Well done!


On first reading of The Sun on Sunday’s article today about Rangers’ player contracts, I wanted to take my customary swipe at the traditional media. On reflection, congratulations are in order.

I am no fan of the Murdoch press, but let us acknowledge a job well done. This story is a quantum leap forward from what has passed as “traditional” reporting in Scotland in recent years. While the Daily Record still seems content to rely upon agenda driven scraps from the table of the Rangers old-guard- the same people who got the club in this mess- The Sun appears to have put in an honest day’s work.

This would have required some genuine investigation and they confirmed their interpretation by consulting with no less than three experts. While sports reporters have vacillated between claiming that tax issues are too complicated to discuss and then spouting comically inaccurate nonsense, The Sun has found a solution that might yet start a revolution: they asked for comments from people who understand the subject! Rather incredibly, I even agree with the article’s general findings. (You could have read much the same here in March of last year, but The Sun has published evidence). It was the absence of reports like this one, about the most important story in Scottish football history, that inspired this blog. So ‘better late than never’ and a sincere chapeau!

The timing of this story is also good. Much of the discussion recently has focused on the issue of whether Rangers’ players had letters saying that loans from the EBT did not need to be repaid. While interesting, and sure to become a topic for discussion once the First Tier Tribunal returns with its findings, it is a bit of a red herring.

The central issue in this case is whether the money received by Rangers’ employees from the EBT were “emoluments”. Cutting through the legalese, this basically means that the key question to be determined at the FTT is: did Rangers’ employees receive wages through the EBT that were not properly taxed? Obviously, evidence that the loans were not real loans would blow any pretence that EBT use was legitimate out of the water. If there was also direct evidence that Rangers’ staff were receiving payments that were promised in an employment contract, then it would be very difficult to make an argument that these payments are not emoluments.

Yet, make an argument that they are not wages is what Andrew Thornhill QC has been very well paid to do. In some uncharacteristically well informed posts on the Follow Follow messageboard, I noticed the appearance of the “substance over form” argument as a way of trying to explain away any damaging documentation. Without getting steeped in a comprehensive legal and accounting discussion, “substance over form” is a concept that tries to look through complicated legal contrivances in financial transactions and look only at the meat of the issue: where were we are the start and at the end. It seeks to just “look-through” any special purpose entities or legal trickery designed to complicate matters. How is this relevant? The poster on Follow Follow, is trying to make the point: it does not matter if Rangers have created this blizzard of paperwork all but admitting that they have perpetrated a scam, the “reality” is that the players currently still owe the trust. Therefore, the withdrawals from the EBTs are not emoluments. 

This argument has a certain superficial charm. However, the issue with “substance over form” is that it is not for Mr Thornhill QC (or Rangers) to determine what the start and end points of the transaction are. Such a line of reasoning would be effectively asking the tribunal to start and stop at mid-points in the process and to ignore the real substance- that Rangers’ employees received payments from their employer that were not taxed.

So I would agree with the Follow Follow poster. The form of how they were paid (through a trust)  should be ignored, especially if there is a mountain of documentary evidence supporting the notion that the substance is that employees’ wages were not taxed. (If there is a lot more evidence like that presented by The Sun, then Rangers’ case would look to be very weak indeed). Of course, if I was a skilled lawyer and one of my instructions was to slow down proceedings to delay an outcome, I would need to find an argument of some sort. An argument that allows me to ask the tribunal to go through the all of the evidence meticulously would be very useful indeed.

Looking to the future, Rangers’ fans need to take a realistic and dry-eyed look at the sort of people who will be running their club in whatever form it takes. The signs are not good that the lessons of the past have been learned.

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

2,390 Responses to Well done!

  1. Mark Dickson says:

    Okay here’s a scenario – Dunfermline want their £84K from Rangers but Ranger say they can’t pay this means Dunfy are in financial distress now just because they trusted Rangers to pay for tickets they’d sold and collected money for…. Celtic if they were wanting to make a point about solidarity and fairness between fellow SPL members deduct £84K from the money they are due to Rangers and LOAN it to Dunfy instead …….Duff n Phelps chase Celtic for this money – Celtic say they can’t or won’t pay what are Duffn Phelps to do? go to court? By the time any court case occurs Rangers will be in liquidation – Dunfy can claim the £84K that Rangers didn’t pay them from the SPL central funds and repay their short term loan from Celtic.

  2. paulmac says:

    Hoopy 7 says:
    01/03/2012 at 9:31 pm

    For our football experts out there – what is the position if an administrator pays you off, as a player, surely you cannot opt to play for nothing as you then have no contract and would therefore not be registered. Or would it be a question of not terminating but being seen to defer wages?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    No you cannot play for nothing as a professional player without a contract between you and the club..registered with the national association..and if you are on a zero contract then you are in effect an amateur..

    So in essence if you are made redundant…you would need to negotiate a new contract agreeing to play for nothing…you would have to meet your own insurance, travel, accomodation medical and legal costs..this would ensure the administrators reduce costs and do not increase costs..can’t see many players signing up for that or that many agents for that matter.

    Now as you have been made redundant you are free to be signed by any club anywhere for an agreed salary..

    Moving onto deferred wages…another idea floated by the MSM…sounds good..but all that is taking place is a deferred debt to who ever wants to take over the club..I can’t imagine any new prospective owner accepting the club with lets say £5m in back pay to meet….non starter..

    So the playing for nothing will only happen if on Saturday they decide to pick guys from the terrace…

  3. The Black Knight

    If I am not mistaken, Ticketus have said that their only security in this case is the tickets for future Rangers games. However, what was the point of the MG05s in the first place?

    It was withdrawn. We cannot forget that either.

  4. JID says:

    Clear the decks and let the A team blog this out ,this is the morsels we crave ,lets not confuse the issue at this stage .
    RTC go for it.

  5. Interested American says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:12 pm

    Purely a sliding scale of cost/benefit. He could’ve bought the club at 2pm and folded at 3pm if he had wanted to, but he’d have been ran out of town. He could’ve folded after Malmo, but it would’ve been obvious that it was him rather than the old regime. I think much of our (this site’s) original theories hold–that he was playing for time, and hoping for a big tax case win. If not, use every second accumulating what he could and hold his hands up at the end and claim it wasn’t him. I don’t think for a minute he wanted it to drag out this long and for him to be the bad guy. But there was a sweet spot between him paying his £1 and the end (whatever that ended up being) where he kept accumulating (stripping) wealth. Just so happens that what we’re seeing is how it played out.

  6. gunnerb says:

    It is my understanding that the administrators must produce a financial statement of affairs within eight weeks of their appointment.Will this same compulsion apply if the company is liquidated before the end of the eight week period? I am aware that a full investigation into company failure usually follows on from liquidation but is it possible that the current cleaning at the ‘big hoose’ will ensure that no one will ever truly get to the bottom of what has happened to RFC over the last twent years or so ?

  7. Mark Dickson says:

    Was the MG05 withdrawn or replaced in secret?

  8. paulmac says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:17 pm
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I would have to disagree Mark…it is not Celtic’s money to disburse in that way..

    What I do believe tho…it would be worth exploring whether Celtic could pay the money to the SPL as an intermediatory..and if it is possible they can redirect moneys owed under SPL rules..

  9. Mark Dickson

    It was withdrawn publicly.

    The question is whether it was effectively recreated in private. I assume that however this deal was designed, there was no requirement for a public filing.

  10. calderon says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:12 pm

    However, why waste millions on paying salaries from May to January? He could have maximised his haul by folding The club immediately- or at least after the Malmo game.
    ______________________

    Remember Rangers raced to an apparently unassailable lead in the league by late Oct/early Nov. Barring Celtic’s comeback against Kilmarnock what might have happened? Could he have got caught up and seduced by the glory of four-in-a-row and bailed when that was no longer a prospect? Or is he too much of a shark to bother about any of that?

  11. Mark Dickson says:

    I remember when Keevins & Traynor were telling us all that Rangers and Celtic would be in the English Premier League by now because SKY were demanding it and wanted it to happen ………..how did that work out again? or was it the MSM telling porkies and exaggerating SKY’s authority over the proper ways & means of fitba?

  12. TheBlackKnight says:

    rangerstaxcase on 01/03/2012 at 11:18 pm said:
     0 0 Rate This
    The Black Knight

    If I am not mistaken, Ticketus have said that their only security in this case is the tickets for future Rangers games. However, what was the point of the MG05s in the first place?

    It was withdrawn. We cannot forget that either.

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    It’s a good point RTC. I’m not sure of (cant recall) an official statement from Ticketus re:security.

    Re: MG05s, was it withdrawn from public view or withdrawn?

    If it was withdrawn, it does not exist.

  13. BlackJacques says:

    Paulsatim says:
    01/03/2012 at 9:26 pm
    Rate This

    7m Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏ @Pmacgiollabhain Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
    Surely the Suave Billionaire did not sell off the famous club crest,design and copyright? No, I refuse to believe that one…. #aghast

    Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏ @Pmacgiollabhain Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
    This is a very troubling story. About a new logo being copyrighted to replace the old one being sold off. So I will refuse to believe it…

    RTC
    01/03/2012 at 10.09pm
    Let’s not get excited about this crest and copyright stuff. We have plenty of facts to be getting ahead with just now.

    What if Whyte makes some more money as is his want but retains the ownership of Rangers spiritual home of Ibrox.

    However someone else has bought the club crest, design and copyright. Perhaps someone living in South Africa or with initials PM.

    And as many very intelligent people on here have suggested previously the battle for Newco commences for the heart and soul of the rangers fans.

  14. Hugh McEwan says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:17 pm

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

    Why not get Hearts to do it, I believe they are at Ibrox stadium before Celtic. Maybe they should help “Dunfy” out by giving them the money rather than Rangers.

    That would be it sorted, by your team, and no need for Celtic to get involved.

    Work for you.

  15. OnandOnandOnand says:

    rangerstaxcase says:

    01/03/2012 at 11:18 pm

    The MG05s was meant to release the tickets from the floating charge. That is consistent with the Ticketus position. They own the tickets and they are not part of the charge. I would be certain that a fresh MG05s would be lodged but Lord Glennie allowed that no to be shown on the public record for commercial reasons. He gave such permission in his decision, the one that was then taken down from the website as part of the secrecy order

  16. Derek says:

    Interested American says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:19 pm

    rangerstaxcase says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:12 pm

    Purely a sliding scale of cost/benefit. He could’ve bought the club at 2pm and folded at 3pm if he had wanted to, but he’d have been ran out of town. He could’ve folded after Malmo, but it would’ve been obvious that it was him rather than the old regime. I think much of our (this site’s) original theories hold–that he was playing for time, and hoping for a big tax case win. If not, use every second accumulating what he could and hold his hands up at the end and claim it wasn’t him. I don’t think for a minute he wanted it to drag out this long and for him to be the bad guy. But there was a sweet spot between him paying his £1 and the end (whatever that ended up being) where he kept accumulating (stripping) wealth. Just so happens that what we’re seeing is how it played out.
    =================
    “….playing for time and hoping for a tax case win….” !

    What if he was playing for time and hoping for a tax cased DECISION? Win or lose would have suited his cunning plan. I’m beginning to suspect that the adjournment in December put the spanner in the works.

  17. paulmac says:

    As an agent..I would be advising my client to accept redundancy..the situation is not going to improve and if I was a decent agent..I would already have a number of possible clubs to move to..

    The possibility of injury or worse on a salary reduced by 25 or 50% at a club where everything points to your contract being ceased in a matter of weeks in anycase…is a no brainer..

    I would expect some of the Rangers supporting players to over ride their common sense and continue playing at the reduced contract rates..

  18. Kevdoc says:

    Just a thought, we know a newco can’t use oldcos brand/badge (I think I got that right) but what if newco bought the rights pre-liquidation, whyte re-branded/re-crested oldco and THAT’S the brand/badge that dies with the sinking ship, leaving newco withe the originals?

    Possible??

    Or just havering??

  19. Interested American says:

    Derek says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:32 pm

    If you assume that he’s only down £1, then you’re right–any decision would suit him. Perhaps the negative one even more. But play the PR game, trouser what you can, keep everyone onside, and you can’t lose.

  20. StevieBC says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:12 pm
    1 0 i Rate This

    InterestedAmerican

    Good theory. It is possible that he has trousered everything (indeed that was my theory about Whyte at the takeover. It is what I expected him to do).

    However, why waste millions on paying salaries from May to January? He could have maximised his haul by folding Thr club immediately- or at least after the Malmo game.
    ========================================
    I am taking it then that Interested American’s interesting theory is viable.

    The MBB could have already extracted his ‘fee’, and doesn’t give a monkey’s about RFC(IA) anymore ?

  21. Mark Dickson says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    01/03/2012 at 11:30 pm

    Yes that would work for me IF we haven’t already paid Rangers for the tickets we get for Ibrox – I hope to goodness we haven’t already paid them and are at least trying to offset some of our own expected loss from RFC unpaid debt. Celtic get far more tickets for Ibrox than any other team hence the ticket money they collect is more than most other teams but yes I would also advocate other SPL teams due to visit Ibrox withholding monies and pressuring the SPL into diverting it towards those clubs who remain unpaid by RFC (in Administration)

  22. OnandOnandOnand says:

    The application to rectify the Rangers’ company register wasn’t entirely erased, this trace still remains, scroll down to Lord Glennie’s business

    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rolls/supreme/lists/r110615_189.htm

  23. v says:

    Would he not have to cover the cost of the ‘due dilligence’ as well as his £1?

  24. Lord Wobbly says:

    mfmf67@yahoo.co.uk says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:03 pm
    0 0 Rate This
    I’ve spent the last hour or two reading this blog and an awful lot comments.
    This place is no parcel of internet bampots – the debate is clearly an intelligent one, but if you’re like me, all this talk of floating wavetowers, liquidickitus and secured MBB’s is a little confusing.
    Is there anyone who could reply with a list of items on which
    there is a consensus?
    Thanks in advance
    GI
    P.S. – EOTA (Easy on the Acronyms) please
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    A list? Intelligent…. covering the…..erm….. (this is the tricky bit) consensus, eh?
    Ok, I’ll give it a go.

    1. They’re F.E.C.K.E.D.

    I think that just about covers it. Except for the intelligent bit, obviously.

  25. Paulsatim says:

    Apologies if been posted before, here is a fantastic post on CQN from the poster James Forrest,
    http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8073&cpage=11#comment-1322843 . Read and enjoy!

  26. Mu19-20 says:

    As Craig Whyte is a slippery character and no-one has been able to pin anything on him do you thing he got those bulging eyes by being kicked in the knackers so many times from people cheesed off with him ?

  27. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Final post for tonight, early flight tomorrow.

    Does anyone know if the administrator was successfull in getting the alleged £4m from Collyer Bristow?

    If they have not been successfull and the money is not to hand, then Rangers go into liquidation due to lack of money to fund the administration, does this then allow Whyte/Wavetower/Liberty to appoint a receiver ander the floating charge?

    This one still has miles to run

  28. Hugh McEwan says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:42 pm

    Hugh McEwan says:

    01/03/2012 at 11:30 pm

    Yes that would work for me IF we haven’t already paid Rangers for the tickets we get for Ibrox

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

    Why would Hearts pay in advance of the game. The payment isn’t due until 10 days after the game is played. It would be mad to pay in advance under the circumstances.

    So how many tickets do Hearts get, say 4,000 or so. How much is it each £30 or thereabouts.

    That should give you plenty money to pay to “Dunfy”.

    I’ll await your report of Hearts having done it.

  29. Paulsatim says:

    Who said Jimmy Bell didnt clap at Jinky’s minute of applause? http://i44.tinypic.com/2rpzjb5.jpg

    Not my work BTW, stolen from CM, stolen from somewhere else!!

  30. nowoldandgrumpy says:

    Ivor’s Cutlery says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:14 pm

    Sorry, yes I misunderstood.

    I agree that the Newco could not fulfil the contract as it is not RFC(IA), so the contract would simply be adjusted.
    Secondly, if RFC(IA) were liquidated and Newco formed, even if they were parachuted into the SPL during this season, how would they make the top 6 surely they should have 0 points unless they were handed Oldco’s points.
    Are the MSM then not only wanting Newco to be parachuted into the SPL but also to retain the points of the Oldco, even though they have not actually played any games?

    Oh I am giving up now on this one.

  31. Mark Dickson says:

    Hearts like most other SPL teams only get a scabby small lower corner section of the Broomloan stand at Ibrox – probably only about 800 tickets but certainly not more than 1200 which after VAT probably might raise £25K for the deserving …….of course SPL rules demand it is only collected on behalf of the defaulters.

    Neil Doncasters silence and disappearing act of late is staggering given his ugly mug and stupid barnet was all over the media during Hearts wages crisis. Dereliction of duty springs to mind.

  32. pskeffo says:

    I dont believe that Ticketus do not hold some kind of security over Ibrox. I reckon their concern is that Ibrox is only liquid in the sense that they can rent it / sell it to a newco. It holds little value other than as a football stadium.
    I’d say their concern is mainly over the ‘product’ – the season tickets. Its much more likely that they will be able to get their money back selling season tickets to Rangers 1874 fans, than to a newco, or indeed by selling or renting Ibrox.

  33. Barcabhoy says:

    Its been the year of the acronym…….we have had a raft of them

    RTC
    FTT
    CVA
    MBB
    GEF
    OPM
    RFCG

    I suspect we are about to enter the NMF phase of this farce. I’m sure the worthy denizens of this blog will figure it out in no time at all

  34. BlackJacques says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    01/03/2012 at 11:55 pm

    Rate This

    Hearts like most other SPL teams only get a scabby small lower corner section of the Broomloan stand at Ibrox – probably only about 800 tickets but certainly not more than 1200 which after VAT probably might raise £25K for the deserving …….of course SPL rules demand it is only collected on behalf of the defaulters.

    what happens if Hearts refuse to pay rangers IA the ticket money for saturday’s game?
    Will they be hauled before the SPL fo “for failing to behave with the utmost good faith”

  35. Mark Dickson says:

    What harm would it do if Hearts or Celtic or whoever at least THREATENed to withold ticket money from Rangers and divert it to the clubs Rangers defaulted on – it would certainly help to highlight the issue and debate on the apparent inequity of RFC (iA) being paid in full whilst creditor clubs were suffering financial loss at their behalf.

    It might just force Doncaster & Topping to emerge from their bunker and charge HMFC with failing to act in utmost good faith……………………………………

  36. BlackJacques says:

    Addenum

    for the unpaid part of transfer fee for Lee Wallace

  37. Parson St. Bhoy says:

    Some posters on the dark side are now considering the grim reality:-

    “imagine how worse it would feel if we(the fans) raised and put in a million quid then 4weeks later we are liquidised.”(sic)

  38. Lord Wobbly says:

    Barcabhoy says:
    02/03/2012 at 12:04 am
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nae Mair Fixtures? 😀

  39. Paulsatim says:

    Barcabhoy says:
    02/03/2012 at 12:04 am

    No More Flutes, No Mother F**ckers, Nine Men Fell

  40. Moomins says:

    pskeffo says:

    02/03/2012 at 12:02 am

    ———–

    Ticketus aren’t able to lease out property without losing their VCT eligibility. Them owning and running Ibrox isn’t an option.

    Mark Dickson says:

    02/03/2012 at 12:08 am

    ————–

    Mark – i admire your stance, but not your morals. You are advocating theft and its wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The SPL can only withold shared monies, ticket money doesn’t fall in this category. If Hearts, Celtic or anyone were to sell Rangers tickets and not pass the money to Rangers they have simply stolen it, no matter what the current situation is.

  41. nowoldandgrumpy says:

    From BBC website
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17228426

    Keeping Rangers out of court

    We are the people. But who will receive the people’s season-ticket money?
    The urgency has gone out of Rangers’ administration. Sixteen days on, it seems we’re in for a longer haul.

    And one of the reasons is that claims on the club’s future revenue are open to dispute, so any consortium of buyers could take a while to knock together, avoiding legal disputes.

    What we once thought might be a swift pre-pack deal – Craig Whyte putting the football club into administration, and swiftly exiting again with the assets, but minus the debt – now seems so last year.

    The majority shareholder may still have an advantage as secured creditor, which would give him a big advantage in staking claim to the assets, but that status has been placed in doubt by administrators.

    His status as saviour of the Glasgow club is hardly credible now, with a growing expectation that whatever the future of Ibrox, he won’t feature as a major part of it for long.

    Air of uncertainty
    That sounds like the assumption underlying the latest statement issued by Ticketus, the company that advanced £24m to Rangers in exchange for (Whyte told us last week) proceeds from three years of season ticket sales.


    Start Quote

    The problem for Ticketus is that it believes it’s got a contractual right to sell Rangers season tickets for the next three seasons, but it’s not clear that a future owner of the club’s assets would recognise that contract.”

    He also admitted that that money, secured a few days after the transfer, was used to complete the takeover deal.

    Ticketus has cause to be concerned by the risk that it may not get its £24m back.

    Last week its parent company told investors, via a statement to their financial advisers, that they were “comfortable” with the company’s position, and that the business model is sound.

    But in wording that looks like it was required by its regulator, the Financial Services Authority, it said it “cannot and does not guarantee capital preservation”.

    Today’s statement from Ticketus adds to that air of uncertainty. It has the sound of a company that’s trying to reassure itself and its investors that everything’s going to be OK:

    “Ticketus has an obligation to its investors to pursue all avenues to ensure that the ticket purchase agreement it entered into with the club is honoured, and we are committed to going to the lengths necessary to ensure that the future of the club is preserved and its agreement with Ticketus fulfilled.”

    Legal battle
    Following a meeting with administrators on Wednesday, the main thrust of the statement is to stress its eagerness for a deal to be done, and rapidly.

    The problem for Ticketus is that it believes it’s got a contractual right to sell Rangers season tickets for the next three seasons, but it’s not clear that a future owner of the club’s assets would recognise that contract.

    The statement makes clear that the contract is with Rangers Football Club plc, as opposed to any other Craig Whyte company. But if Rangers FC plc is liquidated and another company takes on the assets, what happens to the contract?

    Several lawyers have been looking at that, and there’s a risk for any future owner of the assets that a deal which doesn’t involve Ticketus, and which doesn’t recognise its ticket deal, could find itself hobbled by a protracted legal battle.

    That makes it appealing to include Ticketus in a consortium bid. And I hear that it’s interested in joining other potential bidders.

    It would clearly ensure that any such deal retains its revenue flow from season ticket sales, and it’s making it known that there could be more money on the table beyond the £24m.

    Cash flow
    The statement concluded: “We have already been in contact with a number of other key stakeholders, including potential bidders and fans’ representatives, and believe working collaboratively with all parties to create a solution for the Club that puts it on a secure financial footing must be everyone’s priority.

    “Ticketus looks forward to continuing to work with the administrators and serious potential bidders to secure a positive outcome for the club.”

    Of course, a positive outcome for the club requires a decent playing squad. Without that, it may be hard to persuade fans to part with cash for their season tickets.

    And there’s now less than a month for Rangers to get out of administration if it’s to qualify for European competition next season, without which cash flow will get tighter still and the club will become less attractive to top players.

    Article written by Douglas Fraser
    Douglas Fraser
    Business and economy editor, Scotland

  42. TheBlackKnight says:

    Lord Wobbly on 02/03/2012 at 12:13 am said:
     0 0 Rate This
    Barcabhoy says:
    02/03/2012 at 12:04 am
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nae Mair Fixtures?
    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    Not Motherwells Fault?

  43. resinlabdog says:

    Will MacGregor, Naismith et al. also be taking the pay cut?

    They are ‘assets’ who can be sold come June, right? But only if they are still there!

    If I was MacGregor’s agent (acting in his interest alone, as would be my remit… the wellbeing of the club is the problem of the guy sat at the other end of the table, not me!) I would be telling him to have none of this malarkey – “Not even with Andy Goram’s pecker should you touch this one, my son!” I would be saying!

    If a pay cut is unilaterally enforced but not accepted, contract is voided by breach, and he is a free agent who can effectively sign tomorrow on a free now for anyone who might have been willing to pay rangers(IA) a fee for him come June.
    Play one game accepting the new terms though, and games a bogey!

    The lack of a transfer fee gives him leverage to ensure better personal terms than he is on at Rangers, and at a new club that won’t be going out of business.

    “On this basis my client (not present) would like either his full wages until the end of the season please, or his jotters, Messrs Duff!”

    That is what agents (in any walk of life) are ultimately for: they do the dirty work, so you don’t have to. 10% well earned!

  44. timtim says:

    not my fault

  45. Mark Dickson says:

    Moomins says:

    02/03/2012 at 12:16 am

    Moomins – I don’t advocate theft – I only advocating offsetting (unjust) losses of fellow SPL member clubs – no more would be offset than the original debt plus any interest accrued with the remaining principal if any left then forwarded to the defaulters. It shouldn’t really be coming down to this and feck knows what Topping or Doncaster are doing or have been doing as nobody has seen them – the SPL should be forcing the issue as well as threatening unlimited sanctions for extreme bad faith imo.

  46. mollocate says:

    Re discussion above about theory of why Whyte didn’t maximise his take and run earlier- from what I am reading much of the debate is based on economics and legal technicalities as to the ideal economic and legal situation (and how any ambiguities in this system could be exploited).

    The primary reaction from the fans, though, is one based on feelings.

    Is this what Whyte has exploited. The ‘delay’ in maximising his return played on these emotions as part and parcel of the ‘economics’ of the deal. These feelings are understood as part of the transaction, and indeed, as we have seen, have made this transaction possible.

    As a sociopath, emotions are as much currency as pound notes?

  47. Johnboy says:

    Ally offers to work for free but it’s bye-bye to Bartley and maybe 10 others:
    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4166472/Allys-pledge-to-keep-Gers-alive.html

  48. Oor Wullie says:

    SWTS.sport.image.e
    Rangers squad reject request to play rest of season without pay
    Administrators’ request for players to play for free was rejected. Picture: Jane Barlow

    Administrators’ request for players to play for free was rejected. Picture: Jane Barlow

    By ANDREW SMITH
    Published on Friday 2 March 2012 00:00

    RANGERS administrators Duff and Phelps asked the club’s players to play for free for the rest of the season, it has emerged. It is one of the ‘permutations’ floated by the administrators rejected by the Ibrox squad yesterday as parties met to address the £4.5 million shortfall in the club’s income as against expenditure across the next three months.

    The black hole in the finances was expected to bring a raft of job losses among the first-team squad and at the club yesterday, but the administrators delayed an announcement as they sought some form of concensus on their cost-saving measures in talks attended by Ally McCoist, PFA Scotland president Tony Higgins, chief executive Fraser Wishart and the union’s lawyer.

    The Rangers squad pushed for wage deferrals without limit of time, citing the example of Plymouth where salaries went unpaid for ten months until the English League Two team were able to come out of administration following a buy-out last October. That is not favoured by the Rangers administrations who feel essentially ‘parking a debt’ could dull the interest of potential buyers. The Rangers squad are understood to be unified in their opposition to any redundancies or permanent salary reductions, though it is believed McCoist and his backroom team Kenny McDowall and Ian Durrant are willing to accept them. The Ibrox players deny, though, that they were presented with the options of voting for a 75 per cent across the board wage cut, eight redundancies and a 50 per cent wage cut or 11 redundancies and a 30 per cent wage cuts as different scenarios that would allow the club to cover expenditure to May.

    With none of the short-term solutions that administrators consider workable proving acceptable to the playing squad, it is likely job and wage cuts will be imposed tomorrow that will precipitate legal challenge. “The situation does remain fluid, though,” said a source close to the administrators last night. “I would expect an announcement on Friday but there are no definitives about what that will be. Ally McCoist is looking for a solution that protects the players and the club’s playing interests as much as possible while the administrators must seek the best possible solution for the safeguarding of the club’s future.”

    There was ‘nothing sinister’ in the delaying of any announcement on cuts, it was stated, with the fact three players, USA captain Carlos Bocanegra, his international team-mate Maurice Edu and Romania’s Dorin Goian, late arrivals back from international duty one of the factors in it. Another was the hope that more time will give administrators an opportunity to “track down as much money as possible”. It has been reported that several million of the £20m that Rangers Craig Whyte raised from Ticketus through the sale of Rangers season tickets could still be in the Collyer Bristow account used to conduct that transaction.

    “The money the administrators are hoping to claw in won’t just be the big public stuff that is known about. Other people have funds, and it isn’t straightforward. It is a matter of pulling it all together.”

    There appears no way that the administrators can draw together sufficient finances to avoid setting themselves on a collision course with the playing squad. They may be able to strike a compromised whereby eight players would lose their jobs and the others asked to take a 30 per cent wage cut, but any measures will be bloody and painful.

    It is understood that the most vulnerable players in any cull would be those well remunerated but in the closing stages of their contracts, and so with no resale value. Defender Sasa Papac, striker David Healy goalkeeper Neil Alexander all become free agents in May and, along with on-loan Arsenal player Kyle Bartley, would be the first targets for wage savings. In Lee McCulloch and Kirk Broadfoot having only 15 months remaining on their present deals and ranking among the better paid they are also believed to be on any job loss list.

    However, it is believed that McCoist is fighting hard to keep McCulloch because of his ability to cover three position and the status he holds as a respected senior figure in the dressing room. However, the flip side is that, at 33, his age counts markedly against him in the administrators’ eyes. A compromise, whereby he accepted a higher wage cut than those imposed otherwise, could yet see McCulloch remain.

    In other developments yesterday, Ticketus called for a “rapid and successful conclusion” to the administration process and said they are willing to hold talks with any potential new owners in a bid to help achieve that goal.

    A statement read: “Following a meeting yesterday with Rangers Football Club’s administrators Duff & Phelps, Ticketus would like to state its desire for a rapid and successful conclusion to the club’s administration process and confirm its willingness to enter into discussions with any serious potential bidders for the club. This includes working with potential purchasers to help provide various financing solutions to the club that would be attractive to new owners.”

    Whyte broke ranks after a period of silence to once again insist that he is working hard to help rangers come out of administration. Speaking in London before meeting the administrators, he said of possible redundancies: “Clearly I’ve got enormous sympathy for anyone who’s losing their job in this process.

    “This is part of solving the problem to make Rangers a stronger business when it comes out of administration, which we are all working very hard to do.”

%d bloggers like this: