The Waiting Game


Another Scottish season has drawn to a close with Rangers FC taking the lion’s share of the spoils.  With the possibility of qualification for the UEFA Champions’ League and profits for the 3rd year running, it will have been a great financial year for the Ibrox club.  That 85% of the shares of such a business should be sold for just a touch more than a millionth of a penny each should not be forgotten. We are left to choose between the image of Sir David Murray as a benevolent team-player who made “yet another” generous gift to the club he loves or a man so gripped by fear for the consequences of his reckless illegality that he would give the club away to get off stage.  We are all free to make our own choice as to which we think is more likely.  However, those poor souls naive enough to believe that Murray bailed-out to help Rangers fly, at a price of £1 for control of Scotland’s “second-greatest institution” and at a time of strong profits, need to ask themselves: “Why did no one else want to buy Rangers’ shares at such a price?

As an aside, let us also dispel the myth of David Murray as Rangers’ benefactor.  Of the £165m that Rangers lost under his stewardship, not a single net penny was contributed by Murray himself.  In fact, when we look at the net balance of related-party transactions between Rangers and Murray’s other companies, businesses from which he took personal cash dividends, it is clear that Murray removed cash from Rangers FC.  However, as much as it pains me to say it (as it is what he wants) Murray is yesterday’s man and no longer a moving part in the on-going saga of Rangers FC and their illegal tax schemes.  Given the loyalty of the Scottish media to Murray, he is unlikely to ever be blamed for anything that follows.

Next, let us just re-cap what we know to be the facts of this situation:

  • Rangers are now owned by Craig Whyte’s newly formed “The Rangers FC Group Limited” (formerly Wavetower)
  • Whyte’s company paid £1 for 85% of Rangers’ shares
  • This same company purchased the debt owed by Rangers to Lloyds Banking Group
  • Rangers’ debt has not changed as a result of this transaction
  • The sale to Whyte’s venture has no direct effect the tax case
  • I am still waiting for confirmation that the First Tier Tribunal completed on time

In a previous post, I covered Whyte’s “reluctance” to be questioned on either the tax case or the source of his funding. Until we know who has lent Whyte (a man of little legally traceable wealth) the £18m to purchase the debt from Lloyds, it is difficult to understand what the motivations of this transaction really are. Why has Whyte rushed in where other angels feared to tread? We will look at a few possible scenarios later this week.

However, before we look at these permutations, I would like to mention the rumour that was circulating this weekend: that Rangers have had a third offer to settle the tax bill rejected by HMRC. This time the offer is apparently for £23m.  I know nothing about this.  It is possibly true, but I have not heard anything either way.  (Previous offers of £4m and £10m have been rejected in the last year.  These offers were made by Rangers and were rejected by HMRC).  While this rumour is possibly true, a £23m settlement cost on top of the cost of acquiring the bank debt for £18m would put the cost of owning Rangers well beyond any financial logic. With a total invested capital of £41m and a minimum required return of approx. 9%, Rangers FC would have to be capable to returning an average of about £3.7m per year to its owners, and that is before a single additional penny is invested in the playing squad. If this rumour is true, it would rule out the idea that Whyte is a rational financial investor. We would have to look at other motivations for owning this football club.

It would not be unusual for new owners to seek to settle long-running tax disputes with HMRC.  If history is a guide, HMRC’s attitude has been to be flexible to new owners on interest and (even more so) on penalty payments where there is a willingness to pay the core tax bill in full.  Where a settlement offer requires time to pay, flexibility on historical interest would be harder to obtain, and interest would continue to accrue.   If the new owner was someone with a normal history with HMRC it would be easier to imagine that concessions might be made.  However, the new owner is Craig Whyte. (At least he is the public face of the new owner).  Craig Whyte is a name attached to numerous bulging files in the cabinets of HMRC (and possibly other government departments).   A frontman with a famously chequered past?  It would be surprising if HMRC would see any approach for a settlement as a chance to turn over a new leaf.

In coming posts, we will look at a matrix of motivations and outcomes for Whyte and the tax case.  Despite the efforts of his PR henchmen [google the following phrase: “A self-made businessman (he started an accountancy course but failed to complete it”)], the core facts of this situation have not changed.  The Scottish media remain a mixture of spineless cowards and craven paid-off lackies.  The tax case remains a threat to the existence of Rangers FC.  Until we know more about who has funded Whyte and what he expects to achieve, Rangers FC will remain an enigma wrapped in a riddle.

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.

140 Responses to The Waiting Game

  1. Torquemada & Thomas,

    You are right that HMRC would have the right to demand payment shortly after winning the FTT- even if Rangers appeal.

    However, HMRC’s policy has been that if enforcing payment would drive a company into bankruptcy, they would wait until all appeals have been heard first.

    The issue is that HMRC are increasingly irritated by the idea that companies can use the appeals process just to delay payment. This delay usually reduces HMRC’s ability to collect. So there is a new willingness to put the boot in where they see the appeal as simply a delaying tactic.

    How will they view an appeal by Rangers? I have no idea but my guess is that tolerance for Rangers is pretty low.

  2. Mark Dickson says:

    Sorry to quote myself but they key point I wanted to make and omitted was that IF my scenario was accurate then Whyte wouldn’t be using any of his own or his investors money to settle the Tax case and instead would use Rangers potentially considerable additional revenues from their Champions League participation …. now if HMRC knocked it back because it is not 100% guaranteed revenue that would also make sense.

  3. On the issue of McCoist, obviously new coaches are higher risk than established ones. However, we really don’t know anything about McCoist’s coaching abilities.

    Just as many Celtic fans were passionate that appointing Lennon would be a disaster, McCoist stands as good a chance as any to be successful.

    Lennon was a winner all his days. He had the example set by O’Neil, he played with Larsson and Sutton, he knows what it is like to knock Barcelona out of a European competition, he beat Man Utd (and almost everyone else) at home. He played in a European final.

    McCoist has the advantage of having studied under Smith. If he continues with Smith’s approach, Rangers will never be easy to beat regardless of how much they have to spend. McCoist also knows about success, but perhaps not to the extent of Lennon. We should not dismiss McCoist.

  4. If you search on twitter you will find several mentions.

    As I say, I know nothing about this one. While it is possibly true, I am a bit skeptical. It would take Whyte’s investment far beyond any amount on which he could ever realise a profit.

  5. Mark Dickson says:

    RTC – it wouldn’t cost Whyte or his investors a penny if they offered to ring-fence potential Champions League money to pay HMRC ?

  6. LightningMonkey,
    Can you point me towards any documents to this effect?

    The complex chain of firms that Whyte invests in looks more like a boiler room scam to me.
    Co. A buys shares in Co. B which buys shares in Co. C… …which buys shares in Co. A.
    It looks like a lot of money is changing hands but I have not been able to track anything more than a few hundred k actually changing hands. [This would replicate how a boiler room scam works. The trades are designed to boost the prices of all involved and then you have someone who owns a small stockbroking firm to sell the inflated shares to “marks”. Then the scammers do a runner to pocket their profits]

    What companies has Whyte actually turned around? i.e. which companies were able to operate much more profitably after Whyte got involved? All I can find is a collection of shady firms with poor filing track records. So it is impossible to say what he has done. I would love to look at a good example of Whyte’s work.

  7. Timtim,
    We can say what we want about Whyte, but when you start attacking Goldman Sachs I really do start to fear for my own safety. 🙂

    [They are not as bad as they are often painted, but Goldman understands the importance of cornering a market. Once they own the market in a trade, they will manipulate it for their full advantage. Their defence is that it is for governments to make doing that illegal. That brings us to your point over the influence they wield over governments].

  8. Chris says:

    Mark, I know (with the exception of RTC and his inside info) we’re all kind of throwing bones in the air and seeing how they land, but I don’t think that the idea of paying off HMRC with CL money works, even outwith the fact that it’s not guarateed.
    Over the past two years rfc paid back roughly £5million/year to Lloyds which suggests that they would be left with an ~£18million shortfall to operate their club in the coming season if they used all of that to ‘remove’ the tax case.

    Welcome back RTC!

  9. I think a simpler explanation would be that they simply would have offered the underpayment and hope to save on interest and penalties.

    The core argument Rangers will have made in any of their settlement efforts would be:
    “Look, the bank (now Whyte) have security interests on the first £18-20m. After statutory payments, you (HMRC) will be lucky to receive anything through administration. So why don’t we save you further legal bills and we will pay you £4m / £10m / £23m?”

    Financially, it is a compelling argument if viewed narrowly. There must be a bigger picture issue involving Rangers for such offers to have been rejected.

  10. Chris,

    You raise a point often overlooked in all of this mess: the general mismanagement of Rangers FC.

    For all of their complaints about dealing with “the meany bank”, for Rangers to have failed to have cut operating costs significantly should be a cause for concern. Three years of CL money will have given them about £60-65m of incremental revenue with few costs attached. They should have been able to wipe their debts and make a substantial down-payment on a legal contingency fund for the tax case.
    That their profits have been small over this period shows the extent of investment that they have continued to receive beyond what makes economic sense.

  11. Mark Dickson says:

    It depends on how much they’ve cut their costs, their profitability etc. Anyway as Whye appears to have used Other Peoples Money wherever possible it strikes me as he would try to cut a deal to use Rangers / UEFA money to try to settle the tax-case and thus not his own obviously!

  12. Mark Dickson says:

    Rangers offers might have been rejected because they simply don’t or didn’t have the actual money to pay?

  13. ramsay smith says:

    My take on it is that the parties to the takeover were working on the assumption that the tax case was lost and that the tax bill would result in Administration. It might take eighteen months to finalise any appeal but Administration would be the outcome.

    That’s why the shares changed hands for a pound.

    If Administration occurs then obviously any undertaking to waive the debt is superseded. It flies off.

    But what if, for whatever reason, the tax case isn’t lost, or if the final sum due is manageable and Administration is unnecessary? And Minty has sold his shares for a pound? He’ll have been done up like a kipper and any surviving claim he has to be a big swinging dick is completely trashed.

    The undertaking to waive the debt squares the circle.

    Minty sells the club for a pound on the assumption that Administration is inevitable, if Administration is avoided the price in effect becomes a reputation saving £18m.

  14. Truth seeker says:

    So glad, this blog is back in action, there was a massive hole in my life. Need to look after this addiction. ha ha

    Seriously tho, I think a lot of people are wrongly focusing on whyte, what about ellis, who was orginally bidding for rangers last year?

    I thought that his bid was in a consortium with ellis? could ellis not be putting up a reasonable about of money for the 18million debt payment to LLoyds? Surely as a recognised property developer, his true wealth will be easier to confirm.

    Whyte is clearly the ‘rangersman’ frontman of this sham??

  15. Mark Dickson says:

    There are only 2 possible ways for Craig Whyte / RFC to be able to make a £23M offer to settle the tx-case

    1. Further investment or loans in RFC by Whye & his investors.
    2. Using a proportion of Rangers own revenue or generated funds (with Champions League revenue being the most easily identifiable source of a possible £23M apart from RFC season ticket sales of course!)

    Whyte’s track record thus far has been a minimal amount of unsecured money to buy the club and transferring back debt but crucially also transferring the securities over assets.

    I think it s FAR MORE likely and in keeping with Whyte’s modus operandi that he would use other peoples money to settle with the tax man than any of his own or his investors.

  16. Boab says:

    It would be a “financially compelling argument” to ther businesses (I know HMRC aren’t a business it’s just easier to put it that way) and under different circumstances. These are not normal circumstances for HMRC, particularly in relation to tax avoidance schemes, and very much so in relation to EBTs. There is much more to it than a simple, “what is the most cost effective solution here” consideration. One of them being, can we actually accept a precedent like this and basically invite others to do the same.

