Evading Avoidance


We have seen a few old faces and themes emerge overnight in the light of the surprisingly excellent Channel 4 exposé on Rangers. Annoyingly, an old myth has been repeated by some posters: “tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is legal”. Another one is that Rangers have not been accused of tax evasion- ergo they have not done anything illegal. This is absolute rubbish on both counts.

This is the sort of ill informed mythology that gets repeated by the idiots who told us Craig Whyte was buying Rangers for £33m. It is a bit like the story about Eskimos having lots of words for snow: just because a piece of untrue nonsense is repeated often does not change its central essence. It is still untrue nonsense.

So by way of a bit of a filler post while we are waiting on events to further unfold, we shall do a bit of revision for those who might have missed this first time around. The laws covering tax evasion and tax avoidance are identical. The only real difference is that in cases of tax evasion, such overwhelming evidence will exist that HMRC believes it can prove that the people involved planned to commit fraud. The perpetrators must also have known that what they were doing was criminal when they did it. (Our lawyers friends will provide a more precise definition, but this will be good enough for most purposes). This is a pretty difficult standard to achieve. In fact, it is so difficult to prove, criminal prosecutions for tax evasion are normally reserved for accountants and lawyers- people whose knowledge of tax law is easier to demonstrate. This explains why several high profile tax fraud cases, such as the recent one involving the canine pet of a football manager, ended in acquittals despite evidence that looked pretty impressive to the general public. In Scotland, this high hurdle is elevated further by the requirement for corroboration.

Tax avoidance can be illegal. It is a term used to describe tax schemes that simply will not be pursued in a criminal court. Some avoidance schemes are illegal, while others have been deemed to be legal if implemented correctly. HMRC even have a tax avoidance scheme registration plan (DOTAS). Tax payers can use DOTAS registered avoidance schemes and be sure that they will not be accused of criminality. Those who are deemed to have breached tax law through an illegal avoidance scheme are pursued through a civil process i.e. a tax tribunal- rather than a criminal court. This is where Rangers are. They are not accused of any criminal action at this point (and it is unlikely that they will), but they have been accused by HMRC of pursuing illegal tax avoidance practices. This resulted in them being sent tax assessments for underpayment, interest, and penalties. Rangers have appealed this determination by HMRC and the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) will decide whether to uphold Rangers’ appeal or not. The First Tier Tribunal will effectively rule on whether Rangers’ tax practices were legal or illegal.

You might wonder why criminal charges would not be pressed if someone was found to have shredded key documents in a tax investigation. Surely this would be criminal? Well, mibbees aye, mibbees naw.

It could be deemed criminal if you could prove that the person who requested the shredding was knowingly destroying a document to subvert an investigation by a government body. Proving this degree of intent will often be impossible. So, tax collectors will settle for collecting taxes- through the civil courts. In the tax tribunal process, interest payments and penalties are used to ensure that tax avoiders (that is ones deemed to have broken the law) do not gain an advantage by paying a smaller amount later. In cases, where there is the possibility of criminal behaviour by ‘minor cogs’ in the machine rather than the ‘big gear’, there would also be a reluctance to prosecute.

Is Channel 4’s report of document shredding relevant to Rangers’ tax cases? I do not know. That would be for Rangers FC and its former directors to comment.

There must be some kind of remedial teaching award available to anyone who is able to explain any of this to a Scottish sports journalist.

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.

743 Responses to Evading Avoidance

  1. john clarke says:

    The question has been put: in the event of a determined attempt by the Scottish Football “establishment” ( yes, Jabba, there is such a thing) to keep a “newco RFC2012” in the SPL, is any one of the contributors to this blog (preferably someone who supports a team other than Celtic) willing and able to set up a mechanism to harness the ‘social media’ to resist such attempt?
    If bloggers and twitterers in the middle East can bring down repressive governments, I would have thought that getting a few thousand demonstrators outside Hampden would be a cinch!
    If I knew how, I’d be inclined to do it myself. ( Give me a bit of Latin and I’m your man: but ‘social media’ are all Greek to me)
    Nothing criminal, of course. Just honest-to-God football supporters demanding fair play.( Mind you, Strathclyde’s finest are , perhaps,a bit shaky on their understanding of fair play)

  2. EKBhoy says:

    RTC
    you ought to publish the players in receipt of EBTs, there is no downside.

    Another route is for AT to publish, as this would be a logical follow-on to last Friday’s revelations.
    Dignity need to face up to their sporting responsibilities , it is better for all concerned to push the truth out, take their punishment and move on.
    You need to encourage the authorities to face up to the scale of the problem, otherwise it will be swept under the carpet.
    RTC what would happen if the boot was on the other foot?
    Go for it.

  3. Hugh McEwan says:

    The bidders have until Wednesday to put in their best and final offer.

    Some time after that Duff and Phelps will identify a preferred bidder and probably give them a period of exclisivity.

    Presumably at that stage they will be allowed access to the books and records to do their due diligence.

    Question

    What sort of timescale are we talking about here. It strikes me that even if Duff and Phelps are able to identify the preferred bidder fairly soon then it will still be quite some time before that party can finalise their own check. We must be talking in terms of several weeks for that to be achieved.

    Unless all they are interested in is the assets they want, for a fixed price, with the liabilities remaining with the existing PLC, which would speed things up considerably.

  4. Richard Cranium says:

    Can I implore you all to read again RTC’s post from last April…..’Whispering the L word ‘……it’s what the MSM should have read last year. It is truly a fantastic post.

  5. VITAL Signs says:

    scapa says:02/04/2012 at 9:39 am
     9 1 Rate This

    “alex thomson‏@alextomoReply
    Retweet
    Monday: still no denials from Bain, McClelland, McGill, Greig or Murray on Friday’s #c4news revelations on RFC

    says it all really!

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

    Bain did give a somewhat pathetic explanation regarding his involvement in the EBT scheme. He said that he followed the tax and legal advice provided by MIH, as RFC(not then in administration) didn’t have an in-house tax and legal team (aw, shame).

    MIH ” Martin, we’ve got this tax scheme on the go, with the wedge you’re on, it could save you quite a few bob”.

    MB “Sounds good. That’ll do for me. If it all goes pear-shaped, can I just blame you by saying I was blindly following your advice?”

    MIH “Bainy, what’r ye like!”

  6. layman00 says:

    Just goes to show how popular this blog has become, Dan Brown appears to be posting under the alias of tomtom.

  7. dellbell67 says:

    On the subject of songs all fans can sing to them if the skip back into the SPL (or not I suppose).

    Yooooouuu’re not Rangers,
    Yooooou’re not Rangers,
    Yooou’re not Rangers anymore!
    Yooou’re not Rae’ee’aingers any more

  8. Casual Observer says:

    I note with some interest that the annual accounts for MIH and subsidiaries are now overdue at Coys House.

    Interest because the loss on disposal of Rangers will have impacted the MIH balance sheet significantly – A £60M loss on disposal is difficult for a £7M net value company to swallow without further changes in equity to mitigate the subsequent insolvent position. There may also be a further writing down of IP on Murray Sports. There may of course have been a substantial and unlikely uplift in profits from other divisions that have covered the losses….

    The annual report will also have to outline any such material changes in equity structure post reporting period, so called ‘post balance sheet events’, that will give a further insight to the position Murray was being held to by LBG at the time of the disposal.

    I note that the Annual Return in January noted no changes to equity, just as it had the previous year ahead of the dramatic debt-equity swap that confirmed the wiping out of the company as a value proposition.

  9. JakeC says:

    tenerifetim says:
    02/04/2012 at 10:24 am

    If I only listen to one point of view I am in danger of becoming ossified – for me the show is there for comedic value and characters like Tommy and his “Voodoo Economics” quotes brighten up a quiet hour or so here on the´Reef .
    I am in no danger of ever taking a phone-in programme or anything in the MSM seriously , certainly not after “Thugs & Thieves ” article and “Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster!”

    —-

    Agreed. I read Leggat most days and if I took anything Screaming Lord Hee-Haw said seriously I’d probably need to be sectioned, but it always helps to hear things from a different perspective. Even if that view is rabidly bonkers.

  10. Mac says:

    Is the result of the tribunal released to the participants prior to release to the public? Is any official notice given of release date prior to release or does the result appear without warning out of the ether?

  11. tigertim says:

    Brenda says:
    02/04/2012 at 10:59 am

    Could it be that this ‘rule’ will not need to come into play now that it’s looking like liquidation and a newco cannot play in Europe for 3 years anyway.Hence allowing the SFA/SPL to ‘gloss’ over this rule and save adding to cheats fc’s pain.
    ===============================
    Brenda, it has looked like liquidation since before Craig Whyte became owner. If the BFTT had returned a verdict then Rangers would be liquidated, it still has not happened.
    You cannot gloss this over. There are European places at stake and clubs need to know what they are playing for at this time. There are relegation issues concerning Dunfermline & Hibs where they need to know if Rangers SPL license will be revoked.
    There maybe an additional promotion place from the 1st Division, clubs need to know what is at stake till the ned of the season.
    The event has occurred, the rules are in place. The duty now is to make the statement which states:-
    What the rule is.
    Who breached.
    What the punishment is for this.
    What the impact will be on the remaining fixtures this season.

  12. Auldheid says:

    Casual Observer
    An essential ingredient for any parachute arrangement has to be confession and contrition and I do not mean it in the religious sense but in a cleansing way.
    Nor is a face wipe enough, I mean some evidence that they understand wrongdoing has occured ( on part of all the parties involved) and what they sign up to to prevent it happening again.
    You cannot restore trust by paying lip service to it, the wrong and what drove it needs to be faced, otherwise the insanity of doing the same thing and expecting a different result will manifest itself again and again.

  13. Mark says:

    The bidders have until Wednesday to put in their best and final offer.

    __

    I reckon I have it sorted, I know what the SPL and SFA are going to punish RFC (In Admin) with.

    Campbell Ogilvie has requested Douglas Nedermeiyer as officer over

    “Double Secret Probation”

  14. Oor Wullie says:

    governing organisations hear us.
    Hugh McEwan says:
    01/04/2012 at 7:57 pm

    Derek says:
    01/04/2012 at 7:24 pm

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

    So,

    A new Company Registration number.

    A new PAYE number

    A new VAT number

    A new Football Registration

    A new Owner

    A new Board

    A new Squad (albeit maybe some of the same players, on new contracts)

    Why are people suggesting it’s the same business again.
    ========================================================

    Will it really matter?

    Will there ever be a NewCo?

    I have come to accept that Rangers will go into administration and a NewCo will emerge, but I’m beginning to wonder if this view is accurate.

    Club-9 Sports has put in the highest bid and is the front runner in the race to buy the club.

    This company advertises itself as ‘turnaround specialists.’

    Just like Craig Whyte.

    But Craig Whyte was more interested in what was in the Rangers deal for him than is nursing a sick company back to health.

    There is a suggestion today that Club-9 Sports has the same modus operandi.

    It looks to me, who before this blog had never encountered the term ‘turnaround specialists,’ that it might be better described as ‘asset stripping.’

    I am beginning to get a gut feeling that any attempt at resurrecting RFC will fail.

    Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part.

  15. AllyjamboTaxpayer says:

    It seems to me that, regardless of the BTC result, Rangers are most likely to go into liquidation and start up as a newco with ‘Rangers FC’ prominent in their name. There is no doubt that they will, under those circumstances, be treated better than any other club in Scotland would have been, despite the fact that they have ‘bought’ massive success by spending money they didn’t have. I’d be very surprised if they were then kicked out of the SPL, though that undoubtedly should happen, but at least a precedent will have been set so all the other clubs can then willfully overspend knowing they are immune to any sanctions imposed by the SPL/SFA other than a ten point deduction.

    But, and it’s a big but, if they lose the BTC, and so are found to have been cheating both the Revenue and the SPL/SFA/UEFA, then they must be treated differently and have severe sanctions imposed, most notably kicked out of the SPL for cheating. This should be the case even if some genuine billionaire came along and settled the Tax bill and all other debts for them. In sport, cheating must never be tolerated, and the bigger the cheating , and the length of time it was carried out, should determine the severity of the sanctions, not how much the team, or individual sportsman, are needed by others in the sport.

    There seems to be an inexplicable amount of sympathy towards Rangers as though the poor club and supporters have just been duped by one man a few months ago and, although the media are slowly waking up to the fact that the Murray regime is the main culprit, the seeds of sympathy, and so a feeling that there is a need to help ‘save’ the club, have already been sown. I think we’d all have some sympathy with them if that was indeed the case ie that their troubles stem from one man in charge for a relatively short time, but we all know that’s not the case and, despite winning the SPL title last season, Whyte’s ‘crimes’ had nothing to do with that success, whereas the Murray era’s extreme successes were undoubtedly aided by the use (probably ilegally) of the EBTs. If they lose the FTT then they are gulity of cheating, not only financially, but also by deliberately registering players wrongly to help get away with the financial cheating.

    So, not just to retain some integrity within the game in our country, but because they are long term cheats, they should have the severest sanctions possible handed out to them, and receive no sympathy from any quarter. Also, they should be kicked out of the SPL, not because they went into liquidation, but because they cheated, and the records should show that, forever.

    ‘If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,’

  16. bjay says:

    So called turnaround specialists are generally nothing more than asset strippers. Is there anything left to strip after Craigie boy?

  17. Smell the glove says:

    tigertim says:

    02/04/2012 at 8:47 am

    5

    0

    Rate This

    Smell the glove says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:32 am

    If a whitewash takes place, we should start a fund to take out full page adverts in the national press, pointing out our grievances and what has gone on. Headline; Sccottish Football is corrupt. Send a copy of each paper to FIFA and UEFA, showing how strongly we feel. As a Celtic fan, I would boycott all away games, hit the money grabbing cowards where it hurts. Prove to them they will lose money. Integrity first or it’s all over.
    ===================================
    You want to PAY the MSM for a full page spread!! Seriously?

    ________________________________________________________________________

    YES, I DO. It’s the only way anyone will read the truth in the MSM. It’s the easiest, quickest and best way to spread the disgust. Make a bold statement and shame the cheats.

  18. Mark Mair says:

    Having discussed the situation with a group of long term Aberdeen season ticket holders we are all of the same opinion. Unless newco start at the 3rd tier of Scottish football and RFC(IA) are stripped of previous trophies “won” under tax dodging etc. we won’t be back to Scottish football.

    Nothing else will suffice. I think there are many many more people who feel the same. The chairmen of the GoT and indeed the Celtic board should not underestimate the financial implications of allowing newco a safe passage into the SPL.

  19. Hugh McEwan says:

    Oor Wullie says:
    02/04/2012 at 11:42 am

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

    I have to confess to struggling to understand how one gets a viable business out of a NewCo.

    Unless the rangers support are willing to accept what the club really is, and what size it really is. Particularly if it get’s serious about dealing with the “traditions”.

    Cutting attendances in half would still make Rangers by far the second best attended club in the SPL (let’s not debate that just now) but it would be substantially reduced in turnover. Dramatic cuts to wage bills would have to be imposed just to stay alive. That’s in addition to those which are already required.

    People really do underestimate the difference 2,000 paying customers per game, £5m sponsorship and £1.5m merchandising makes.

    Rangers are not the biggest football club in Scotland, whether you measure it by numbers of people attending games, or ability to raise revenue. They are second, by a considerable margin, and will go further behind.

  20. Ballsbustedan'a'tha' says:

    Oor Wullie says:
    02/04/2012 at 11:42 am

    I am beginning to get a gut feeling that any attempt at resurrecting RFC will fail.

    Me and a couple of the guys in here have been talking this way for a couple of months now. Most, if not all clubs could reform in some shape, accept their punishment, be it D3 or whatever. And there lies their biggest problem. The Berz will not accept this. The infighting has already begun. Talk of different clubs being formed. They just don’t get it.
    For the record, I want them in D3, claw there way back and become challengers again. I’ve no problem with that but it’s not going to happen.
    Just listened to Chico and Fat Boy arguing again. No wonder he’s been sent packing. An arrogant cretin of a man.

  21. Ballsbustedan'a'tha' says:

    Meant to add.
    RTC, you’re accurate mention of 50 was sure to create an impact added to Billy Dodd’s denial and your subsequent and factual response. But you already knew this.
    Could hear the jungle drums from here.

    Squeaky bum time.

  22. ”If you don't need to know, you don't get to hear.” says:

    rab says:
    02/04/2012 at 8:55 am

    Duph & Dupher..Duff N Dupher..D&D..etc etc etc etc etc…my global legal network team have no problem with this, absolutely no problem at all with any of these pale,weak & purile attempts at switcherabootery..& blatent bandwagonery…
    Much like Pepsy-Coak-Voduhphone-Oh Too-Markz & Spencars-Toyotah-Furd-Versarchie…even Rangers 2012…or whoever.
    The people know…dress it up anyway you need to but…fraid it just aint the same.!!
    Duff & Duffer …taaaawk to mi 🙂

  23. nipples says:

    What are the step by step mechanics of the floating charge after it crystallizes? Anyone know?

    Can anyone clarify how it will actually work in practice, assuming we go liquid here.

  24. Brenda says:

    tigertim @ 11:35am
    I agree with everything you say but how many times has the authorities in this country ‘glossed over’ rules on various levels to smooth the way for cheats fc. When anyone asks questions of these authorities we are invariably accused of wanting rfc(ia) to die?

    Rules are being ignored, questions are being ignored and the guys in charge are way out of their depth so give everyone the silent treatment because they don’t know what to say, pathetic and incompetent to list a few of their shortcomings!! 🙂

  25. tigertim says:

    Smell the glove says:
    02/04/2012 at 11:51 am

    If they are part of the cover up why would they print it?
    Your coin would be no good as you would only pay once while alienating the daily readers.

  26. Auldheid says:

    Brenda
    TigerTim
    If you are on Twitter tweet Regan and ask what the SFA.s position is.
    I have.

  27. rantinrobin says:

    ballsbusted at 11:55

    Just listened to Chico and Fat Boy arguing again. No wonder he’s been sent packing. An arrogant cretin of a man

    Which one is arrogant and a cretin?

  28. john clarke says:

    Auldheid 12.07 p.m
    ————————————
    Are you likely to get an answer to your tweet to Regan?

  29. nipples says:

    Once the floating charge crystalizes over Ibrox and Duped Park does the holder of the charge have the option to take ownership of the physical assets and refuse any cash payment for the debt or can the holder be forcibly paid off (by the receivers / administrators) at the face value of the debt plus outstanding interest, after it crystalizes?

  30. tigertim says:

    Brenda says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:04 pm

    “Rules are being ignored, questions are being ignored and the guys in charge ….”
    —————————————-
    Brenda, The sad thing is that questions are not being asked, never mind ignored.

    —————————————

    Auldheid says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:07 pm

    TigerTim
    If you are on Twitter tweet Regan and ask what the SFA.s position is.

    ——————————————-
    Can’y use Twitter, Blocked. However I also don’t agree with a guy in Reagans position tweeting to all and sundry, do this his personal life is he wishes, but not professionally. When there is a limit of 140 characters most of what you can say will be misconstrued.

  31. Ballsbustedan'a'tha' says:

    Cartoon from 5.04pm post last night….

    Hilarious.

  32. Oor Wullie says:

    RennesFan says:
    01/04/2012 at 10:20 pm

    CMC says:
    01/04/2012 at 8:35 pm

    RTC, could you please open a Paypal account simply on the basis that i’d very much like to buy you a beer or even a bottle a buckie perhaps, or whatever you like, to wet your tastebuds???

    Not only have I found your blog very informative, it’s also entertaining too and for that, I owe you at least a pint and at a push, a chaser.

    Ask and they shall buy
    *****************************************************************************************************************

    Agreed, though I’d make it a bottle of Ardbeg 🙂
    ===========================================================================

    Put me down for a bottle of Barr’s Irn Bru.

  33. Mark Dickson says:

    Currently we have alleged bids from Club-9 Sports & The Blue Knights of 50pence and 43.5 pence in the pound prior to wednesday’s bidding deadline however now that these bids if accurate would appear to be common knowledge something struck me about the bidding advantage TBK have over C9S by excluding Ticketus from the pre-FTT debtor pile.

    If the Blue Knights want to trump Club-9 and offer 60 pence in the pound then they only have to find another £3.8 million to add to their initial £10M and divvy that up £13.8M between the current £23M worth of debtos.

    To match that Club-9 Sports would have to increase their bid by another £5M to £30M to divide that between £50M worth of debts including Ticketus owed approx £27M.

    Of course if the FTT lands meantime then Club-9 Sports bid far outweighs Blue Kinghts bid if all debts are included in a liquidation scenario even though the pence in the pound creditors would receive would be diluted.

    Also the Blue Knights have to then try to get a CVA agreed and then re-negotiate with Ticketus none of which Club-9 Sports bid would have to do.

    Of course the dark-horse is the Bashka / Singapore bid of which nothing is known.

  34. nipples says:

    So if I assume a floating charge works like a standard security once it crystalizes then…

    “Standard Security

    The standard security is the only method by which a fixed legal charge can be created over property assets in Scotland. It is governed by statute, namely, the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. The 1970 Act not only stipulates the required form of the security, but also sets in place standard conditions with which the customer will require to comply (unless varied by the bank). In addition, the 1970 Act contains the remedies available
    to a lender which arise in the event of default by the customer. These cannot be varied and are:
    • power to sell the property
    • power to enter into possession of the property
    • power to carry out any necessary repairs
    • power to apply for a decree of foreclosure (remedy by which debtor forfeits ownership of property to security holder).

    So Craig ‘Il Dupe” Whyte will argue that he is owed the Lloyds debt plus interest and that he in turn owes the Ticketus ‘debt’ which he has ‘personally guaranteed’ and thus he needs to take possession of the assets to fulfill his obligations properly (or sell them at considerably higher price than the orginal 18m Lloyds debt so he can pay off Ticketus).

    I am guessing RFC Group owes RFC Plc for 16m of the ticketus money but it will be set up in a way that of course works in RFC Group’s & Whyte’s favour come liquidation.

  35. reilly1926 says:

    Mark Dickson says:

    02/04/2012 at 12:28 pm

    50p and 43.5p in the pound.

    Where did these figures come from ?

  36. Mark Dickson says:

    reilly1926 says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:35 pm

    From the Herald / EET website on Friday Michael Grant & Darrell King claimed that The Blue Knights had bid £10M on £23M worth of debt which excluded anything to Ticketus whilst Club-9 Sports had bid £25M on £50 debts which included £27M owed to Ticketus also that the Blue Kights bid was based on trying to achieve a CVA whilst Club-9 wanted a liquidation & newco formed.

  37. Smell the glove says:

    tigertim says:

    02/04/2012 at 12:06 pm

    Smell the glove says:
    02/04/2012 at 11:51 am

    If they are part of the cover up why would they print it?
    Your coin would be no good as you would only pay once while alienating the daily readers.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    With great respect, tigertim, money talks. advertising revenue is what keeps them in business, not the msm. But you don’t have to contribute if you don’t want to. You can just watch as the rest of us take action. 😉

  38. nipples says:

    I am still not understanding how Whyte got the Ticketus money (earned by RFC Plc) out of RFC PLc and into RFC Group (or wherever it went).

    If it was a loan from RFC Plc to RFC Group then this loan will be one RFC Plc’s biggest unsecured assets. Is it collectable? If yes, it can sold for x pence in the pound. If it is not collectible, why not?

    If it was not a loan then how did Whyte not have a problem with the rights of the minority shareholders of RFC Plc? Were they paid their share of the ticketus sale dividend?

    How was it done? It is about to become pivotally important in all of this.

  39. tigertim says:

    Smell the glove says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:38 pm

    With great respect, tigertim, money talks. advertising revenue is what keeps them in business, not the msm. But you don’t have to contribute if you don’t want to. You can just watch as the rest of us take action.
    =========================
    Long term money talks louder than a one off payment,
    The MSM would not risk alienating 50% of its readers.
    Maybe you could cut & paste it on here when it is published as I don’t subscribe to the MSM.

  40. Hampdenite says:

    Paul McConville says:
    31/03/2012 at 9:21 am

    When covering the Tommy Sheridan trial, James Doleman noted that the press agreed a “linre to take” on the basis that it was better to have them singing from the same hymn sheet rather than having one or two taking a “rogue” stance on the story. This was not necessarily based on political slants either, but on practicalities of coverage and what editors would be prepared to print. (Apologies James if I have misinterpreted your thesis).
    =======================================================
    This seems to be a common theme throughout our media, I’ve seen it mentioned on here before this happens after Celtic press conferences, speaking to someone who regularly goes to the Scotland manager’s press conferences this also occured after each Vogts/Smith/Burley/Levein press conference, all journos agreeing a common line to take so that they were all singing from the same hymn sheet.

  41. reilly1926 says:

    Mark Dickson says:

    02/04/2012 at 12:38pm

    From the Herald / EET website on Friday Michael Grant & Darrell King claimed that The Blue Knights had bid £10M on £23M worth of debt which excluded anything to Ticketus whilst Club-9 Sports had bid £25M on £50 debts which included £27M owed to Ticketus also that the Blue Kights bid was based on trying to achieve a CVA whilst Club-9 wanted a liquidation & newco formed.
    ============

    £23m and £50m of debts ?

    Is there a problem with basic arithmetic here ?

  42. rab says:

    IYDNTKYDGTH @ 12:02

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

    I expected this challenge, suffice to say the matter is now in the hands of my newly formed crack anglo/american team of lawyers. Mssrs G Withey of london and L Hutz of springfield usa have advised me i have an irrefutable claim and are so confident have asked for a bond of £50,000 to set up and safeguard my copyright, any surplus will be aggressively invested in tax reducing schemes for a small time to maximise my investment and pay costs on the unlikely occassion of my defeat. I have of course forwarded the money and once it clears this afternoon i shall henceforth desist in discussing these matters in public.

    Nyahhhh.

    Not so smug now, are you..

  43. nipples says:

    My strong feeling all along here is that someone with an intimate knowledge of the insolvency process works in practice someone wizened and well experienced has carefully studied the particular mess that RFC got herself into and has crafted a series of clever maneuvers for someone to essentially sieze all the prize assets at RFC and escape all the unsecured creditors, including HMRC, pretty much scot (or in this case ‘brit’) free.

  44. steviefrom belfast says:

    I see Paul Murray is on the BBC site claiming he doesnt want to see Rangers liquidated – and if only the creditors will accept his CVA everything will be fine.

    Does he really think that no-one can see though his rhetoric and bluster? A blind man can see that he is just trying to put himself into pole position to be the messiah of the New Rangers after the liquidation that ‘he never wanted to see happen’! Does he really think that he can fool the MSM and then the Rangers fans so easily?

  45. Mark Dickson says:

    reilly1926 says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:51 pm

    £23m and £50m of debts ?

    Is there a problem with basic arithmetic here ?

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

    These are the estimated debts pre-Big Tax case result.

    Ticketus are owed approx £27M thus the Blue Knights bid excludes any Ticketus debt which they will honour and re-negotiate whilst Club-9 Sports want to stiff Ticketus and lump them and all the other creditors including whatever the Big Tax case find into one pot and pay them pence in the pound.

  46. resinlabdog says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:38 pm
    0 0 i
    Rate This
    reilly1926 says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:35 pm

    BTC Debt Debt BK tot C9S tot p/£ BK p/£ C9S £million BK Need
    debt existing inc TU no TU inc TU Liq to match C9S
    0.00 23.00 50.00 23.00 50.00 0.43 0.50 1.50
    5.00 23.00 50.00 28.00 55.00 0.36 0.45 2.73
    10.00 23.00 50.00 33.00 60.00 0.30 0.42 3.75
    15.00 23.00 50.00 38.00 65.00 0.26 0.38 4.62
    20.00 23.00 50.00 43.00 70.00 0.23 0.36 5.36
    25.00 23.00 50.00 48.00 75.00 0.21 0.33 6.00
    30.00 23.00 50.00 53.00 80.00 0.19 0.31 6.56
    35.00 23.00 50.00 58.00 85.00 0.17 0.29 7.06
    40.00 23.00 50.00 63.00 90.00 0.16 0.28 7.50
    45.00 23.00 50.00 68.00 95.00 0.15 0.26 7.89
    50.00 23.00 50.00 73.00 100.00 0.14 0.25 8.25

    Uisng those figures and doing a quick crunch puts the Blue nights needing between £1.5 up to £8.25m behind C9S, depending on the outcome of the BTC (between 0 and £50m) assuming all else is equal.

  47. The Iceman says:

    Well he is only trying to fool the Rangers fans and MSM – to paraphrase Homer I think their uncles still have their noses!!!

  48. resinlabdog says:

    resinlabdog says:
    02/04/2012 at 1:03 pm

    Sorry : WordPress mangled my numbers.

    1st column is BTC result
    last column is how short BK are in relation to TU
    second last is C9S p/£
    Third last is BK p/£

  49. joe mccormack says:

    when the list of the EBT beneficiaries is eventually published some of the former players and employees of RFC are going to look very stupid given their utterances in the media on the subject. Some may even be shown to have lied when questioned on EBT’s.

    How many of ‘they can’t take our trophies away’ brigade are about to be outed?

    How many former RFC employees, now or formerly employed, by the SFA or SPL, will be on the list?

    I find it inconceivable that the SFA president ‘owes’ £95k(hardly enough for a night on the town eh Chico) to a trust operated by one of it’s members clubs. It beggars belief that he’s still in place which tells anyone taking a clear and fair view on the issue all you need to know about that person and his current employer.

    How can they ignore the serious doubts about impartiality that ‘owing’ £95k to a member club brings to the table?

    It’s akin to a member of the Olympic Committee being given a hidden loan by a member country then voting on a proposition for that country to host the next Games. That quite rightly would be viewed as corruption anywhere else in the world but in Scotland it would appear to be acceptable behaviour. There is no suggestion that corruption has actually taken place as a result of this ‘debt’, the point is that there is sufficient cause for concern and that the only moral decision that CO should have taken was to resign immediately he was outed, if not before.

    Farrygate, Dougiegate, Dallasgate ,McCurrygate, Ogilviegate…………………….what next?

  50. Hugh McEwan says:

    reilly1926 says:
    02/04/2012 at 12:51 pm
    =====================

    Figures on debt levels are meaningless just now.

    Ticketus may, or may not be a creditor.

    The FTT has not ruled.

    There may be a secured creditor.

    The level of their debt is unknown.

    It is all as much use as looking at the entrails of a swan.

%d bloggers like this: