No matter who buys assets from Rangers Football Club, even a new CLUB formed for the purposes of playing association football, whether incorporated or not, and irrespective of where they play football or who they employ to do so, nothing changes the fact that Rangers Football Club remains constituted by its shareholding.

    Why do you think Craig Whyte and even Brian Kennedy and the Blue Knights are so desperate for a CVA? They know the truth.

    Smoke and mirrors from Miller, Doncaster, Traynor, whomever, cannot change that fact and they know they cannot change that fact.

    As a Celtic fan and a Celtic shareholder, I too know that fact.

    NewCo = New CLUB.

  20. Thornlyboy says:

    If we’re looking for the cutting of the Gordian Knot in footballing terms, all the chairs of the SPL need to do is to vote in the the new penalties for a NewCo and backdate thenm to 1 April 2012. Simples.

    And ND, BM, SJ(!) & aMcC can fume as much as they like. And the SPL can all hide behind collective responsibilty, so ther’s no point in naming anyone. The SPL is, after all, just a cartel acting in its members’ interests.

  21. Johnjo says:

    minesastella says:
    04/05/2012 at 11:27 am

    So why as a creditor would I allow this transfer of assets (my only opportunity to realise my investment) to a newco, leaving my debtor (Oldco) as a toxic rump of debt that I have no chance of being paid from?

    Minesastella, when it comes to the proposed asset sell off Ticketus do not have a say.

    The administrators (D&P) have to authority to do this. It has to be seen to be in the best interest of the creditors.

    But as the sale was put on the open market and Miller came up with the best bid I think D&P will be able to argue that this was the case.

    As a creditor (and it is not clear if this is what Ticketus are) they could object to a CVA.

    There is also a formal process creditors can go through if they believe D&P did not act in their best interest.

    This would normally take place at the end of the administration process when it is clear what creditors have been offered.

  22. Carntyne says:

    Johnjo says:
    03/05/2012 at 5:27 pm

    Carntyne, I do not know if Miller will pull this off, all I am saying is what I believe they are attempting to do.

    I am sure CW and Ticketus will have something to say but I do not know how strong any claims they believe they have on the company’s assets are. If CW and/or Ticketus think it is strong enough then it may well be decided in court.

    Will HMRC sit back and accept it… time will tell.
    ===========================================================================

    I agree it’s something Miller will attempt or at least appear to attempt.

    If he moves the assets then tries for a CVA with the carcass which looks unlikely to succeed, he will end up with the assets which he may then sell for a nice profit.

    Was Craig Whyte not banned from being a director for seven years for moving a company’s assets out of the reach of creditors?

    After Whyte’s takeover, surely TicketUs and HMRC will be watching these latest developments with keen interest.

  23. Gwared says:

    Guys, I am pretty sure that Neil Doncaster said lessons had been learned regarding the SFA’s due diligence on Craig Whyte. Does anyone know what due diligence checks are being made on Willie Miller ie the fit and proper person test. Don’t want another Cowboy, or do we?

  24. Timalloy says:

    I posted a wee article about the wonderful Thai Tims, and sadly 11 individuals gave it the thumbs down, then we have the even sadder “Arabest” trying to infer child labour into Celtic merchandise.
    At first I was angry at such a silly post, but now I pity them as they must lead such sad empty bitter lives to say they things.

  25. Johnjo says:

    Carntyne says:
    04/05/2012 at 11:53 am

    Was Craig Whyte not banned from being a director for seven years for moving a company’s assets out of the reach of creditors?

    Carntyne; CW was a director in company “A” which got into financial difficulties so what he done was set up company “B” and transferred all the assets to put them out of the reach of the creditors of company “A”.

    He Then closed company “A” leaving its creditors with nothing.

    This agains company law and can result in the directors receiving penalties such as being banned from being a director.

    What Miller has done is offer to Buy the assets from company “A” (Oldco) at current market value and put them into company “B” (Newco). At this moment in time Miller has nothing to do with the running of Oldco.

    This is being done with the blessing of those responsible for Oldco (D&P). It is completely above board (from a business perspective) and if he pulls it off Miller has done nothing wrong.

  26. garry88 says:

    Timalloy says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:00 pm ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Agreed there is a massive influx of the trolling types , hanging around the entrance to all bridges
    we all know who they are , heck they know who they are …..

    As with all these types of scenarios best not to feed em ……

  27. raintown67 says:

    Difficult as it is to swallow, I find it inconceivable that D&P would lie about being given the powers, to do what they yesterday proposed, in the virtual vote. In the AT interview and others they shuffled uncomfortably when asked if it was a tax dodge, which it clearly is. But is it an illegal one? Surely not.

    We can ask ourselves why HMRC or Ticketus did not vote against giving them those powers. Surely the answer, at least in the HMRC case, is the same as why they allowed D&P in the first place. They don’t want to be the one who lands the killer blow and they know they wont get their (our) money anyways. I suspect they did not vote at all in the virtual vote. They know that oldco will try for CVA, it will not get passed, and eventually a liquidation event will follow.

    D&P have statutory duties, and they will easily be able to demonstrate that the BM offer was the only one on the table. The courts are not going to get into that aspect at all unless someone asks them, and it will be a tough one for anyone if the creditors as a whole approved the D&P proposals in the virtual vote. Which they must have.

    The last hopes for any sort of justice lie with SFA and SPL. So no worries … 🙂

    RT

  28. Charlie says:

    Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:

    04/05/2012 at 11:44 am

    Superb post.

    Let’s all make a copy of BRTH’s post and e-mail it to any person or organisation which has any interest or influence on Scottish football.

    Excludes JT, HK, DK, etc who only have these in regards to a certain team.

  29. garry88 says:

    Johnjo says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:11 pm ……………………….

    This agains company law and can result in the directors receiving penalties such as being banned from being a director……………………………………………..

    in reality CW was barred from being a director for moving the assets away from the reach of creditors , thats FACT thats the reason why he received a 7 year ban & the very reason he dont cut the mustard on the ” fit & proper criteria ” .

    Millers speak is simply bluster or put in another way pure P1$h , simples it will NOT even get of the ground ………..

  30. rab says:

    Do wanglers intend to leave outstanding debts for jellyfish and wallace to be settled at 5p in the £ at oldco. Yet demand full payment from everton and sell wallace for profit for newco. And then merge old and newco back together like some hideous frankensteins monster.

    And no-one will bat an eyelid.

    Heard it.

  31. Hugh McEwan says:

    I think Duff and Phlps are obfuscating and that is leading to the confusion.

    Rangers will not be transferring anything anywhere. They will be selling their assets to someone else.

    No different from any other club selling an asset. For example St Mirren selling their ground to Tesco.

    Rangers are simply selling everything. They are still Rangers they just have no assets any more but a bit of cash (I know that’s an asset). That cash will be spent, by paying the administrator and giving money to Creditors.

    They will still be Rangers, except they will now have no assets and no money. If a CVA was not agreed they will still have tens of millions in debts.

    They will be wound up. Rangers will be liquidated. They will not be “merged” with the New Company.

  32. garry88 says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:21 pm …………………

    Aye thats what i meant ; )

  33. joe mccormack says:

    RTC started this blog to bring into view news and stories on RFC(IA),starting with the WTC and the BTC, which in times gone past would not have seen the light of day in the MSM….we all know why.

    When anyone with an inquisitive mind wants to know the truth about RFC(IA) they visit the RTC blog which has been supported by many informed commentators who, unlike the MSM , have done their homework and are happy to share the fruits of their work with the rest of us.

    Yet even today the MSM continue to deliver a stream of mediocre, non researched, biased views because that’s the way it’s always been and seems as if that’s the way it’s going to continue. HMRC agreeable to a CVA, SFA/SPL have given nod to Bill Miller, playing staff will just transfer over to Newco……..and so on.

    I would personally like to commend Keith Jackson for his contributions over the last year, contributions that indeed earned him Scottish Sports Journalist of The Year Award.

    After all who could beat his immortal penning of ‘Craig Whyte, billionaire, a man whose wealth is off the radar.’

    Who was it that said ‘as journalists, unlike those pesky internet bloggers, we require corroboration before we can print a story.’

    Aye right Jacko, go and stand in the duped corner with Sir Dupealot and the other clowns!

  34. coyr1903 says:

    Timalloy says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:00 pm
    5 3 Rate This
    I posted a wee article about the wonderful Thai Tims, and sadly 11 individuals gave it the thumbs down, then we have the even sadder “Arabest” trying to infer child labour into Celtic merchandise.
    At first I was angry at such a silly post, but now I pity them as they must lead such sad empty bitter lives to say they things.

    I believe the main strength of this forum is that it is not partisan to any one club. While there are obviously many Celtic supporters contributing here there are also those who support other clubs. I do not doubt your sincerity or the good charitable work that CFC have done generally or with the Thai Tims in particular, but this is not the place to discuss them, there are many other CFC forums around for that.

    The thumbs down will be for being off-topic only. If RTC turns into a follow follow or rangers media forum we’ll lose what makes it unique and it will be only too easy for the MSM to condemn it as full of “internet bampots”.

  35. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    I read on the BBC teletext, (I know, I know) that Darlington are attempting some sort of switcheroo.

  36. timtim says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practice to deceive!
    Now is the time to take your leave
    Lest you think we’re so naive

    Think fast and hard you men of power
    do not dismiss our angst and glower
    for we as one we will not cower
    as we storm your ivory tower

    When battles done ,win lose or fail
    And all your scribes against us rail
    Betwixt your legs you’ll find your tail
    with no one left to post your bail

    have a nice day Y’all

  37. paulmac says:

    DK on talksport this morning…I nearly choked on my corn flakes…according to Mr. King…Dundee Utd are £12 million pounds in debt…thats right 12 (twelve) million?

    Where did he get this from?…any Arab fans care to comment1

    As far as I am led to believe their debt is around the £4-5 million mark!

  38. Wullie says:

    Timmalloy 9.57 am
    —————————–

    While I appreciate how good the thai tims are, and the joy they bring. Remember its a charity and they need as much help as possible. Please dont use it as a ( look how good we are compaired to them) that will allienate some people, and some that may have given to the charity. I know where you are comming from, but suspect the thumbs down mean a few people think the same.

    Arabest 10.01 am
    ———————————
    Go and read about the good childrens foundation. That was a most disgusting and stupid statement to come out with. Not even the slightest bit amusing if that was what was meant.

  39. paulmac says:

    Fritz Agrandoldteam says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:27 pm

    I read on the BBC teletext, (I know, I know) that Darlington are attempting some sort of switcheroo.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Just watch how contagious this Switcherooo method becomes…

    In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns up on Dragons Den sometime soon..

  40. Discipline Daddy says:

    Darlington are going down the ‘Miller’ route of transferring the assets to another company (Darlington 1883) and leaving the husk of Darlington FC to deal with the creditors. The difference with Rangers is that the new club accepts that it will have to begin again at the bottom of the English league structure (Northern Counties League, I think) without any special pleading of the English game ‘needing Darlington’ or marches on FC headquarters

  41. paulmac says:

    A young Hearts fan on Talksport this morning and it has been encouraging to hear fans of all Scottish clubs calling to opinion on the rangers situation and the vast majority are of a like mind…Scottish football will survive without Rangers…in fact it will make the SPL more competative…

    Anyhow the the young Hearts fan made some good points in response to the media mantra of ‘Scottish football needs the revenue rangers bring in’

    Ally Brazil stating..Scottish Football would become another league of Ireland etc etc…to which the young Hearts lad stated…your wrong the Scottish first division does not have Rangers or Celtic and they have attendances that are far higher than the league of Ireland and the attendances are increasing…

    Mr. Brazil..”oh right I’ll need to look into that”….please do before you spout p!sh…

  42. Stu says:

    Timalloy says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:00 pm

    Perhaps it’s because you’ve mistaken this site for KDS?
    Despite what a lot of people seem to think, this isn’t a Celtic fan site. The tone of it may appeal to a lot of Celtic fans, but it’s for everyone.

  43. Johnjo says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:21 pm

    They will be wound up. Rangers will be liquidated. They will not be “merged” with the New Company

    Hugh, agree 100% with your post.

    But if this plan goes through, during the time it takes to wind up Oldco, Newco will attempt to assemble/field at team with SPL/SFA approval.

    When Oldco dies the Rangers minded will claim that everything “good” as in history, tradition etc now belongs to Newco and they will look forward to what they will believe is a bright future free of debt.

    But lets not forget that at the very least they will have 3 years without European football and will need to operate within tight financial constraints.

    If things pan out as above it will be interesting to see how the SPL/SFA deal with the plan, what kind of team Miller puts on the park and how the Loyal Rangers supporters respond to Miller and their team as his plan unravels.

    .

  44. Phil D says:

    Johnjo says:
    04/05/2012 at 12:11 pm

    What Miller has done is offer to Buy the assets from company “A” (Oldco) at current market value and put them into company “B” (Newco).

    eh? – so “current market value” is around £11m less D&P’s fees, I can’t follow that I’m afraid

  45. twopanda bears says:

    The Club is the Fanbase

    The RFC company bought and sold players, appointed and sacked managers / coaches, developed the stadium and training ground, gave to charitable causes, arranged matches, won league titles and cups, designed it’s logos motifs and strips, had its own night-club, and even married loyal fans on it’s premises.

    A newco – is a New Company – that didn`t do any of the above.

    Any problems with that? – Or is this me being old-fashioned again? – Being confused by PR.

  46. Chris I don’t think I have contradicted myself. I have been clear that the business and assets (Ibrox, MP, the SPL/SFA membership,the players (so far as they are willing), the IP) are being sold and these constitute everything that is the club. As I have said before every single day deals are done which distinguish between the business and assets and the company. The only controversial thing I ever saw in this saga was the football regulations. If this was any other company a business and assets deal would be an absolute no brainer.

    I take exception to Hugh’s assertion of supremacist tendencies. I have been clear that the actions of the past directors were very wrong and stated that the shame of not paying creditors in full is something Rangers as a club and supporter base will rightly have thrown up in our face forever more.

    Equally though my main point in the posts I made today is that I see nothing proposed that is not in line with existing corporate/insolvency laws and norms. I have rarely posted on here but have always enjoyed the articles and for the vast majority of the time the comments. It strikes me this blog started as an attempt to discuss legal, footballing, commercial, moral rules/norms and how they would apply to Rangers as the tax case and related issues unfolded. Now though it seems to have been twisted into a discussion of how these can be applied to ensure Rangers die.

  47. Craig Whyte’s masterstroke in all of this was to get the appointment of a firm of philosophers as administrators. Every few days, after much musing and pondering, we are given the gift of their wisdom. And what wisdom it is!

    From the earliest days, we have seen the concept of time itself challenged, as they have teased our lesser minds with ‘deadlines’, which we poor fools have associated with specific dates and times. Old thinking! While mere businessmen might worry about how to address the needs of creditors, Duff & Philosopher thought outside the box (and inside it at the same time) with their ‘Schroedinger’s Cat’ approach to Rangers being simultaneously considered dead and alive (as previous posters have noted). They have moved on from redefining the meaning of ‘irrelevant’ and ‘red herring’, and now have moved on to consider how ‘old’ and ‘new’ are to be defined.

    Rangers’ new motto – All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

  48. scapa says:

    Interesting tweet from Mike at STV, Miller maybe even more potless than we thought!

    “Mike Farrell‏@mikefstv

    @DavidHillier I’ve just gone through all SEC filings for Bill Miller from Miller Ind dating back to Oct. I count sale shares of $4.018m.

  49. Forgive the repeat post but it didn’t get any response before (It was my reason for coming on not getting into a circular argument about what constitutes a club). I am certain there MUST be a rule to stop this but would be interested to hear from anyone who can say definitively

    “Ok I have a tax question. What impact does a cva have regarding historic losses?

    Over the years plc must have amassed a fair amount of corp Tax losses. The amount is not known in the absence of a set of accounts. Hypothetically is it possible for miller to agree a cva, transfer the club back to plc and utilise historic losses against any future profit to avoid paying tax? Seems a perfectly legitimate piece of tax planning. Surely though there must be legislation to prevent it? Would hmrc be able to impose conditions when agreeing a cva such that all historic allowable losses were not to be offset against future profits?”

  50. Bhoywonder says:

    anyone know the time of the court case today with possibly HMRC/creditors proposals & D&P??