    At the very least HMRC will establish the debt. If you know how these things work that is a significant step. They will then try to collect the debt, and will do all they can to achieve that. They may even insist that the stadium actually be sold, assuming that Whyte now holds it’s value as security. They will certainly question any value put on it which only goes to “clear” the debt to Whyte. I say again, for HMRC to get nothing one has to accept that the total value of the assets in the business are about £22m. They would fight that valuation, and that itself would drag things on. Why would they be in any hurry to conclude matters when someone is clearly trying to shaft them. Someone who has done it before.

    Whatever happens in a scenario like this they will impose a security on any “phoenix” company. That is just standard practice now, and certainly for avoidance cases. Having a debt established will help them in doing this.

    People are still seeing this as analogous with what happened at Dundee and how creditors, including HMRC were shafted. It would not be the same in this case, not if more than half of the debt is owed to HMRC. Remember a large proportion of the debt is now actually owed to another arm of Rangers “parent” company.

    On that, I will be interested to see how that is reflected in the accounts for YE June 2011. Who are the actual creditors, is it the same business as the one who holds the shares.

  17. Boab says:

    My last, just above, is in the wrong place, sorry. It was supposed to be a reply to RTC. The quote at the start should make that obvious.

  18. I suspect that in time you will be proven correct i.e. the focus on Whyte will be a red herring to a lagre extent. However, we need to know more about who is backing him. Ellis? He has no money either.
    As a wise man once said: “Follow the money”.

  19. Boab says:

    It would also mean him getting a “time to pay” facility. All of that would have been dealt with pre-tribunal.

    Kind of like eating your cake and still having it.

    We want to appeal and go to tribunal.

    Fair do’s tribunal it is.

    Presentation of evidence (possibly to completion).

    We want to go back a stage, make an offer and have time to pay please.

  20. Sorry Boab. I am hoping that it was your mistake. The wordpress application should have settled down after the mess that the last post replies got into.

  21. Boab says:

    Indeed.

    What sort of dividends would these people be looking for.

    As you say, so far Whyte has spent £1, and appears to have used other people’s money to buy the secured loans from Lloyds. Taking on that debt, but having it comfortably ensured against assets. So not a huge risk involved there, even if rangers do go under. Whyte and his backers are covered.

    However any payment to HMRC, however large, is simply money spent. It is money down the drain with nothing back for it. Anyone paying into that particular black hole will surely be looking for a pretty hefty return on it.

  22. Boab says:

    Assume that it was my mistake.

    Occums Razor and so forth.

  23. Mark Dickson says:

    Boab,

    That is why I think Whyte assuming the rumour is true would only have offered the potential ‘free money’ that Rangers get from the Champions League – that is a huge financial bonus for whoever qualifies and probably the quickest and easiest way to raised a sum of approx £23M ??

  24. To the abusive “Bob” complaining that his replies are not getting through moderation, where did I ever promise to stop posting if the takeover went through? (If you want to repost in a constructive way, I will allow your questions. Plenty of criticism is allowed on here. However, if you just want FF style bile hurling, start your own blog. Funny that I am accused of being an obsessive, by people who insist on reading everything I write!)

    I was pretty sure that the story being spun in the Scottish media was untrue i.e. that Rangers would be sold for £33m/£53m, that the tax bill would be paid by Murray or Lloyds or the tax firm, or that the tax case was nothing to worry about. This much I knew was PR lies because it made no sense.
    Read the blog posts. I discuss the possibility of a deal going through and about six weeks before the deal went through, I spoke openly about being told that Whyte was seriously trying to raise funds.

    The only aspect where I have claimed specific knowledge is over how Rangers’ tax scam operated and why it is very illegal. You might be a tad surprised about how I came by this information, but we might cover that when all of the dust settles.

  25. Adam says:

    Rangers have cut their operational costs though. The reason our “debt”(as in the one you hear about and not the hidden one that includes creditors which you described on the last thread but perhaps missed my counter question on it) has not decreased is because a lot of the cash we have been getting from CL participation has been paying off transfer fees we got on credit from seasons ago.

    On the 1st July 2008, we owed £17 million to trade creditors which in the main was transfer fees.
    On the 1st July 2010, we had reduced that to £2.4 m due to trade creditors.

    Thats where all the additional cash has been going.

    Interestingly enough, as a comparison figure, Celtic had £16.5 due to be paid as at 1st July 2010 but as you rightly pointed out on the last thread, this is hidden from the fans for the smoke and mirror debt figures that both clubs produce. 🙂

    I read elsewhere an amazing stat and having checked it up, its true.

    During Peter Lawwells reign as CEO of Celtic, including forecasted results this year:

    Rangers = £0.5m profit
    Celtic = £3m loss

  26. Boab says:

    That’s not free money though, it’s what has put Rangers in profit for the last couple of years, so he certainly couldn’t have offered all of it. He would at least have needed to keep enough to break even, plus presumably a small profit for working capital

    There’s also two major stumbling blocks. Firstly it is not guaranteed, not yet anyway. Secondly they don’t get it all straight away, at least some of it would be next year. So the “offer” would be based on money Rangers can’t guarantee having, and even when they do it won’t be for some time.

    For this “offer” they want to cancel all interest and penalties and get time to pay. All things which would have been discussed prior to Rangers going to a Tribunal.

    It just doesn’t sound very likely to me.

    Oh and one last thing. Why would MIH / Rangers not make the same offer.

  27. Boab says:

    That’s interesting Adam, I wouldn’t mind seeing the figures which you have used / checked to come up with those results.

  28. Adam says:

    In response to Boab

    http://www.football-finances.org.uk/celtic/2010/profits2.htm

    Celtic

    2004 – £7.5m loss
    2005 – £8.7m loss
    2006 – £4.2m loss
    2007 – £15m profit
    2008 – £4.1m profit
    2009 – £2.0m profit
    2010 – £2.1m loss
    2011 – £1.6m loss forecasted

    http://www.football-finances.org.uk/rangers/2010/profits2.htm

    Rangers

    2004 – £6.8m loss
    2005 – £11.8m profit
    2006 – £1.2m loss
    2007 – £6.3m loss
    2008 – £7.2m profit
    2009 – £12.7m loss
    2010 – £4.2m profit
    2011 – £4.3m profit forecasted

  29. Adam,

    I was allowing for the accruals for previous years’ purchases. I am still very surprised that expenses have not dropped faster. Perhaps something to do with having to start paying PAYE??? (Just a guess).

    That the accruals from unpaid purchases have been such an issue also puts paid to the myth that the club has not been spending. The splurge after Unirea and last summer cannot be discounted. A club complaining about the bank, but which still spent more than would be wise for any business? It makes you wonder how reckless the “independent” board members would have been had the bank not been restraining them.

    However, I am genuinely surprised that expenses have remained as high as they have. I know that the water damage would have been expensive, but that is just a reflection on the management.

  30. Adam says:

    Sorry, bottom set of figures are Rangers and not Celtic as i have wrote Boab.

  31. Adam,

    (Edited your post- and this one).

    That is more like it. Although, Rangers received at least £20m more than Celtic for European football in the past season. This money should have a very high contribution margin (i.e. it costs very little extra to play these games). Yet, Rangers report a disproportionately small profit?

  32. Adam says:

    Fair enough RTC, but the bottom line is that without those huge trade creditors around our necks then the outlook for this seasons results and next seasons, should we manage to get past those 2 tricky ties (not a given) is good especially when compared to the £16.5m that is owed by Celtic for these interest free transfers.

  33. Adam says:

    RTC – What makes you think we are forecasting a loss ??

  34. Adam,

    I misread your post above. I thought you were saying Rangers were projecting a loss. hence the edit.

    I am firm in my belief that both Celtic and Rangers need to have budgets that do not assume CL qualification in this day and age. Anything else spells eventual disaster for either or both clubs.

    Celtic’s expenses are still too high, but the sale of McGeady means that Celtic have no immediate crisis. However, Rangers’ expenses are absurdly too high given the difficulty of qualification. Fantastic if it happens, but you would have to be a dreamer to bet the house on it.

    Remove CL qualification and Rangers will face something close to a financial crisis even without the tax case. There are many questions over RFC’s access to credit lines now. You may be relying on the generosity of your new owners rather than existing lines of credit. If you new owners are not considered credit worthy, that could be a problem.

  35. Adam says:

    Find this quite a strange statment “Yet, Rangers report a disproportionately small profit?”

    Of the last 8 years, if forecasts are correct then Rangers will have recorded 4 out of the top 5 Profit performances between the 2 clubs, 3 of which have came in the last 4 years.

    On what grounds do you think ours is disproportionately small given that the only comparison out there is our greatest rivals.

  36. Lord Wobbly says:

    Great to have you back RTC. I was beginning to think that Whyte’s (lets call them Whyte’s) legal team had sought an Interdict against you! (Have you got Paul McBride’s number? lol)

    Good to see the usual suspects wading in and a good few ‘new faces’ also. Do you get the feeling that we’ve missed you?

  37. Boab says:

    Thanks for that Adam, I appreciate the effort

    I’m surprised that Rangers profit forecast for this year is just a bit over 4m, that seems a bit low to me. Given the amount of income from the CL.

    I’m also surprised that Celtic’s forecast loss is as low as it says there. That does seem overly optimistic. I had thought it would have been higher.

    Anyway, what does jump out about those figures is that Rangers make money when they play in the Champions League and that is what has made the club profitable. That is a testament to the players and the management that they have done this and basically kept the business afloat. In spite of what the owners and board have done. More power to Mr Smith and his staff, they are to be congratulated.

    However, and here’s the big however. What would those figures have looked like without that Champions League money. This is the big issue which people seem to always miss. What happens without that money. Where does profit come from.

  38. Adam says:

    PS – I 100% agree that neither club should budget for it. I am also of the opinion that neither club will make a profit in the foreseeable future without it though.

    Thats the reality, and the unfortunate beast, that CL football has created.

    the above statement is easily backed up if you look at the last 5 seasons.

    On every single occasion Rangers or Celtic have been in the CL group stages, they have recorded a Profit. In every single occasion they havent been in it, they have made a loss.

    Thats 10 sets of results out of 10 that prove the reality of where we are right now.

  39. Adam says:

    Boab, read my other replies. The forecasts will mean 4 out of the top 5 profits over 8 years have came from Rangers. Im surprised you think this is low when the evidence from your own team is that you havent done any better on 4 previous occasions with CL money.

    And as i have said above, without the CL money, we would be on a one way ticket back to debtville. Which is exactly the way Celtic are heading as well, and have been for the past 2 years.

    PS – before anyone starts, thats not to say Celtic will be meet the same constraints that were put on Rangers, just stating a fact.

  40. Thanks. It is nice to be appreciated!

    As mentioned early in this blog, I did not start posting without working through the risks and attacks. Suffice to say, I am reasonably comfortable that I will be fine. There are a few insurance policies out there. The end result of a legal challenge would be me presenting my evidence supporting my views on a few individuals in open court. I think they would be wiser to leave me as a “Kerrydale St accountant” spewing his fantasies on the internet. 😉

  41. Adam,

    I have to go out, but we will come back to this issue. It is worth some more detailed analysis, but my point is the size of Rangers’ loss without CL money. It is a huge risk to take given the qualification path now.
    Have Celtic made similar assumptions about qualification in the past? Absolutely.
    However, the superficial read looks as if Celtic have a better handle on their fixed costs than do Rangers.
    I will do some digging and post back later (or I would be grateful if you or someone else was to look into it).

    The key point here is that when one or both clubs had a decent chance (and one club had a guarantee) of CL money, there was some logic in building that into budgets. Today, that seems like crazy talk for either club.

  42. Adam says:

    I agree its a risk.
    I agree they shouldnt do it.
    They probably dont, anymore.
    But if your budget says a £4 m loss and youve went through every line and cant find another dime, then its still going to say a £4 m loss. Especially in an industry where “winning” is the only option available to you.

  43. Bawsman says:

    Great blog my friend, good to see it back.

    Where do Rangers stand with respect to gaining a licence from the SFA to compete in UEFA competitions this year?

  44. Adam says:

    Ok had a look at our Net Operating Expenses.

    2008 = £56.8m
    2009 = £48.2m
    2010 = £43.8m

    Had a look further back to see what we were in 2005 and it was £57m

    So in short, our Net Operating expenses reduced by £13m over the period of 2 years.

  45. Adam says:

    As a comparison Celtics were

    2008 = £64.1m
    2009 = £61.4m
    2010 = £57.2m

    Difference between Celtic and Rangers = £33.9m over 3 years.

  46. Thomas says:

    RTC,

    I only know what has been guessed at on this forum.

    I read a little about Ticketus and the Bradford(?) situation in that it was not long after that they were in serious doo doo.

    Then again they might have used it as a last ditch cash flow solution.

    I would guess that the loan would be secured in some form or another.

  47. tomtom says:

    RTC do you have any information on the shareholdings in Wavetower (or whatever name they are going under at the moment)?

    The media has widely reported that Craig Whyte purchased Rangers shares from Minty. If the debt has been transferred to Wavetower then surely it must have been them who purchased the club and not Craig Whyte personally. As I have previously posted Wavetower was set up by Ellis last September and Whyte only appears under them in February. That being the case unless Ellis has sold Wavetower to Whyte then it surely follows that Whyte did not actually buy Rangers.

  48. easyJambo says:

    Some figures that may help tie in with the benefit or otherwise of CL progress
    Figures in £ks from annual reports
    Celtic Turnover Wages Ratio
    2004/05 62,168 37,394 60%
    2005/06 57,411 32,490 57%
    2006/07 75,237 36,421 48%
    2007/08 72,953 38,981 53%
    2008/09 72,587 38,751 53%
    2009/10 61,715 36,483 59%
    Rangers
    2004/05 55,134 27,303 50%
    2005/06 61,165 27,989 46%
    2006/07 41,768 24,258 58%
    2007/08 64,452 34,339 53%
    2008/09 39,704 30,662 77%
    2009/10 56,287 28,133 50%

  49. Adam says:

    Just in case my answers get lost.

    Ok had a look at our Net Operating Expenses.

    2008 = £56.8m
    2009 = £48.2m
    2010 = £43.8m

    Had a look further back to see what we were in 2005 and it was £57m

    So in short, our Net Operating expenses reduced by £13m over the period of 2 years.

    As a comparison Celtics were

    2008 = £64.1m
    2009 = £61.4m
    2010 = £57.2m

    Difference between Celtic and Rangers = £33.9m over 3 years.

    Easyjambo – so on average Celtics over that period has been 55% and Rangers 54%.

  50. tomtom says:

    Sorry but Truth seekers post is basically asking the same question. (I’ve just driven up from London, I’m dog tired, and I didn’t read all the other posts before I posted mine!).

    You know my feelings on Ellis. I think that last year Murray probably cacked himself at the prospect of being seen to sell out to a property developer. Kinda knocks his statement of only selling the club to someone with Rangers interests at heart into touch. Who knows maybe he told Ellis to go away and find a “supporter” who could front the deal, Minty saves face and gets rid of the monkey.

    However, Murray = Property Developer, Ellis = Property Developer – they couldn’t be in it together could they? Strange things have happened.

%d bloggers like this: