New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works?


A reader of this blog, and a few other Scottish football websites, have in recent days let us know about a new filing from The Rangers Football Club plc on the Companies House website. The document filed is called an MG05s and, in this instance, it is being used to record the release of part of Rangers’ assets from the floating charge which Lloyds (through its subsidiary, The Bank of Scotland) holds over the club. This blog post will try to cut through the fog of terminology and legalese to explain what is going on. Finally, we shall discuss the questions raised by this new information. If we are lucky, the hand-picked journalists allowed to speak to Craig Whyte might be better prepared to ask him the relevant questions that would allow Rangers’ new owner to clear things up for the benefit of the club’s other shareholders and season ticket holders. (If you are new to this blog, the previous sentence is dripping with irony).

We have covered the assignment of Rangers’ debt to the new parent company on a few occasions, but it is clear that this subject continues to confuse. We will try to explain this again, and the new MG05s document provides additional information that might help clarify things. Let us start with the basics again, and we will build a common understanding of the facts. (Forgive the university lecture format of this post, but the standard newspaper format of presenting the conclusions first and leaving the details and explanations to the end would create more confusion in this case).

The clearest explanation we have received on the structure of Whyte’s takeover of Rangers came in the form of the statement released by Rangers’ “Independent Board Committee” (IBC) that represented the old board members who did not have a potential conflict of interest in reviewing Whyte’s offer. Clearly, the IBC had some concerns, but significantly said: “Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the Club for £1 and the Club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower“. Note that it did not say that Wavetower had paid off or cleared this debt. The word assigned, as a legal term, has very specific implications. It means that the benefits of an existing contract have been transferred to a new party. The existing contract remains unchanged. In Rangers’ case, this means that they are still obligated to pay £18m to Lloyds (i.e. The Bank of Scotland). Lloyds in turn are obligated to pass that money received from Rangers for this debt to the new parent company, “The Rangers FC Group Ltd” (previously known as Wavetower). How much the new parent company paid Lloyds for this assignation is not known. As others have pointed out, it is common in the distressed debt business that a motivated seller who does not want to be exposed to certain risks to sell debt contracts at a significant discount. On Rangers’ books, it will be Lloyds (i.e. The Bank of Scotland) who remain listed as the creditor for this liability. It is Lloyds that will continue to hold a security interest over Rangers’ assets. What has happened is that Lloyds have promised that all of the proceeds received on this debt are passed to The Rangers FC Group Ltd, Whyte’s vehicle for owning Rangers, the football club.

Why so complicated? As mentioned before, if the Lloyds debt was cleared and new debt issued (as might be normal) prior to Rangers filing for insolvency as a result of losing its appeal of the tax bills, HMRC and other unsecured creditors would be able to make a claim that the new secured debt was a sham transaction created to shield assets from creditors. Such a construct could open civil and criminal claims against Rangers’ new owners. Wisely, they have left the old obligations intact. By leaving the existing contracts in place, but selling the benefits of the contracts to Whyte & his partners, Lloyds’ priority remains in place and almost impossible to challenge.

So why am I explaining this again? The answer lies in the MG05s form released by Rangers. The full document can be viewed here. In the extract below we can see a few interesting things:

Bank of Scotland (Lloyds) still holds floating charge against Rangers

This document confirms that Rangers’ contractual obligations to Lloyds (The Bank of Scotland) remain intact- as we would expect from an assignation (or as it is known in English Law, an assignment). If the debt contract had been novated (the alternative method of bringing a 3rd party into the arrangement, the old contract would have been annulled and a new contract created. Companies House would have to post the details for any new security interest in favour of Whyte’s firm. No such filing has been posted.

This is as much proof as we will ever get, or that we need, for how the sale of Rangers was structured. Rangers’ debt has not been cleared as Craig Whyte was reported to have erroneously claimed on Rangers TV. It also reveals that all of Rangers’ assets had been pledged in support of the bank debt. This would mean that all assets would/could be sold in administration to repay the bank (now Whyte’s firm). HMRC would not be entitled to a penny until Whyte & his partners received the £18m in full.

This much we could (and did) make educated guesses about before the release of this document. What is both interesting and perplexing about this document is that it reports that a large part of Rangers’ revenue streams for the future have been removed from the floating charge. [A floating charge is a type of legal promise of priority of repayment. Unlike a fixed charge which would be applied to specific named assets- like a particular building, a floating charge is general in nature and just takes money from the sale of any of the pledged assets if a company has become insolvent].

Whyte & his partners have now excluded the money received from 23,154 – 27,017 season tickets for the next four seasons from the floating charge. Assuming an average ticket price of £500, this would amount to just over £50 million. (If someone can advise a better average season ticket price, let me know. This seems to be another of Rangers’ many secrets).

By removing this money from the floating charge, this money can be considered to have been “ring-fenced” for another purpose. The question is: which other purpose?

Is a deal on the tax case afoot? Giving up £50 million over the next four seasons would be an intense headwind for any football club to compete against.
There will doubtless be other possibilities, but at the moment I cannot think of them. In the face of a series of tax bills (including penalties) that currently total £54 million, and overwhelming evidence against Rangers, the floating charge is the parent company’s only protection against other creditors including HMRC. Promising this money to anyone else, for any other purpose this close to the tax assessments crystallising, carries a serious risk that it will just end up being divided up amongst the unsecured creditors. Any attempts to create a new security interest around this revenue stream could be challenged and reversed in court as a contrivance.

Given the efforts to which Whyte & his partners have gone to preserve the protection afforded by the security interest attached to the bank debt, it is certainly a surprising move that they would carve out more than half of the club’s season ticket revenues for the next four years out from that protection. I am very interested in hearing informed suggestions as to what else could explain this move.

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.

404 Responses to New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works?

  1. Duggie73 says:

    Mark D- Ticketus’ business model is that it advances money as a loan against future ticket sales (website says up to 3 years in advance?). Season on season loans wouldn’t be profitable for it.

  2. peter lamb says:

    this does seem a very risky move and it does gain some credence by the former board members stating they where unhappy with the contingency that would be put in place to deal with any tax liability!
    makes me think that people on here have hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head!!

  3. tomtom says:

    Thanks RTC.

  4. Adam says:

    I still dont get what ticketus have to do with a form whereby BOS are shown to be discharging all of Rangers assets with the exception of 4 years worth of season tickets.

  5. Duggie73 says:

    Adam- me neither.

  6. the Don Dionisio says:

    tomtom,
    If the floating charge was assigned to parent company, then Betts can sign on their behalf, as they are the new creditor. This gives credence to RTC’s emphasis on Johnston’s statement that the indebtedness had been assigned. That assignation can take place in private, “off field” as it were, and as there is no filing requirement for an assignation, it is not subject to public scrutiny. That can be the only explanation for non-signature by someone from Bof S. The assignation is perfected by intimation to the debtor-again in private-along the lines of ” you owe me that money now, and not him”.

  7. tomtom says:

    Thanks Don Dion,

    Would it not be the new creditor’s name on the front of the form then? It seems to me that Betts has signed on behalf of BofS. Maybe that’s why I’m confused. The form purports to come from BofS via Clarke-Willmott but is signed by two RFC directors. I’m sure that I am picking this up all wrong but it would be nice if someone could explain why I am not getting this.

    Is it at all possible that my suggestion that the form is telling companies house that RFC have ceased to own the assets is correct – or is this just not feasible.

  8. JohnBhoy says:

    Adam,
    Are you just acting thick?
    Ticketus are not mentioned on the form, and you have the release of assets the wrong way round.
    It is the season tickets that are being released, as the floating charge is now held by Rangers FC Group (hence the signature of Phil Betts as “creditor”).
    However, who would want four years of season tickets released? What company deals in this commodity?
    Who are their lawyers?
    The inescapable conclusion is that Clarke Wilmott (as they did with Plymouth) have overseen the release of season tickets from a club’s assets as part of a financing deal.
    Is there any other explanation?
    In short:
    Season Tickets + Clarke Wilmott = Ticketus.

  9. easyJambo says:

    Adam says:
    06/06/2011 at 2:52 pm
    I still dont get what ticketus have to do with a form whereby BOS are shown to be discharging all of Rangers assets with the exception of 4 years worth of season tickets.

    I would agree with you in that scenario, but if you reverse your interpretation of the MG05S to the ST money being released from the BoS charge, then the Ticketus theory stands up.

  10. tomtom says:

    From Octopus:

    TARGETED MINIMUM RETURN
    Over the life of the investment, this product is designed to deliver a minimum effective tax free return of 50%, after all fees and charges. This is calculated as 100p invested less the 30p income tax relief (which provides an effective net investment cost of 70p) with a targeted minimum return to investors of 105p. This equates to an annualised tax free return of 7.85% (equivalent to a return of 13.08% per annum for a 40% taxpayer). Octopus will not receive their AMC until this has been achieved.

    If the investors are getting so much back what sort of money do RFC get.

  11. easyJambo says:

    Re the future formatting of the blog. I tried the “blockquote cite=”” HTML tag on my previous post. It works fine and may be the best way to proceed with the formatting Just prefix the quote with then put at the end of the quoted text. (I added a space within “blockquote” to prevent it formatting on this occasion)

  12. easyJambo says:

    Re the future formatting of the blog. I tried the “blockquote cite=”” HTML tag on my previous post. It works fine and may be the best way to proceed with the formatting Just prefix the quote with then put at the end of the quoted text. (I added a space within “blockquote” to prevent it formatting on this occasion)

    That’ didn’t work I as expected last time as it dropped the HTML tag from the text but I hope you understand what I was trying to explain. i.e. using blockquote cite=”” and its end tag of /blockquote cite=””>

  13. Duggie73 says:

    Good work JohnBhoy
    OK- So assuming that Ticketus money is in the hands of Whyte&co, any summer transfer moves would not be proof of independent wealth….

  14. the Don Dionisio says:

    tomtom,
    the form simply shows Bof S as original creditor conform to Floating Charge of 1999. If the charge has been assigned to a new creditor Bof S are out of it, provided intimation has been made to the debtor RFC.
    I agree ,however, that these forms are not particularly clear or instructive. It is clear however that part property has been released, and not sold/transferred, if you look at the box-ticking exercise.

  15. tomtom says:

    Don Dion,

    I still don’t get it but then I don’t think I ever will. I’ll leave it at that. I see that from the Ticketus site the most they have ever invested is £30m. This should make RFC their biggest fish to date but surely, if all this speculation is correct, then it proves that Whyte doesn’t have the ready cash. Does he honestly expect to get an easy ride from the press when this gets out or is he banking on the attitude that “it’s already happened so let’s just get on with it” from the fans.

    Alternative to debt financing available through the pre-sale of tickets
    Ticketus is able to provide a competitively priced alternative to long term finance across a range of sectors by providing a route by which companies can bring forward future ticketing income. Ticketus provides substantial funding by purchasing, up to 3 years in advance, a proportion of tickets which will be sold to customers at a later date. Funds may be received by a partner company at any time with capital and margin being returned to Ticketus during the normal ticket sales period.

    Ticketus has provided >£200M of long term funding across a number of sectors including football, cricket and entertainment with deal sizes ranging from £1M-£30M. It has substantial funds available for deployment in further deals of this type in sectors such as professional sport, travel, entertainment (theatres, concerts, cinemas) and others.

    If you feel this method of funding could be relevant for your business or you would like to find out more please contact:

    John Thorpe
    Investment Manager – Octopus Investments
    Email John Thorpe

    Date: June 2011

  16. Barry says:

    tomtom says:
    06/06/2011 at 3:20 pm
    From Octopus:

    TARGETED MINIMUM RETURN
    Over the life of the investment, this product is designed to deliver a minimum effective tax free return of 50%, after all fees and charges. This is calculated as 100p invested less the 30p income tax relief (which provides an effective net investment cost of 70p) with a targeted minimum return to investors of 105p. This equates to an annualised tax free return of 7.85% (equivalent to a return of 13.08% per annum for a 40% taxpayer). Octopus will not receive their AMC until this has been achieved.

    Going on the basis that for every 70p invested the return is 105p would this equate to Rangers receiving £35m in cash for giving up approx £52m in season ticket money

  17. Lucy Woo says:

    Another great installment, RTC.

    On reading that form my interpretation is the Bank still have all the property but they have released the ticket revenue.

    If Whyte paid the Bank a % of what Rangers? Wavetower owe it with part of the money he’s getting from the season book revenue from the ticketing compay, he’s still got a big chunk of cash for the tax bill and Lloyds still have security on the remainder of the outstanding sum owed to them. It still means a black hole of twenty million but would that, running costs, roofing costs (he appears to know how to get this done cheaply) warchests – and profi t- be covered by Liberty’s £50million share issue?

  18. Gaz says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    06/06/2011 at 2:19 pm

    [I]As for the penalty, you are right that this is certainly an argument Rangers will try to make: “the bad boy who did it has ran away” defence. Certainly any personal animosity built by being lied to repeatedly by RFC staff will dissipate a bit. However, is Craig Whyte someone who can front a claim to turning over a new leaf? If he has any unresolved tax issues from his previous business adventures, this might not go too well. Of course one of his colleagues will handle the discussions,’but Whyte’s name will be well known.[/I]

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Craig Whyte was the subject of investigations by both the Inland Revenue and Customs. It is rumoured, though I don’t know if it’s true, that he left the country owing £3.5m in tax which has never been paid.

    I do not think his name being attached to Rangers will help in any way with any deal. In addition, and from what you have said, no-one knows who now owns the business. It can be traced to Jordan Nominees as being the shareholder of Rangers FC Group Ltd, but other than that the real owner could be anyone. It could even be Sir David Murray, Dave King or anyone else. Maybe some group of people. That won’t help with any argument to get rid of the potential penalties.

    In any case, the penalties would be levied on Rangers as a business. Who owned their shares at the time really isn’t a consideration.

  19. easyJambo says:

    Barry says:
    06/06/2011 at 3:44 pm

    Going on the basis that for every 70p invested the return is 105p would this equate to Rangers receiving £35m in cash for giving up approx £52m in season ticket money

    The investment return is not the same as the Ticketus fees or interest charged.

    Octopus (Ticketus’ partent company) advertises a VCT (Venture Capital Trust) to raise money that they lend on to comapnies in need of cash. It is the VCT that is offering that return on money you invest with them.

    The terms of any agreement with RFC would probably be tailored to the circumstances, term and the amount of money advanced. (It won’t be cheap)

  20. Duggie73 says:

    OK- I think I get it. Maybes.
    Ticketus have bought the tickets the nos. of which are quoted on the document. This revenue is the guarantee of the company formerly known as Wavetower’s buying out of the Lloyd’s debt.
    Ibrox, Murray Park and player contracts can now be sold by Whyte&co anytime they like.
    If there’s any investment in players over the summer it’s not been funded by independent investment, but by a loan which will cost Rangers around £17million.
    If Rangers go into liquidation Ticketus would lose out.
    Sun’s shining, I’m aff oot.

  21. JohnBhoy says:

    Just to avoid any legal problems for RTC, I should perhaps point out that the alleged £3.5million debt left by a company of which Whyte was previously a director (he started up and later dissolved at least a dozen companies in the mid to late 1990s) was allegedly owed to a single creditor, thought to be a plant hire firm.
    There were reports at the time of income tax not being paid for some workers but Whyte denied this.
    Interestingly, he didn’t put his head above the parapet in this country again for around 10 years.
    Is there a time limit on tax claims?

  22. Barry says:

    easyJambo says:
    06/06/2011 at 4:02 pm
    (It won’t be cheap)
    What would be an educated guess ?

  23. paul smith says:

    The title for this blog is ‘is there a deal in the works?’ so I hope people dont mind if I keep coming back to this.

    I have said before and will say again that anyone in these circumstances, when a tax assessment might crystalise at any moment, who thinks he can extract money by financial manipulation instead of the Revenue getting it, is playing with fire. And Whyte is not stupid. The only conclusion to draw is that he wants to keep Rangers alive

    I imagine that as part of due diligence Whyte’s lawyers, with the permission of Rangers, will have held informal talks, directly or indirectly, with HMRC. It seems that this a pure enforcement case and is not trying to establish new law, so HMRC will just want money out of it and to close the case down, end of story. They get the publicity of a high profile victory and some cash.

    I have no idea of the exact cash numbers, but a Malcolm Gladwell-style ‘Blink’ on the various pieces on the blog suggests that Rangers could now pay the PAYE and NIC, possibly the interest, but not the penalty

    I doubt whether the decision on whether to pursue the penalty claim will be made by the team with direct dealings with Rangers over the years, so personal animosities won’t enter into it. I think this will be made at a very high level in HMRC in London. Their EBT teams will be tied up a) defending the new legislation from new avoidance schemes b) even more so, trying to reach deals with the investment banks. This is what they will want them working on

    I can’t think they will be interested in pursuing a penalty claim which would shut Rangers down if they get a decent settlement from the new owners. And I cant think that Whyte is cobbling cash together if he thinks the penalty case will still be followed up

    Therefore, I think a deal has been done in principle.

  24. tomtom says:

    If a deal was done why bother going through with the FTT? What did that cost and who paid the legal costs.

  25. Gaz says:

    tomtom says:
    06/06/2011 at 4:52 pm

    If a deal was done why bother going through with the FTT? What did that cost and who paid the legal costs.

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

    I have to agree with that. If a deal has been done which Rangers find acceptable then why would they lodge an appeal. Especially as they are using a very high profile QC who will presumably be costing an absolute fortune. If there is an acceptable deal they could have just gotten on with things and save everyone a lot of time and money.

    I also don’t know where the idea is coming from that HMRC will not be looking for penalties. If there is a tribunal to discuss them then does that not mean HMRC have already imposed penalties and Rangers are appealing that.

  26. fergus says:

    If I am guessing right ,Ragers are now after selling the future merchandising revenue are now selling future ST revenue .I am no economist but I struggle to see how this can be good for them .
    What would happen if next season Lenny romps the title .IMO a lot of the loyal may just get the golf clubs out the cupboard .If that is the case and the ragers have borrowed the money from the first 28 ,000 ST how many over that would roll up at Ibrokes ,40.000 .Would that not mean the ragers would be working on budget of 12,000 paying customers

  27. The Taxman Cometh says:

    So is there still confusion as to what has been released – is it confirmed that Whyte has mortgaged the future season tickets as security on a loan from ticketus?

    If not how and when can this be confirmed assuming it’s happened.

    If this has happened and he intends using the money for investment in the team and infrastructure then he must be confident of a positive outcome from the tribunal or is he hoping that will rumble on for long enough to complete whatever scheme he has?

  28. fergus says:

    RTC what do you make of this ,does it point to a share issue
    Whyte’s circular has been posted.
    Interestingly, it still includes the message from the independent directors in which they basically called him a chancer!
    Here is the main bit. Make of it what you will:

    Summary of material terms of the Acquisition
    1. The Agreement, together with a separate side letter between The Rangers FC Group and the
    Club, contains a number of undertakings in relation to The Rangers FC Group’s commitment
    to the Club and these are expressed to be enforceable by both the Club and the Vendor. The
    principal undertakings may be summarised as follows:
    (a) if the Club has not suffered an insolvency event within 90 days of the Club’s appeal in relation
    to the tax claim brought against the Club by HM Revenue & Customs (the “Tax Case”) being
    finally determined, then The Rangers FC Group will either waive the debt that it has acquired
    or convert it into equity by way of an issue of new voting ordinary shares in the Club. The
    acquisition of the debt by The Rangers FC Group is described further at paragraph 2 below.
    However, The Rangers FC Group has separately undertaken to the Club that it will waive the
    debt that it has acquired and not exercise its option to convert it into equity as provided for in
    the Agreement;
    (b) The Rangers FC Group has undertaken to provide £5,000,000 for investment in the playing
    squad;
    (c) The Rangers FC Group has stated its intention to invest, or procure an investment of, £20
    million by 2016 for investment in the playing squad. If, as part of any player acquisition, the
    Club agrees to make a transfer payment in a future year before 2016, The Rangers FC Group
    will be obliged to invest cash to cover such transfer payment, up to £5 million per year; such
    amounts coming out of the £20 million investment that The Rangers FC Group has stated its
    intention to invest;
    (d) The Rangers FC Group has undertaken to provide or procure the provision of up to
    £5,000,000 of additional working capital facilities to the Club;
    (e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability
    owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax;
    (f) The Rangers FC Group is to provide £1.7 million to the Club to fund capital expenditure in
    relation to improving kitchen and public address equipment at the stadium and meeting other
    necessary or reasonable capital expenditure required in the ordinary course;
    (g) The Rangers FC Group undertakes that, until the debt has been waived, the Club will not be
    required to lend money to The Rangers FC Group or grant security in respect of The Rangers
    FC Group’s borrowings unless the borrowing (and the granting of the security in relation to it)
    is principally for the Club’s benefit; and
    (h) a breach of any of the undertakings given by The Rangers FC Group in the Agreement will
    result in the debt acquired being automatically extinguished. The terms on which the debt
    would be extinguished are to be agreed by the parties at the relevant time.
    2. Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or converted
    into equity, if the Club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall, the
    debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount
    equal to the amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1 (b),
    (e) and (f) above.

  29. Eeramacaroonbar says:

    Slightly off-topic, but I just came across this article on the BBC site.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13649881

    From a “Business and economy” journalist no less. I find it truly astonishing that they can write a full indepth article about the prospective new chairman of Celtic, yet they cannot do anything even resembling this when it comes to Whyte. One of the excuses for the lack of reporting on the taxcase was because the sports journalist do not understand the complexities of business. Many were questioning why none of the mainstream media got their business journalists on to it then.

    There it is in a nutshell for me. The BBC are like the SFA…………..instituitionally biased for as long as I can remember and shameless in their display of it.

  30. fergus says:

    I used to despair at the lack of attention the laptop loyal gave to Minty’s running of the ragers but then I realised that he could never have took them to the edge of the abyss without their help .If Whyte gets the same help then hell mend them .They are running out of options and are robbing Peter to pay Paul .One slip up and the whole deck of cards will come tumbling down .

  31. Duggie73 says:

    I’ve got no experience of any financial dealings so please take this with a pinch of salt.
    My first thought from the circular is that it looks to me as if any investment in players(£5 mill in 1st year?) is transferred to the secured money owed to the company formerly known as Wavetower in the event of an insolvency event.
    …so if the investment came from Ticketus Whyte&cfo would clear £5 mill profit by liquidating.
    ?

  32. Duggie73 says:

    minus £1

  33. fergus says:

    IMO there is no way the ragers are going to be liquidated for Whyte to head off to the sunset with a back pocket full of cash .
    I would be inclined to think they would do ANYTHING to get out of paying their dues to old Lizzies tally men .How ironic that they are the most vocal of her supporters yet want to let everyone else pay for her keep .
    My guess is that Whyte will get the ragers fans to cough up the dough needed to save him from getting his wallet out .
    Lets face it how much has he exactly paid up front dignity FC .

  34. The Taxman Cometh says:

    I think it confirms that the investment will be coming from the mortgage of the season tickets as it’s deadline is 2016, I will be amazed if the debt is ever extinguished and I see the “positives” have a what if attached to them.

    Deffo will try a share issue, will it be as successful as the last one I hope so!

  35. The Taxman Cometh says:

    So he invests the mortgage into the club say 20M then it goes tits up, the debt is then 38M meaning he has a much larger debt to be paid by the liquidator as preferred creditor and he’s quids in

  36. Duggie73 says:

    Part III
    2. Until such time as the debt acquired by the Rangers FC Group is either waived or converted into equity, if the club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall, the debts acquired by the Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the amounts contributed by the Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1b, e and f above
    b is £5mil investment in squad
    e is paying the “other tax bill”
    f is £1.7mil investment in stadium facilities
    …so this translates into secure debt owed to Whyte&co, yes?

  37. Lord Wobbly says:

    Gaz said “I also don’t know where the idea is coming from that HMRC will not be looking for penalties. If there is a tribunal to discuss them then does that not mean HMRC have already imposed penalties and Rangers are appealing that.”

    No Gaz. If Boab has done nothing else, he has certainly drummed into me the fact that the FTT is Rangers arguing the toss over the tax assessment and interest. Any penalty appeal will be heard separately at a later date at Rangers request. Please tell me I got that right Boab? …..Adam? ….RTC? Anyone?

  38. easyJambo says:

    2. Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or convertedinto equity, if the Club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall, the
    debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1 (b), (e) and (f) above.

    Looks like any money they put into the club in the short term will be added to the club’s debt to TRFCG Ltd. So if they go belly up then ALL CW’s investments in the club will be secured against RFC’s assets.

    If I were HMRC I wouldn’t be happy that any money going into the club at the moment is being secured in preference to any future tax liability relating to the EBT case. CW has stated that he will “contribute” to the bill for the Discounted Option Scheme, which is odd as RFC had already made provision for this is the half year accounts.

  39. Duggie73 says:

    Say there was an unsigned deal on the table between Whyte&cfo and Ticketus.
    Maybe Ticketus would be less inclined to sign it if they fully understood that by doing so Whyte&co could shaft them for the complete value of the deal and walk away with around £8million clear profit by liquidating Rangers.
    Just a thought…

  40. Duggie73 says:

    On a slight tangent- in my head a businessman is someone who makes money by running a business.
    Someone who makes money by doing no useful work can only be called a shyster.

  41. tomtom says:

    So in a nutshell, to all you Rangers fans out there, do you believe us now, the billionaire Craig Whyte is not providing the money for your club.

  42. The Taxman Cometh says:

    The deluded [edit] Rangers fans think that this proves they are in the clear.

  43. Duggie73 says:

    Gazillionaire.

  44. Duggie73 says:

    …so…
    are they dead yet?

  45. easyJambo says:

    Link to the full statement

    Click to access 0,,5~161357,00.pdf

  46. tomtom says:

    From the statement:

    “The consideration for the Acquisition was £1, satisfied in full in cash.”

    That’s what I like about billionaires, they always carry cash about with them, unlike the queen. And they don’t care who knows. Class.

  47. tomtom says:

    Future Plans

    As required by the Takeover Panel, where The Rangers FC Group makes any statement regarding
    any course of action it intends to take, such statement will be considered to apply for a period of 12
    months from the date of this document. It is The Rangers FC Group’s intention to:

     not make any changes in respect of the continued employment of the employees and
    management of the Club and of its subsidiaries, including material change in their terms of
    employment.

    Hope Martin Bain & Donald Macintyre are reading this.

  48. Duggie73 says:

    tomtom
    was it in pennies?
    I think we should be told

  49. Gaz says:

    Lord Wobbly says:
    06/06/2011 at 6:34 pm

    If the first tribunal is an appeal against tax and interest, then that tax an interest must have been notified to Rangers. If there is to be a second tribunal, based on penalties, does it not make sense that the penalties have also been assessed and notified to Rangers.

    If I understand it right, then HMRC will have instructed Rangers about it, all at the same time. Rangers have asked to have the appeals heard separately.

    It may be irrelevant anyway, if the tax and interest is so high that it is not manageable, then penalties will be of no consequence.

  50. Gaz says:

    Another general point, if no-one minds.

    If Rangers do lose their appeal and go out of business there is a general consensus that they will be “resurrected” and that a new Rangers will come into existence. A phoenix rising from the ashes.

    Who do people think will do that. Who will form this new Rangers, and on what basis will they expect the support to follow them.

%d bloggers like this: