Tax Deal “Rumour”: What was the point?


Scotland’s sports journalists have surpassed themselves recently.  Even by their own fathomless standards for getting it wrong, the release of the summary minutes of the Rangers Supporters Assembly (RSA) meeting with Craig Whyte could not have done more illustrate the scale of the credibility problem facing the mainstream sports media in this country.

Mark Guidi’s regular slot on Radio Clyde’s Superscoreboard has given him a platform to embarrass himself repeatedly.  On 27 December, Mr. Guidi told us that there was “a groundswell that the tax case will be sorted out before the case resumes”.  Just this week, he used this pulpit to tell us all that HMRC will be happy to accept a greatly reduced figure (£5-6 million) from Rangers.  According to Guidi, HMRC has only won 5% of similar cases. (This is not only wrong, it does not even make any sense.  Rangers’ case is quite unique in several ways). His colleagues have made many similar misstatements.

When a caller (Terry) informed him that these stories were nonsense (citing this blog as his source), Guidi denied any knowledge of our existence let alone having ever read our content.  However, the caller was correct.  Guidi was talking nonsense.  Of course, there is no need to take my word for it. Who better than Craig Whyte and the RSA to clear up the confusion: “No scope for negotiating a settlement with HMRC due to the criticism they have had from MPs and the Media about some high-profile ‘deals’“. If someone can see fit to forward a link to our site to Guidi, it might be a good place for him to start doing research before he makes things worse.

Guidi and several other Scottish sport journalists have been pumping up the hopes of Rangers fans with these tales of a deal being imminent for several weeks. The question is: why?  We know already that Rangers’ PR firm, Media House (ran by Jack Irvine), have been spreading the optimisic ‘deal about to be done’ story around every newsroom in the country.  That does not answer the question as to why a journalist would believe any PR-rep’s stories about Rangers.  If they told me that Ibrox was in the G51 postcode, I would have to walk there and look- such has been the trail of lies and disinformation since Whyte’s name was first linked with the club. Were they promised upcoming transfer exclusives? Perhaps.  More to the point, why did Media House hype this story only to be contradicted by Whyte himself within a matter of weeks?  I hope that Jack is working cheaply because this looks like it was a complete waste of time and money.  Sources within Ibrox have described the daily operations since the takeover as ‘shambolic’.  It certainly seems that way from the outside.

Mr. Whyte also confirmed HMRC’s powers to demand payment if/when the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) finds against them.  We have made this point several times (including the previous blog entry): should the assessments of tax liability in Rangers’ possession be confirmed, the bill becomes due and payable immediately.  Even if Rangers appeal the findings, HMRC has the right to demand payment without further delay.  (If Rangers won their appeal, they would be entitled to full repayment plus interest, but that is academic as they would have already become insolvent).

If an appeal is seen to be reasonable i.e. where it is obvious that there is some ambiguity in the law or that the employer drifted over the line into illegality rather than raced across it, the taxman will not usually press for payment when doing so would cause insolvency. However, where the appeal is vexatious (i.e. no real chance of winning it- just being done as a heel-dragging exercise), then HMRC would be justified in taking a tougher line.

It may not help their case that Rangers have launched an appeal for the £2.8 million that was taken (most of it forcibly- after a court order) for the Discounted Options Scheme (“The Wee Case”).  After months of correspondence over The Wee Case where the admission of liability was clear, if Rangers’ appeal is viewed as being without a reasonable legal basis, HMRC might take a more dim view of an appeal relating to The Big Case.

Craig Whyte has made clear, in his own words and in the takeover contract documents, that he believes that his position in the event of insolvency is protected through the £18 million debt owed to him by Rangers and the floating charge over the club’s assets.  It is very obvious that Rangers FC have no intention of paying anything close to the full amount of tax, interest, and penalties that have been assessed.  The implicit threat is “we will go under and HMRC will get nothing” .

If this case was only about immediate revenue collection then HMRC should offer Rangers a deal.  However, it would lay down a marker for every business owner, inside and outside of football, that one can engage in a shockingly blatant tax scam and have little to fear.  If Rangers can negotiate a pennies on the pound deal now, it signals to every under-pressure company director that corners can be cut.  Even if rumbled, the worst he or she would have to deal with would be repaying 10-20%- and even that would be a decade later.  Sounds like a pretty tempting deal!  HMRC’s credibility, and a just outcome for this case, require that life is not made easy for those whose plans rely upon ducking their social and financial responsibilities.

This blog has been accused of wishing malice on Rangers FC.  This is not true.  I am not one who seeks the extinction of Rangers in the style of Third Lanark.  What I seek is a fair outcome- nothing more and nothing less. ‘Fair’ in this case would be any resolution that sees Rangers carry a millstone of sufficient weight, and for an appropriate duration, that counter-balances the benefits accrued from their use of the EBT scam.  Since its implementation in 2000, Rangers have won the Scottish Premier League five times.  The present day value of the £24 million in tax that was saved along the way is about £36 million. Without the benefit of this £36 million, Rangers’ would have have gone bankrupt years ago or would have been forced into draconian budget cuts. They got to stay at the roulette table eleven years after their own money had ran out.  Only the most blind or willfully ignorant could fail to see the issue of financial doping in tainting the Scottish championship during this time.  If Rangers succeed in ducking any meaningful financial restitution by exploiting kinks in bankruptcy law, then it will fall to the Scottish footballing authorities (SFA/SPL) to ensure that justice is done.  A 10-point penalty will be automatic if an insolvency process overlaps with any active football season, but a “newco” club must not be given a free entry into the Scottish Premier League to take the place of Rangers.  Scottish football administrators must find the balance between penalising Rangers so heavily that a new club carrying Rangers’ legacy never gets off the ground versus incurring the problems of ‘moral hazard’ by failing to extract a punishment.  If football becomes like the banking industry, where wrong-doing and excessive risk taking carries no penalty, we will just continue to get more of it.

The task of finding the right balance will not be easy, but I would suggest that a formula based on Rangers (2012) FC starting each new season for a number of years with a points deficit would be along the right lines.

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.

3,553 Responses to Tax Deal “Rumour”: What was the point?

  1. Daft Laddie says:

    Hugh: carelessness on my part, for what I recognise as being a tricky question: perhaps I should have asked: how difficult would it be for anyone seeking to preserve Rangers in the SPL (perhaps another [extant] club, another company or individual) to buy, say, St Mirren or Kilmarnock (assuming, of course, an offer was accepted by the candidate club’s shareholders) change the pruchased club’s name, then move it to Ibrox?

    Does that make more sense, or am I still leaving too many gaps in the question … ?

  2. weeminger says:

    paulmac says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:40 am

    That’s interesting. So Dave King could sell his 5% and force Rangers to come up with just under £700k. What would happen to them if they couldn’t?

  3. Hampdenite says:

    1. Wuggy says:
    09/01/2012 at 1:14 am
    I noticed on earlier threads on this blog people discussing the various valuations of RFC assets. Ibrox appears the main saleable asset alongside Murry Park(MP). It’s easy to value MP as we can find out the value of land in similar areas ect. Ibrox however is a different story but we can guess at it’s rental value by comparing what a similar sized stadium in Glasgow was paid to lease it’s facility to another club.
    Hampden was used by Celtic PLC while Fergus McCann built the new Celtic Park. The cost of that lease would be in that years accounts. Add on various % to take account of inflation and we can very easilly come up with a figuer that enables us to accurately value Ibrox as a rented Stadium? Or am I talking mince?

    The figure for the Hampden rental in the early 1990’s was given in the Celtic share prospectus of the same era. Rather sadly, I still have it and will have a look for it, from memory the amount to rent Hampden for a season was in the region of £500k.

  4. Famous song says:

    “Craig Whyte quickly responded to the PLUS Stock Exchange’s suspension by downplaying the merits of being listed on the market and revealed he was considering withdrawing from it after the first anniversary of his takeover in May”. (Daily Mail). Just have to say, this is right up there with the great historical statements, the one about Edward II not fancying Stirling much anyway, Custer saying a defeat would toughen his lads up, and the White Star Line’s press release saying they were thinking of scuttling the boat, anyway.

  5. Hugh McEwan says:

    Daft Laddie says:
    10/01/2012 at 11:28 am
    Hugh: carelessness on my part, for what I recognise as being a tricky question: perhaps I should have asked: how difficult would it be for anyone seeking to preserve Rangers in the SPL (perhaps another [extant] club, another company or individual) to buy, say, St Mirren or Kilmarnock (assuming, of course, an offer was accepted by the candidate club’s shareholders) change the pruchased club’s name, then move it to Ibrox?

    Does that make more sense, or am I still leaving too many gaps in the question … ?

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

    Apologies if I came across as churlish I didn’t intend to.

    I think that would be reasonably straightforwards. It’s really just what Airdrie did. Bought a club, renamed it and moved it to a new ground.

    Thing is, would it be Rangers or would it be St Mirren playing in a different strip and a different stadium.

  6. also with regards the audit …

    presumably an auditor has been in and checked the accounts? …

    is it the case that the audit was done and the opinion was qualified/adverse and whyte has refused to make this known?

    sorry if this has been answered before

  7. easyJambo says:

    BRTH and others – I’m certain that Article 14 was written to cover the situation where a club does go out of business, then the SPL (following a vote by all the member clubs) can tell the liquidator who the share should be transferred to. e.g. the 2nd team in the SFL, the relegated team from the SPL who would otherwise have given up their share, or a newco.

    A thought on the interpretation of “expansion”. The article makes reperence to “addition or admission of new members”. “Addition” can clearly be interpreted as an expansion of the league, say from 12 to 14. However, “admission” does not suggest expansion to me. If the article was designed only to handle an increase in the number of the teams in the league, then there would be no need to differentiate between the terms addition or admission. It may well be that the article is badly written (sic) and the intention was to cater for both league expansion and replacement, even a “comma” before “or admission of new members” might have helped that interpretation.

  8. AllWhyteOnTheNight says:

    EJ, is “admission of a new member” not just “promotion”.

  9. Paranoid Timdroid says:

    AllWhyteOnTheNight says:
    10/01/2012 at 11:47 am
    EJ, is “admission of a new member” not just “promotion”.

    My take on that would be that promotion is just one form of admission.

  10. timtim says:

    Would you want to be the man who put to death St Mirren/Kilmarnock in order to save
    another club? These clubs have a proud history and in Killies case a longer history than Rfc
    they may mean little to us but to their supporters they mean as much as our club means to us.
    The only person I can think of that would welcome it would be wee Chic ,St Mirren/Rangers
    whats the difference ? The arrogance if even suggesting someone else should take their place on the gallows is incredible.

  11. Paranoid Timdroid says:

    It won’t be Kilmarnock. Rangers are trying to get rid of their debt. Why buy a club that is up to it’s neck in it?

  12. Daft Laddie says:

    timtim

    I wouldn’t want to be that man, nor am I proposing it.

    But I’m neither in charge of, nor a (wealthy) supporter of, a big club in the throes of a very public and undignified demise; very possibly willing to consider any viable alternative to extinction … in addition to which, any candidate club may itself be teetering on the brink, with a board of directors/investors eager to avoid their own crippling losses.

    As I say, I’m not advocating this, just musing on possibilities,

  13. joemc says:

    Slightly off message guys but perhaps someone already knows the answer?

    When the SFA sign off on their respective clubs UEFA licence applications do they actually do any vetting first. ie. either the application comes with a covering letter from HMRC, or the respective local rates authority, confirming that said club’s tax payments are up to date and in order, or do the SFA seek confirmation from the respective authorities that the applicant is indeed tickety boo.

    I’m having some difficulty in getting an answer to this from Darryl Broadfoot, the SFA’s communications guru. I

  14. Hugh McEwan says:

    Daft Laddie says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:06 pm

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

    Do you think most Rangers fans would accept St Mirren, re-named as Rangers as being Rangers.

  15. timtim says:

    I got that Daftlad wasnt suggesting the arrogance was yours
    and I wouldnt put it past Rfc to try a move like this as their arrogance knows no bounds

  16. Daft Laddie says:

    Hugh

    No, I don’t (think most Rangers fans would accept St Mirren, renamed as Rangers). Nor, I imagine, would most St Mirren fans welcome such a move.

    However, any such scenario wouldn’t necessarily be up to the fans, would it?

  17. Hugh McEwan says:

    Daft Laddie says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:15 pm
    Hugh

    No, I don’t (think most Rangers fans would accept St Mirren, renamed as Rangers). Nor, I imagine, would most St Mirren fans welcome such a move.

    However, any such scenario wouldn’t necessarily be up to the fans, would it?

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

    No, but if they didn’t buy season tickets, pay at the gate and buy shirts etc the business wouldn’t have much of a chance. Anyone planning to do it would have to be fairly confident they could have enough people onside to bring in the income to run the business.

    Also bearing in mind that such a club would start with the St Mirren squad as their team, there is no guarantee that any of the current rangers squad would sign a contract, particularly on very much reduced wages. They could walk away for free and get a much better deal elsewhere.

    I think it is entirely possible, however I also think it would be much more difficult than some people think. St Mirren, playing at Ibrox, in front of 10,000 is really just a big St Mirren. I’m not convinced the “loyal” would follow it, why should they.

  18. william1968 says:

    chicos says:
    10/01/2012 at 10:35 am

    Keep believing what Chicos?

    Hugh McEwan says:
    10/01/2012 at 10:19 am

    Yes Motherwell came out of administration, RFC could also come out of administration, if not provision is made within the rules of the SPL to allow the other 11 clubs to allow/agree the transfer of RFC membership share to a NEWCO, if that would be of benefit to the SPL, or by the same token decline such a transfer of share.

    Are the other 11 clubs going to vote for their own death, Hearts £xxxm in Debt, Killie £8-12m in debt. DUTD £10-12m in Debt, Hibs £6m indebt. TV Monies would reduce, gates would reduce, no more SPL, there is nothing to believe here other than fact, Football in Scotalnd, as it is, could not survive without Celtic or Rangers. The SPL would become the league of Wales/Ireland equivalent . . .

    Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
    10/01/2012 at 10:23 am

    I agree, we are indeed in uncharted waters here, what we are doing is guessing as to what may or may not be the outcome.

    From a commercial point of view the SPL as it is, would not be a viable proposition without either Celtic or Rangers.
    In this occasion it is RFC that needs to put it’s house in order.

  19. Hugh McEwan says:

    It’s lovely to watch.

    But … but … but, you need us, we’re special, there is no Scottish football without us.

  20. thetaxmancometh says:

    Assume for a second that the current situation is deliberate and that Adam was right that the accounts are audited that would mean tgef is the reason they have who wants to sell not been submitted, assume also that he wants to do a Leeds cva does the situation aid him in this, is it true that any shareholder that wants to sell has to sell to the club ie him at 12p

  21. Casual Observer says:

    Hugh

    they could always just buy The Ants next door…

  22. thetaxmancometh says:

    Sorry on phone some text got jumbled

  23. abrahamtoast says:

    If we give William1968 the benefit of the doubt for a moment (i.e that he just hasn’t been reading the blog,rather than that he is either a troll or as thick as mince), can he answer one question.

    Exactly how do you think RFC will be able to come out of administration?

  24. Casual Observer says:

    I do laugh quietly when I hear folk say that the SPL would not be a viable proposition without Rangers.

    Take out Celtic, Motherwell, St Johnstone and St Mirren and you have a bust market. Unviable at every measure.

    Take out Rangers and Hearts and you have a chance to fix it.

  25. liam says:

    Hi
    have followed the blog from the beginning and some fantastic journalism and forensic insight. However as a non financial lay person I was wondering
    a) what are the chances of Rangers actually winning the tax case; and
    b) If they win, are the out of the woods

  26. campsiejoe says:

    William

    There are absolutely no grounds to admit a Newco, that just so happens to own the assets of a defunct RFC, into the SPL
    Let it do what any new club, with no track record or history, would have to do
    Get a license, and apply for entry to Div 3
    If RFC does cease to exist, you will have to get used to the idea, that the days of preferential treatment would be over

  27. Private Land says:

    Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:

    10/01/2012 at 10:23 am

    Essentially, the governorship of Rangers PLC over the last x number of years, has lead that club to a position where the club and the PLC has effectively lost all rights to self determination. It has lost the ability to control its own future in football and must now apparently rely on the goodwill etc of others.

    That is what it has come to i’m afraid!
    _________________________________________________________________________

    BRTH,

    This encapsulates brilliantly the whole scenario on a factual basis (making the one assumtion that the tax liability will remain).

    RFC’s existence in that situation will be dependent on either;

    1. HMRC not pursuing a winding up order in the event of a favourable (to HMRC) outcome at the FTT. or;

    2a. The decisions made by the boards of all clubs who constitute the SFA in permitting/preventing membership to a Newco, and;

    2b. The decisions made by the boards of all clubs who constitute the SPL in permitting/preventing Newco to participate in that league.

    They can hardly claim any sympathy for this emasculation, because when they had the opportunity to exert influence themselves by making plans to pay the tax bill they knew was coming, they did nothing.

    So you are correct – and it is a pretty shocking proposition – the continued existence of a Rangers in the SPL will be in the gift of others.

  28. Hugh McEwan says:

    If Rangers receive a tax bill from the tribunal and are unwilling or unable to pay it then HMRC will petition the Court for a winding up order. It is simply what they do. Obviously if Rangers are granted leave to appeal then that may be put on hold. Or if Rangers place themselves into administration the winding up order will be put on hold.

    However I see no reason to think that HMRC will not simply carry on with their normal procedure. That is application for a winding up order.

  29. campsiejoe says:

    Hugh @ 12.47pm

    However I see no reason to think that HMRC will not simply carry on with their normal procedure. That is application for a winding up order.
    ======================================================================

    Too many people fail to realise this
    HMRC are I believe, responsible for the vast majority of winding up orders in this country

  30. jocky bhoy says:

    celticvrangersblog says: 10/01/2012 at 11:44 am
    presumably an auditor has been in and checked the accounts? …
    is it the case that the audit was done and the opinion was qualified/adverse and whyte has refused to make this known?”

    OK serious question on audit:
    If a qualified auditor audits a company and refuses to sign off the accounts does the auditor have an obligation to make that public or is it like a doctor/patient relationship, i.e. they are honour bound to NOT reveal such information?

    And if that is the case, what is there to prevent a cascade scenario where a dodgy company keeps asking less and less scrupulous accountants to sign off until one finally does?

    Sorry if this betrays my lack of knowledge about audit/accounts…

  31. Hugh McEwan says:

    campsiejoe says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:52 pm
    Hugh @ 12.47pm

    However I see no reason to think that HMRC will not simply carry on with their normal procedure. That is application for a winding up order.
    ======================================================================

    Too many people fail to realise this
    HMRC are I believe, responsible for the vast majority of winding up orders in this country

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

    They are certainly the biggest applicant in the country.

    There are still people who believe that HMRC will engage in negotiations after the tribunal has ruled. They base this on nothing other than it making sense … why wouldn’t they … they will get nothing if we are wound up.

    These are the same people who denied there being a tax case at all, then accepted it but it wouldn’t “go to Court”, then HMRC would settle rather than letting it go the whole way.

    Everything based on conjecture, hope and arrogance and nothing based on reality.

  32. Chris Barrie says:

    Wiliam, there would be no need for a Newco if Rangers successfully came out of administration so it’s a moot point, as I suspect you probably already know!!

  33. sannabhoy says:

    jocky bhoy says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:56 pm
    celticvrangersblog says: 10/01/2012 at 11:44 am
    presumably an auditor has been in and checked the accounts? …
    is it the case that the audit was done and the opinion was qualified/adverse and whyte has refused to make this known?”

    OK serious question on audit:
    If a qualified auditor audits a company and refuses to sign off the accounts does the auditor have an obligation to make that public or is it like a doctor/patient relationship, i.e. they are honour bound to NOT reveal such information?

    And if that is the case, what is there to prevent a cascade scenario where a dodgy company keeps asking less and less scrupulous accountants to sign off until one finally does?

    Sorry if this betrays my lack of knowledge about audit/accounts…

    =============================
    jocky bhoy , they can’t change auditors without holding an egm/agm , passing the resolution and issuing 28 days notice – spot the flaw in that plan ?

  34. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    So, some “blue” sky thinking here

    If CW really wanted to save Rangers – could it be done?

    I think he might have burnt bridges with Hector – so they are unlikely to be sympathetic to their plight. but……

    Could he, on a negative (for Rangers) FTT ruling try to work their way through it?

    1st off, HMRC would need to not pursue immediate payment.

    Rangers could sell off all the players of value – bringing in some cash, £10M? and saving the same in wages?

    Could they then not mortgage Ibrox/murray park? or even sell and lease the properties back? i.e. offer Ibrox/Murray park to the bank for £45m and in return sign a 100 year lease at £1M a year rent

    they could then, once having a clear financial situation approach a bank to get a line of credit – perhaps they could do a ticketus deal on 2 years worth of season tickets – that would bring in enough to clear all other debts and fund a much reduced playing squad

    this should see the club just about debt free and in a reasonable stable footing.

    for 2 years they would have a small, cheap squad of youngsters and maybe fans who want to play for the jersey (or in Alukos case – PAY for the jersey) – but after that, they would be in a position to build the squad base don the strength of their fanbase/turnover being greater than most of the SPL

    CW could then have a share flotation to let the fans take ownership – taking away the sugar daddy owner that the bears seem to crave/desire (my perception is that Celtic fans want to own THEIR club, we’d gladly tell Dermot to GTF, Rangers fans want a Rich, dignified, rangers man to own – and foot the bills – for their club, i don’t see any real desire from them to own the club – but i could be wrong)

    the money raised then could go someway to repaying CW (well, his backers) their initial £18M investment, maybe grant them a seat on the board, sell the club to the fans – raising some capital to fund the team going forward, then after that, it would simply be down to the FANS to run their club, to raise the money, to make the decisions – it would put them on a level playing field financially.

    Is it now too late for the fans to save the club?

  35. Threadneedle says:

    Famous song says:
    10/01/2012 at 11:32 am

    “Craig Whyte quickly responded to the PLUS Stock Exchange’s suspension by downplaying the merits of being listed on the market and revealed he was considering withdrawing from it after the first anniversary of his takeover in May”. (Daily Mail). Just have to say, this is right up there with the great historical statements, the one about Edward II not fancying Stirling much anyway, Custer saying a defeat would toughen his lads up, and the White Star Line’s press release saying they were thinking of scuttling the boat, anyway.
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    As much as that sounds like Whyte shouting from across the street at the bouncers “Ah didnae want intae yer sh**ey club anyway” after being told “Sorry pal, not tonight”, I am fairly certain that doing away with the need to report any more than the bare minimum required by law to Companies House was fairly high up his agenda. As we have seen by his attitude to date, I don’t think he will be too bothered by complying with those requirements either and will quite happily rack up the paltry fines, if issued, for his non-compliance. So even without this, and assuming that RFC1873 are still going, come the expiry of his commitment to maintain the listing he would have immediately taken the opportunity to delist.

    As for whether or not fans will support some reincarnation of Rangers, my opinion is – as long as there is a team in blue, playing at Ibrox then the vast majority of the fans will support it. Expect to see Whyte (or whoever owns it) bigging up their “traditions” to appeal to the Orange pound, to help ensure, along with MSM helping out (e.g. Gers attempt to win their 55th title) that the average bear buys into the new club.

  36. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    On CW’s statement about leaving the PLUS market in May, he said this

    “Whether or not we are a listed company, accounts will still be published and there will still be a shareholders’ AGM. All shareholders would be able to hold the directors to account.”

    FFS!!! Really?

    How can ANY paper allow that statement to be printed? he has ALREADY broken the rules and failed to produce accounts, he has ALREADY broken the rules and failed to hold an AGM, how exactly are shareholders going to hold him to account?

    removing them from the PLUS market removes one set of checks and balances, a degree of transparency

    The guy is a cowboy and he has no intention of being held to account by the great unwashed.

    Surely a journalist should have pulled him up on these points – or the editor should have at least refused to print this propaganda verbatim

  37. TheBlackKnight says:

    Not The Huddle Malcontent on 10/01/2012 at 1:09 pm
    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    Apologies if I have misread, but do Rangers not currently hold an overall debt to the tune of £135M that is in some way ‘offset’ against the perceived value of the assets as highlighted in the latest accounts?

  38. Paul Mac says:

    thetaxmancometh says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:29 pm
    Assume for a second that the current situation is deliberate and that Adam was right that the accounts are audited that would mean tgef is the reason they have who wants to sell not been submitted, assume also that he wants to do a Leeds cva does the situation aid him in this, is it true that any shareholder that wants to sell has to sell to the club ie him at 12p

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The Company that are suspended on the plus market are obliged to purchase any shares that an existing shareholder wishes to sell at the price listed at the time of suspension. That price was 12.5p per share…

  39. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    10/01/2012 at 1:19 pm
    Not The Huddle Malcontent on 10/01/2012 at 1:09 pm
    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    Apologies if I have misread, but do Rangers not currently hold an overall debt to the tune of £135M that is in some way ‘offset’ against the perceived value of the assets as highlighted in the latest accounts?
    =================================================

    what? really? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    i thought they were only in the grubber to the tune of about £30M (PLUS tax case)

    OK, just delete my last mail on the subject!!

    Thanks TBK, that has really REALLY cheered me up – as the bay City rollers might sing…Bye Bye rangers, rangers bye bye…….goodbye rangers, rangers bye bye

  40. tonybananas says:

    BLF says:
    10/01/2012 at 11:12 am
    Bawsman says:
    10/01/2012 at 7:00 am
    Question please: What will be happening between now and the 31st of January that will allow Rangers to sign off their accounts?

    Bawsman,

    The FTT(T) will sit and could potentially reach a decision – in which case Rangers would know if they had to pay the bill or not, i.e. if it needs to be included in their accounts or not.

    ———————————————

    Well, no they won’t. The decision will not be written up and published for several weeks, probably months after the conclusion as RTC has repeatedly stated.

    Unless of course, the appeal is merely frivolous stalling tactic, but even then Whyte would not then have the excuse of a public decision for bringing the roof in.

    Can I ask a Daft Laddie question, on behalf of myself rather than Daft Laddie?

    What would be so terrible about Ragers accounts being published with a going concern warning? As someone psoted yesterday, this could be seized on by Whyte, even at this late stage of the game, to say “it wisnae me, I wiz left with a pig in a poke”.

  41. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    tonybananas says:
    10/01/2012 at 1:25 pm

    What would be so terrible about Ragers accounts being published with a going concern warning? As someone psoted yesterday, this could be seized on by Whyte, even at this late stage of the game, to say “it wisnae me, I wiz left with a pig in a poke”.

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

    i think the big one is that assets would need to be written down to liquidation value – this would mean rangers are technically insolvent (think it’s called balance sheet insolvent – liabilities greater than assets)

    that would be the 1st big thing.

    then there would be qtrly reporting – given he is struggling with annual reporting, it’s not gonna happen – but it would let us all see exactly what he was up to – how much debt/charges is he loading onto rangers, has he made good on cash injections promised at the take over

    Lastly, there would be pages and pages of stuff written on here and I’d get no feckin sleep at all!

  42. TheBlackKnight says:

    Paul Mac on 10/01/2012 at 1:20 pm said:
    thetaxmancometh says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:29 pm
    Assume for a second that the current situation is deliberate and that Adam was right that the accounts are audited that would mean tgef is the reason they have who wants to sell not been submitted, assume also that he wants to do a Leeds cva does the situation aid him in this, is it true that any shareholder that wants to sell has to sell to the club ie him at 12p

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The Company that are suspended on the plus market are obliged to purchase any shares that an existing shareholder wishes to sell at the price listed at the time of suspension. That price was 12.5p per share…
    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    Was that his intention?

    Re: DK. Assuming that any trading in his shares are suspended due to the SA Tax Authorities, could the Whyte Knight press to have a forced sale.

    This fanciful scenario could see him getting 100% control (given the above) and the prospect of the other shareholder getting 0p or 12p, Whyte Knight could offer, the choice is yours!

    Further, if that is the ‘mechanism’ to get 100% control, he gains some pretty substantial assets for £1 plus whatever the original ‘investment’ was.

    Maybe the guy isn’t do daft!

  43. jocky bhoy says:

    sannabhoy says: 10/01/2012 at 1:03 pm
    =============================
    jocky bhoy , they can’t change auditors without holding an egm/agm , passing the resolution and issuing 28 days notice – spot the flaw in that plan ?
    They may be in administration before that can be done? 😉

    Ah, sorry, yeah I remember someone posting on that previously. Thanks for the reply.

  44. tonybananas says:

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    10/01/2012 at 1:29 pm

    Thanks!

    You could always try a hot toddie if it should come to pass

  45. chicos says:

    william1968 says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:27 pm
    chicos says:
    10/01/2012 at 10:35 am

    Keep believing what Chicos?

    ———————————

    this supperior notion that the spl cannot survive without the anthill mob. All the bluster about tv money, traveling support etc… the spl WILL survive. A newco Rangers starting in div 3, assuming the fans still turn out in reasonable numbers will benefit the entire game as newco try to work thier way back up to the top flight. The SPL will benefit form having more teams competing for a european spot. There would be larger average attendances across all clubs. Sure tv money will be reduced, but it aint going to be that much.

    so you keep your peepel attitude going mate. I will laugh my niagras off, when the penny drops

    Can i ask. Are you going to be purchasing a season ticket, and pay it all beofre the season starts?

  46. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Paul Mac says:
    10/01/2012 at 1:20 pm
    thetaxmancometh says:
    10/01/2012 at 12:29 pm

    The Company that are suspended on the plus market are obliged to purchase any shares that an existing shareholder wishes to sell at the price listed at the time of suspension. That price was 12.5p per share…

    ____________________________________________

    So, does that mean that Dave King, holding 5% or 5.4million shares, worth £675,000 @12.5pps could knock on the door at Ibrox and say, “Hiya, you’re obliged to buy my shares, gie’s ma £675,000 and not in ginger botttles, nae I.O.Us neither”?

  47. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    10/01/2012 at 1:19 pm

    Surely a journalist should have pulled him up on these points – or the editor should have at least refused to print this propaganda verbatim

    Had there been an ounce of journalistic integrity amongst the MSM then perhaps this would have happened but as we’ve seen time and time again (see Jim Traynor’s fairytale piece in the comic that was the Daily Record) journaistic integrity has long since departed the buildings of the Fourth Estate!!!

  48. goldstar10 says:

    I’m about 10 days too late but just caught up with Ian Hepburn’s article in The Drum of 30th Dec 2011.

    Very good article and a great piece of kudos for #RTC.

    Comments are interesting too!

    Belated congratulations!

  49. Chris Barrie says:

    Lol, I’m so good I get named twice!!

  50. TheBlackKnight says:

    Not The Huddle Malcontent on 10/01/2012 at 1:24 pm

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
    Let’s not get carried away. 😉
    I’m not suggesting for a minute that there is a ‘real and substantial’ debt of £135M. It is offset against the asset value to balance the books. Therefore why would anyone sell off/mortgage the assets as that would (appear to me) expose further debt.

    Happy to be corrected by the more financially erudite posters.

%d bloggers like this: