Rangers Deathwatch Q&A


If my twitter feed is anything to go by, the quickening drumbeat surrounding Rangers FC (In Administration) is causing confusion in those who have only recently become aware of the immediacy of this crisis. So, I will try another Q&A to help clarify some of the most commonly asked questions and misapprehensions. (Apologies to our resident technical experts and old-timers for any simplifications).

What happened yesterday to cause all the fuss?
Rangers’ administrators released a statement saying that negotiations with players aimed at avoiding a mass-layoff had failed and that if a buyer did not step forward very soon (by Friday), drastic action would be necessary.

Does this mean Rangers will be liquidated on Friday (or Monday)?
No- not necessarily. Duff & Phelps did not clarify their intended course of action. Their options are a cull of the first team squad to bring about rapid cost cuts or they can cut-to-the-chase and just liquidate if they do not see any serious prospects of anyone buying the club in its current state. (Of course, if a buyer is waiting, a pre-pack is also possible. This would be a form of liquidation. The existing company would cease to exist).

What do you think is most likely- savage cost cuts or liquidation?
If I was the betting type, my money would be on savage cost cuts. It could be important for Duff & Phelps to be seen to have exhausted all options. However, we will see some arguments for immediate liquidation below.

Is liquidation inevitable?
Eventually, yes- it seems that way. The liabilities amassed by Rangers FC (In Administration) are probably more than the underlying business is worth- even without the Big Tax Case (BTC) liability. Include the likely amounts for underpayment & interest for the BTC, and Rangers’ total debts will probably be in the region of £70m. HMRC would then proceed with the penalty phase. This will add an additional £18m or thereabouts. No one planning on keeping Rangers alive can hope to spend less than £88m before a player is signed or a ball is kicked.
Keeping Rangers alive would also entail dealing with the responsibility for at least a decade of breaking league rules regarding player contracts and other illegal payments (such as those exposed in the Wee Tax Case). In short, Rangers today are an accumulation of time-bombs set years ago as expediencies designed to “win the title now” without regard to the future. They are all exploding together now. It would simply make financial sense to let the club founded by ‘four boys with a dream’ on Flesher’s Haugh in 1872 die and to start again.

Why have Duff & Phelps not cut costs more dramatically?
They say that they have been trying to preserve asset values by retaining as many sellable players as possible. This is quite possible and a case can be made that this is a reasonable approach. However, one of the primary roles of an administrator is to determine if a distressed business can be rescued or not. To go into liquidation without wielding a chainsaw to the cost structure would be strange. Most insolvency practitioners will want to demonstrate whether costs can be reduced below income. Given the unique legal powers of an administrator, if they cannot reduce costs below income, then no one can, and the business is beyond salvaging. Hence, I would be surprised if there is not at least a short period of Rangers operating with what amounts to a youth team playing for very little money. The administrators have other drastic tools available- such as cancelling season tickets and asking all fans to pay for entry to all future games. Given the stakes and emotions bound in this case, it would surprising if Duff & Phelps do not want to be seen to have tried everything.

Why have they mentioned not fulfilling all fixtures this season?
If they are going to skip the cost cutting and proceed straight to liquidation, failing to show up becomes inevitable. I understand (but have not yet verified) that the process for a team that does not fulfill all of its fixtures is that all of its results are voided and it finishes the season on zero points. (or -10 points in Rangers’ case due to the penalty for insolvency). This would relegate Rangers from the SPL. The number of clubs who would likely object to a newco being dropped into the SPL could then start to rise. The chances of the SPL getting bogged down in court proceedings start to increase dramatically. Thus far, the SFA and the SPL have failed miserably to provide leadership in this process. Only recently stirred from their slumbers, they do not appear to have thought any of these processes through. It is vital that these organisations start thinking and listening to expert advice. They must figure out all of the pathways and pitfalls now.

Why would they go straight to liquidation?
If the liabilities accrued to Rangers- debt to Craig Whyte’s Wavetower, tickets owed to Ticketus, assorted unpaid tax bills over the last year, and so on are such that even if Rangers won the Big Tax Case (and HMRC did not appeal), that the club would still be unable to dig itself out, then liquidation would be inevitable. Cost cutting would only buy some time, but would not affect the final outcome. On top of these bills, the costs of litigating all of the legal messes created would also be significant. It is unlikely that any of our dashing heroes waiting in the morgue to collect the corpse would want to take on such a disaster.

If liquidation is inevitable, why is Paul Murray saying otherwise?
As Graham Spiers accurately recalled on TV last night, this is the same Paul Murray who said that it made no sense for anyone to buy Rangers with the Big Tax Case hanging over the club. Yet, today he is posturing on the periphery trying to look like a hero set to save the day? Nothing about Rangers’ position has improved since then. I will call it as I see it: Paul Murray is fronting a consortium of ex-directors who want to claim the corpse of the club killed by their own actions. They are hoping to make life for Craig Whyte so uncomfortable post-liquidation that he will surrender his claim on Rangers’ assets cheaply. Paul Murray is neither so naive nor so stupid as to believe that he can really save the club. He does appear to be so cynical as to toy with the hopes and emotions of the Rangers’ many supporters.

Can Rangers stay in the SPL if liquidated?
Contrary to some of the word-play coming from Duff & Phelps and Neil Doncaster of the SPL, if Rangers FC is liquidated- that is the end of the road. There are no provisions in current SPL rules to allow a club to stay in the SPL if it has been liquidated. There are no provisions to  allow a newco to automatically enter the Scottish Football League Division 3 either. This point was distorted by Neil Doncaster (abetted by arch St. Mirren supporter- Chick Young) as he tried to imply that re-entry to the SPL was the only path forward for a newco-Rangers. Mr. Doncaster should wait to hear the results of the inquiry he has ordered into the two-contracts scandal before he forms a set view. If a newco-Rangers is allowed free entry to the SPL- with no annual financial or points penalty as an “entrance fee”- the integrity of football in Scotland will have been torn to shreds. Free entry would do more to damage the game in Scotland than any loss of revenue from Rangers’ disappearance could ever do. If the SPL rules are modified in advance of a vote to make it easier to allow newco-Rangers free entry, then the damage will be ever greater. Likewise, a change in regulations would be necessary to allow the newco-Rangers to inherit the football honours (those won fairly and those that carry the taint of financial doping and illegal tax scams). This could prove to be the last straw for many football fans. Why bother playing the games? If one particular club is not allowed to face the consequences of its own reckless mismanagement, then the Scottish Premier League will not be worth watching at all.
To be clear, I expect the SPL and SFA to attempt to change whatever rules are necessary to make life easy for newco-Rangers.

When will the Big Tax Case result be released?
There is no set schedule. It could be days. It could be months. My guess is that we will not have to wait too much longer as the judges will have had the opportunity to write-up much of their findings of fact long before the final sitting of the tribunal.

What will happen to the Big Tax Case if Rangers are liquidated before the result?
HMRC would request that the result is still entered. Contrary to sports journalist speculation, a First Tier Tribunal (Tax) finding cannot be used to set precedent for other cases. (It would have to be heard at the Upper Tribunal or a higher court to be binding on other cases being heard in First Tier Tribunals). With no legal entity left to appeal to an upper chamber, Rangers’ case could not set precedent for anyone else. Rangers’ result could be referred to in other cases, but there are many unique aspects of Rangers’ case that will not be relevant to anyone else.

In summary, the cascading effects of a Rangers liquidation pose a serious threat to the existence of professional football in Scotland. These problems cannot be resolved by simply wishing Rangers’ illegality and irresponsibility away and allowing them to proceed as if nothing has happened. There are a series of needles that need to be threaded together. This will require intensive effort to balance justice and fair-play with the economic interests of all clubs in the short and long term. I have seen nothing yet that would indicate that the leadership required to bring this disaster to a satisfactory conclusion is in place. However, I would love to write a blog in a few months withdrawing this charge and heaping praise on Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan for a difficult job well done. I do not envy their task.

Edit:

Some have asked for a breakdown of the debt calculation. I posted this as a blog reply but before it disappears off the page, I thought that I would post it here too:

To explain the breakdown of the debt estimate:

£18m – Wavetower (plus interest at rates Whyte can set- £26m at least by now- but let’s stick with £18m).
£12m – taxes (could be £15m per BBC Scotland)
£6m – misc. working capital owed by RFC at time of takeover (not including any increase due to Whyte just not paying bills)

That would be £36m debt before we consider the Big Tax Case. (It will be significantly more, but let’s not get hung up on precision).

Big Tax Case:
£20-24m in underpayment
£16-20m in interest (compounding daily- it has grown by about £2m in the time this blog has been running. Initial estimates assumed monthly compounding. This would have been low).
i.e. initial total of £38-44m

Penalty: assumed £18m.

That actually puts the debt at between £92-98m. My apologies for the low estimate above in the interests of conservatism.

Of course, HMRC will actually just say “ach forget the £68-74m you owe us. We want you to live. It was all a big misunderstanding. We will accept nothing. You pay everyone else, including Craig Whyte, and we will be happy to walk away”

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 are for one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,150 Responses to Rangers Deathwatch Q&A

  1. Paul Mac says:

    Sauzee says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:49 pm

    Anyone else finding it hilarious that Celtic fans – with their Che Guevara banners and fashionable right-on Socialist sensibilities – squealing at the prospect of wealth redistribution ?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    We’ve always done Irony well…with a touch of class…..

    but if its the irony of all ironies you are after…watch how the Hibs…Killies and Aberdeens of this world deal with the newco…”we can’t live without them…even tho they have cheated…even tho they have evaded tax…even tho they have been corrupt…even tho we have lost money because of the cheating and corruption…..even tho we still have massive debts and are tring to honestly trade our way out of our debts…we want the new rangers to come back into the SPL debt free and able to make our situation worse than before”

    Now that would be Ironic…

  2. Interested Observer says:

    With regards to wealth sharing, my post @ 2.38pm wasn’t suggesting 50% of Celtic’s home gate every other week went to that week’s opposition. That would be outrageous!

    We would all like the clubs to vote purely in the interests of sporting integrity and fairness. But those of a debt-ridden status due to stupid spending years ago must take into account the financial impact of no Rangers.

    I assume they will want to stick it to the ‘newco’ just like I’m sure Celtic do. But Celtic will be key to that happening. If they agree to a redistribution of TV and prize money, they can alleviate the financial pressure on the SPL 10.

    Celtic could even allow opposing clubs to keep the money from ticket sales for games at Celtic Park minus costs for stewards etc. But 50/50 splits? No way.

    But all of this means Peter Lawwell looking at the bigger picture. Less money domestically but virtually guaranteed of a free pass to Champions League revenue. Perhaps PL could push for a winter break which would allow Celtic to go on a money-making tour to Dubai etc…

    The SPL 10 have already shown that they rarely listen to fans and talk of boycotts should a ‘newco’ be allowed in will not sway them. Thousands of fans would need to stay away for them to take any notice. I can’t see that happening (unfortunately) as apathy reigns.

    The big question is how much are Celtic prepared to ‘give up domestically’ in a deal to keep the ‘newco’ out?

    As an aside, I’d be interested in the chats bank managers are having with clubs who have a large credit line with them regarding allowing a club which defauled on its debts straight back into the league.

  3. If any truth in Ticketus story it will be because Gladys Knight has spoken to them. And the rest of prospective buyers will only be looking at newco, nobody is going to pour money in this bottomless cesspit

  4. Paul Mac says:

    Stargazor says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:01 pm

    If nobody wants to buy Rangers then DD consortium sells off all assets and charges £100 quid a go at swinging the wrecking ball.

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

    Put me down for 4 goes!

  5. Oor Wullie says:

    I’m well behind in my reading today, and have only just caught up with the CQN piece about the ten other clubs meeting to decide on the issue of terms to be demanded of Rangers if they are to be allowed back into the SPL.

    If Celtic, a member of the SPL are not present, how can any decision come to have any validity.

    If this CQN story turns out not to be the reason for the meeting, I wonder what is.

  6. jbj712 says:

    CFC can call on the expertise of many gifted and hard headed successful businessmen
    I have no doubt they will be able to construct a successful strategy to deal with any nonsense such as a grab to take CFC ST money
    Personally I would support a move to a membership club like Barca at say£500 pa
    ST on top of that say £1 per match
    That means gate money of £50k per game = £25k to the diddy teams
    Away supporters would pay say £50 per ticket
    CFC supporters unable to buy full membership could purchase an associate membership for say £10 pa that would allow them to buy individual match day tickets for reduced prices – say £15-20

    Where there is a will there will be a way

    What are the diddy teams going to do?
    Throw us out of the league?

  7. Paul Mac says:

    Spanishcelt says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:00 pm

    Four players on average 25k each a week = 400k a month @ 75% reduction is savings of 300k a month ( maximum) still 700.000 a month to find for their 1Million a month savings required.
    Or am I missing something?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I averaged it at £20k per week…you also need to factor in that Wylde and Celik left saving £10k per week…so I reckon they have around £700k still to save or £175k per week…

  8. Mark Dickson says:

    k3lly says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:05 pm

    I specifically asked why crowds (average & season aggregate) are now far in excess of Celtic’s greatest ever team and greatest era ie under Jock Stein.
    The answer to each of those questions for anybody who is old enough to remember is clearly no. Celtic got some bigger attendances in those days at Old Firm games, Cup Finals & Semi’s etc but even against the diddy teams you get higher crowds today.

    That intrigues me becaause everywhere else crowds are down both on their best seasons but also on their historical average attendance levels.

    Doesn’t that strike you as a statistical anomoly? this is Celtic’s best ever team nor best ever era and football today is far more expensive in real terms than it’s ever been. So why are crowds at Celtic park & Ibrox as high as they are nowadays?

  9. easyJambo says:

    New RTC blog up http://rangerstaxcase.com/2012/03/09/its-a-deal/#respond

  10. It Was Never Worth a Pound says:

    Gordon Smith Statement on BBC

    Smith, who starred for the Ibrox club for a three-year spell from 1977, last held the position of Scottish Football Association chief executive.

    “I was brought in by Craig Whyte but because his control and reputation has been damaged by recent disclosures, I feel my own position has been undermined by association,” he said.

  11. Galling fiver says:

    SSB no redundies at the Big Hoose staff, so 700k a month worth of players to come then?

  12. Lucculent Sam says:

    Paul Mac says: 09/03/2012 at 4:08 pm

    How the F*CK can Scottish football move forward when the SPL member clubs actively descriminate against one of its own member clubs by excludine them from the meeting?

    Chill!

    This meeting of the group of ten is NOT and CANNOT be a formal meeting of the SPL membership. It can’t decide anything.

    The meeting might actually be a good thing. Maybe the group of ten will reach a common view on what steps to take at upcoming formal SPL or SFA meetings: sanctions against RFC(IA), what the SPL/SFA does after RFC(IA) goes bust, handling a request for Newco for re-admission, etc. It would be nice to try to get a consensus on this before it gets considered at an official meeting of the SPL/SFA board or membership. The same goes for finding out their views for longer-term reform of Scottish football’s leagues and governance bodies.

    It would have been better if Celtic were part of those discussions though. Maybe that’ll happen later.

    Once RFC(IA) fold, there’s a once in a lifetime chance to fix the SPL since the Old Firm veto will no longer decide things. It’s not unreasonable for the group of ten (or anyone else) to jump at this opportunity. It would be beyond stupid if this opportunity was allowed to slip away.

    I quite like the idea of the group of ten growing a pair of balls between themselves and standing up to the Old Firm. This is long overdue and to be welcomed.

    As for discrimination, remember that the Old Firm have effectively discriminated against the rest of the SPL for several years now. The organisation’s M&As are rigged to ensure the Old Firm have a casting vote. If I remember correctly, the Old Firm blocked plans for an SPL-owned TV channel. That led to the Setanta shambles. Which led to the dire Sky deal.

  13. jocky scot says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:54 pm

    I agree that lack of competition is a factor. I used to watch celtic in the late 70’s and I really enjoyed it along with the other 17. 000 fans. I would never pay to watch celtic play a load of teams who sit back and do nothing while a load of mediocre over paid celtic imports struggle to pass the ball 10 yards and have panic attacks when faced with the prospects of winning something.

    If you increase the competition you will see falling attendances at ibrox and celtic park to more realistic levels last seen pre spl. You are then back to crowds of 20. 000 and home grown talent. I would pay to watch if it was better value than now. Celtic don’t need to be the best in europe for me to watch them. I quite happily went week in week out to watch us getting regularly beaten. I couldn’t fault the players for their attitude and desire so I was quite happy.

  14. Mark Dickson says:

    jbj712 says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:11 pm

    Those diddy club chairmen would simply adjust the rules to take x% of all clubs income then instead of attendance money – what you going to do – let people in for free and charge them nothing for anything? Where there’s a will there a way ;)

  15. Spanishcelt says:

    No mention of pay cuts for Manager, assistent managers etc. are they already working without pay? If not then why have we not heard they are taking pay cuts as well as players?

  16. Night Terror says:

    k3lly says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:05 pm

    Mark Dickson says:

    That’s crap. Did you watch the last Celtic v Aberdeen game? Did it look to you like there was no competition?

    Is the football better to watch?
    > Depends on your age surely – it’s much better now than under Mowbray for example.

    Is the team more successful?
    > No – but success isn’t measured only in Titles and Cups. Football is entertainment; the question is – were you entertained watching that game? Yes.

    Are the competitors better?
    > See Celtic v Aberdeen match as above. And compare relative spend over past five years. The ‘Dons did fantastic, and fair play to them for that.

    Are Celtic more of a force in Europe?
    > No, but irrelevant.

    Is it better value for money?
    > Depends on your age surely – it’s much better now than under Mowbray for example.

    Is it less expensive?
    > No – is anything else?

    Why do so many turn up at Parkhead, to watch a team that hasn’t won much for years? Solve that equation, and your team won’t need to take another team’s money off them ‘for the good of Scottish football’.

    Here’s a hint: football is supposed to be entertainment.

    Ohh k3elly. Sometimes it’s better to stay quiet. But I’m glad you gave it a go anyway.

    Mark Dickson – I tip my hat to you.

  17. Jean says:

    scapa says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:39 pm

    who moi ;)

  18. campsiejoe says:

    Do you want to solve some of the problems ?
    Then get rid of TV all together
    Have they got the guts for that ?
    I don’t know, as that would be the GoT waving goodbye to an easy, if limited income stream
    Interesting that a few people have latched on to my tongue in cheek idea of giving tickets to the visitors to sell at whatever price they can
    Maybe there is some merit in the idea after all

  19. jocky scot says:

    Why not ban pay at the gate and make it season book only?

  20. Night Terror says:

    Smell the glove says:
    09/03/2012 at 3:28 pm

    Football is not communism. Want more money? Then get your fans to turn up and pay to get in.

    But neither is it capitalism.

    Clubs that have chosen to operate as PLC’s or Privates or community clubs or whatever do so within the restraints of the various leagues and associations.

    The SPL is under no obligation to deliver profits to one member who happens to have chosen to be a PLC.

  21. campsiejoe says:

    Night Terror

    Neither is that PLC under any obligation to bankroll the rest of the SPL

  22. Peter says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    09/03/2012 at 2:39 pm

    So Celtic, who have been shafted financially by the goings on at Ibrox for , say 20 years, are to be shafted again by giving away gate money and now European money?

    If it happens , nobody will be getting my money, I work too hard to earn it and I like to decide where I spend it.

  23. Oor Wullie says:

    Night Terror says:
    09/03/2012 at 12:51 pm

    @O_Kahn

    I refer to the Diddy Clubs all the time – and I support one of them. It’s subversion of an intended insult, and it’s easier than “the other 10″ or “Non-Old Firm Clubs” or whatever.

    Embrace your Diddy Club today!
    ==========================

    What makes a club is ‘big’ or ‘small’ is the crowds they attract.

    If somehow the St. Mirren’s, Dundee Utd’s, Dunfermline’s etc could attract 20,000 for home games they could not be legitimately called ‘diddy’ clubs.

    I know the regular fans of these clubs love their team as much as those of Celtic.

    It would be better for EVERY team in the league if they got bigger crowds as the competition would be a lot fiercer.

    I just wish I knew how that could come about.

  24. Peter says:

    GLJ says:
    09/03/2012 at 2:32 pm

    I think you will find that its clubs such as Rangers among others who are ruining the game due to living outwith their means.

  25. jocky scot says:

    Is financialisation a factor in the downfall of scottish football?

  26. Night Terror says:

    campsiejoe says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:45 pm

    Neither is that PLC under any obligation to bankroll the rest of the SPL

    If the rules of the league in which they play dictate, yes they are.

  27. wattyler says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:54 pm

    2

    1

    Rate This

    jocky bhoy says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:41 pm

    Jocky,

    Celtic’s average attendances now eclipse by quite some distance anything like they got during the Stein 9-in-a-row era Why?

    Is the football better to watch?
    Is the team more successful?
    Are the competitors better?
    Are Celtic more of a force in Europe?
    Is it better value for money?
    Is it less expensive (in relative terms)?

    The answer to each of these questions is clearly no and you can ask and get similar answers at Ibrox ……………………the current era’s greatest anomoly is that Celtic & Rangers now get crowds averages far in excess of anything they got during their glory years yet everywhere else in Scotland has crowds down below their historical averages not only their highest averages.

    Severe Lack of competition is the reason for that imo.
    ———————————————————————

    Please also take into acount the ease of travel to games now (more people have own transport)
    the marketing celtic do (club and fans)
    three day working week and alot more variables at the time.

  28. Peter says:

    So Celtic end up giving 50% of their gate money.They then give away a large pot of the European and TV money.Would that not make an enormous dent in Celtics turnover in future and considering we have players on contracts with 3 or 4 years to run, could Celtic then be in a position not unlike Rangers are in now?

    Maybe the 10 could be generous and give the plan 5 years to start,just to keep the playing field level, after all that seems fair!

  29. Perry says:

    I can’t believe that they will emerge from this fine and dandy. Oh wait, this is Scotland so I sadly do believe it. Deals I guess have been done behind the scenes.

  30. wattyler says:

    Mark Dickson factor in how many (woman) families went to games then and now, diposable income beer or game? and a hundred more variables.

  31. wattyler says:

    Mark Dickson factor in how many (woman) families went to games then and now, diposable income beer or game? and a hVndred more variables.

    Dam hvn trap

  32. mmatim88 says:

    I have a suggestion for all you that think that a gate share is fair and equal to all clubs. Find a rich benefactor who loves your club. Appeal to your loyal fans to put their own hard earned money into the club in a share issue. Put a solid but very painful business plan in place. Suffer through years of scorn and derision of these policies. Build a stadium and team that 60000 people are proud to watch every second Saturday. Seek out partnerships with globally recognized sponsors and try to appeal to a worldwide audience. All the while fighting against a team that has cheated while you adhere to the rules, still to be ridiculed because you stick to your original plan and ethos.
    Then and only then shall you be entitled to half of what Celtic have.
    Any takers? Will your support stand up when your club need you most or will you continue to dine at the table of the people you profess to despise? I will bet the latter.

  33. Peter says:

    If the 10 are indeed looking to a fair share of the TV spoils, Should Celtic then tell the SPL and Sky that there should be an even spread of televised games and not mainly involving Celtic as it is now?That would be perfectly fair don’t you think?

  34. Max B Gold says:

    I’m away to see if my jelly has set. This is starting to become something like a cross between Heller’s Catch 22, Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, Flann O’Brian’s Third Policeman with a dash of Monty Python and a soupçon of Fawlty Towers.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Now that would be a film worth watching.

  35. james larkin says:

    is it a coincidence that the msm are using phrases like newco etc…where would they have learned this type of language and what it “means”…they got it from RTC,CQN and Phil M’s site, yet they try to pass it off as if it’s them that brought such lingo to the world!

    jabba tonight on sportsound claimed that under scottish law…it is illegal to do what the MBB did with the ticketus money…as RFC9IA) is a PLC…they cannot get “assistance”…
    is this true?

    if that is true…criagy boy has indeed appeared to have got involved in illegal activities.
    if it is not true…craigy boy could sue jabba’s BFA off?

    so is it illegal to do what craigy boy did with the ticketus deal under scottish law?

  36. Max B Gold says:

    I have a suggestion for all you that think that a gate share is fair and equal to all clubs. Find a rich benefactor who loves your club. Appeal to your loyal fans to put their own hard earned money into the club in a share issue. Put a solid but very painful business plan in place. Suffer through years of scorn and derision of these policies. Build a stadium and team that 60000 people are proud to watch every second Saturday. Seek out partnerships with globally recognized sponsors and try to appeal to a worldwide audience. All the while fighting against a team that has cheated while you adhere to the rules, still to be ridiculed because you stick to your original plan and ethos.
    Then and only then shall you be entitled to half of what Celtic have.
    Any takers? Will your support stand up when your club need you most or will you continue to dine at the table of the people you profess to despise? I will bet the latter.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I apologise for ever having suggested Scotch Fitba’ should ever be made fair. Mind yourself getting of your Big Horse.

  37. TheBlackKnight says:

    mmatim88 on 09/03/2012 at 6:38 pm

    Well said that man!

    Sporting integrity is everything outside of the business. Will the business exist outside of sporting integrity?

    I believe we, and other supporters, will decide.

  38. james larkin says:

    maxB
    “I apologise for ever having suggested Scotch Fitba’ should ever be made fair. Mind yourself getting of your Big Horse.”

    is that a big horse tae get tae the “BIG HOOSE” ?

  39. MJR88 says:

    Oor Wullie says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:22 pm
     1 0 Rate This
    Just seen former Rangers boss Alex McLeish on Sky Sports News.
    He looked grim and claimed that he knew ‘some people’ who would not let Rangers die.
    He said he wasn’t going to name anyone in particular.
    The look on his face reminded me of the look on Allister Johnston’s face in the Whyte documentary on the BBC.
    Deadly serious and very no surrenderish.
    ————————————-
    Big Eck looks worried about something?
    I wonder if the EBTs were only for the playing staff?
    Alex McLeish-Rangers manager 2001-2006 (The full speed ahead EBT bonanza years)

  40. mmatim88 says:

    Max B Gold @7:51 says:

    How is your proposal fair Max? Did any other club do what Celtic did to get out of the mire. We were at deaths door and took it upon ourself to rescue the situation. We never asked for your help. And now after all the s*** we have had to put up with, you think we should hand over the fruits of our labor to make things fair. Are you for real. Where is the fairness in disgracefully run organizations like the SPL/SFA taking what is rightfully ours and distributing it among the other clubs?

  41. pau1888 says:

    ssn breaking news…

    Blue Knights confirm intention to bid in conjunction with all three fan bodies and Ticketus

  42. Oor Wullie says:

    Spanishcelt says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:00 pm

    Four players on average 25k each a week = 400k a month @ 75% reduction is savings of 300k a month ( maximum) still 700.000 a month to find for their 1Million a month savings required.
    Or am I missing something?
    ===============================

    You are absolutely correct.

    However it would seem that the media is so desperate for a bit of good news coming out of Rangers they can’t or won’t do the math.

    Except for Jim Traynor.

    The slimy toad said on this weeks documentary on the BBC that he thought the £1Mill figure arrived at by Duff & Phelps was ‘exaggerated.’

    He obviously did his sums, realised it didn’t add up, so re-arranged the facts to suit the figures.

    Regardless of this Rangers still have many, in my opinion, insurmountable obstacles to overcome.

    The £15,000,000 (and growing by £1Mill per month) PAYE and N.I. not paid by Craig Whyte seems to have been forgotten by the media in the mad rush to publish a good news story.

    Then there’s the wee tax bill of £2.5Mill rounded up to £4Mill by interest.

    And then of course the nuclear bomb of the big tax bill which may reach £75Mill.

    That adds up to a possible total of £94,000,000.

    And then there’s the smaller creditors.

    How much that will add up to is anybody’s guess.

    In any event Rangers are staring at an enormous debt nearing £100,000,000.

    Even if the big tax case ‘only’ comes to £50,000,000, that still leaves a total of £75,000,000!

    Does anyone really believe even after today’s ‘good news story’ that Rangers can escape liquidation?

    That anybody will fork out that amount of money just to clear Rangers feet?

    Rangers only hope of surviving is a CVA, but since all the experts on here regard this as highly unlikely, it’s a forlorn hope.

  43. bicho malo nunca muere says:

    the reason attendances at the old firm are higher now is that they successfully created a demand for season books. if you’ve got a season book you might as well go to every game to get the value. in the past you could leave it til 2.15pm before deciding if you were going

  44. Oor Wullie says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    09/03/2012 at 5:14 pm

    Doesn’t that strike you as a statistical anomoly? this is Celtic’s best ever team nor best ever era and football today is far more expensive in real terms than it’s ever been. So why are crowds at Celtic park & Ibrox as high as they are nowadays?
    =======================================

    Pre-Fergus McCann most supporters tended to pick and choose which games to attend.

    So the 25,000 at one match might not be the same people as the 25,000 showing up for the next game.

    When McCann said he was going to build a 60,000 seater stadium the ‘experts’ said he was mad, slimy toad Jim Traynor among them.

    ‘Why build a stadium that big when the average attendance was only 25,000’ so the argument went. ‘McCann will go broke.’

    McCann went on to show why he is a millionaire and ‘experts’ like Traynor aren’t.

    Before he took over, Celtic only issued season tickets for the main stand and even then not for all of it.

    As far as I can remember the season tickets were limited to about 4-5000.

    Having a season ticket was looked on as a rich man’s perk, lording it in the centre of the main stand.

    McCann offered season tickets to every Celtic fan and they didn’t disappoint him.

    From McCann’s time until the recent recession, Celtic had 52,000 season ticket holders and therefore a captive crowd at every home game since through their season book they had paid for every home game.

    Rangers followed suit and the rest is history.

  45. As I expected, my original comment about Rangers playing the SPL was ripped by people with no ability to read for context.

    I’m not a Rangers supporter. I haven’t been taken in by the Scottish media. I’m an American journalist with all too much experience how money and TV rules the world of sport. As I said repeatedly in the original comment, I’m not saying that I think a Rangers 2012 *should* be allowed into the SPL. I think they most certainly will be.

    Yes, they were allowed to go into administration. I never thought there was any doubt about that. Things had gotten too bad. But they aren’t going to vanish, and they aren’t going to be playing in the lower divisions. That TV deal means more than the “integrity of the sport.”

    That’s unfortunate, but it is true. And all those fans that say they will abandon the SPL if Rangers comes back? They’ll be there when Rangers 2012 comes to town, hating them even more than usual.

  46. Spanishcelt says:

    Personnaly, i will be more than happy to see them in long periods of admistration over the next decade, a newco WILL be allowed into the SPL free of debt and probably still carrying its history with it and screaming to the world how they survived and dont do walking away.
    However if they are left with these debts to repay we will see them struggle for years to get even close to where they have been in the past, plus they will still be answerable eventually ( to eufa ) for all their past cheatings, double contracts, fielding players who were not legal to play not just in scotland but also european competitions.

  47. john mc says:

    Sorry to say your wrong
    Oor Wullie says:
    09/03/2012 at 9:15 pm

    I had a season ticket for the terraces at Celtic park from pre centenary season so wasnt only the mai stand. Was just over a hundred notes and all home and reserve games included

  48. Jim Black says:

    RangersTax case says:

    Is liquidation inevitable?
    Eventually, yes- it seems that way.

    Why the qualification “it seems that way”? The fact is you don’t know.

    Reading the Sunday papers this morning Paul Clark makes clear liquidation is unlikely. But what does he know, he’s only the administrator. I’m sure its in Duff and Phelps best interests to spout complete nonsense.

    I don’t think you are as clever as you think you are.

  49. Jim Black says:

    Celtic are currently capped at around £60M by my calcs. Thats after converting the convertibles into ordinary shares. I guess in a takeover scenario an offer would have to pay a premium, say £100M

    RangersTaxCase says Rangers total debt could be as high as £90M, and that includes paying back Wavetower (Craig Whyte).

    Why then is it so fantastic to assume a group of investors can invest £90M into Rangers in return for 100% of the club. Lets assume the 15% not held by Craig Whyte agree to give up their shares since they will be worthless anyway in a liquidation scenario. So for £90M you get a debt free Rangers including Ibrox and Murray Park. You’d probably need regular Champions League involvement to make that valuation stand up as an investment. But with 40,000 season ticket holders and some wealthy individuals its very possible. They get shares and save the club.

    Rangers won;t be liquidated.

  50. k3lly says:

    Dave Hogg (@Stareagle) says:

    Well Dave, the American journalist – perhaps in the USA people happily pay to see “fake” sport. Pro-Wrestling, for example.

    Fake doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid. When I say I will never pay to watch another unfair football game, I do actually mean it. I have better uses for my time and money.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,482 other followers

%d bloggers like this: