Rumours


“There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.”  
Winston Churchill

Rarely has the rumour mill surrounding our national game been churning at this speed for this long. In the information gap created by a lack of real news about the Big Tax Case and the daily dollops of PR exaggerations about Rangers’ next saviour being smeared across the print media, something has to feed the insatiable demand for informationScottish football, especially in its Glaswegian form, has long been a fertile breeding ground for rumours.  There has always been a sense that fans were not getting the whole story through the mainstream press and the dramatic events of the last year have done nothing to slow the production of the finely milled football myth.

One legend that keeps coming back around on radio call in shows is the one that says HMRC has recently acquired some kind of legal power to apply the unpaid tax bills of liquidated firms to their “phoenix” successor companies. This is just not true.  (If the people claiming it to be true could also please stop citing this blog a source I would be eternally grateful! :-)) What is true is that HMRC now has the ability to demand a deposit from high-risk companies where it is believed that there is a high risk of non-remittance of withheld PAYE and national insurance. That is a wildly different proposition from actually being able to force a new legal entity to pay the tax bills of an old company- and if a newco-Rangers board does not contain Craig Whyte there is no reason to think that a newco-Rangers would be considered high risk.

Another rumour getting a lot of air play yesterday was that Rangers might go into liquidation this week. In the bizarre world of Rangers at the moment it would be a fool who dismisses any rumour out of hand, but I must confess to thinking that this is highly unlikely. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have no behind the scenes information on what is being said in the private conversations of the joint administrators). It would be a major embarrassment for Duff & Phelps if they were unable to keep Rangers FC trading until the end of the season. With all of the legal powers to cut costs available to them, this should, and would, have been priority number one. As pointed out by the excellent @tonymckelvie on Twitter, there is almost £2m available (11% of the total) from the SPL cash pot for the team that finishes 2nd in the league. (Another 4% is given to each team in the league just for participating. I am assuming that this is distributed earlier in the season). Given the size of offers being reported for Rangers, an extra £2m for the creditors is not to be discounted lightly. So, I am sceptical. If Rangers were to collapse entirely before the season ended, it would be a disaster on such a scale that it would presumably cause even SPL chief Neil Doncaster to roll up the red carpet that is currently waiting to welcome  a newco-Rangers back into the fold without questioning.

Rumours develop where our demand for the information we want to hear exceeds the supply. Even if I get 20 extra tweets a day asking “when will we know the tax case result?”,  I will still not know. It could be today. It will likely be within the next month. However, in theory, we could be waiting for months. Rumours of a 90-day deadline for a First Tier Tribunal (Tax) to publish its findings were simply not true.

Until the crisis affecting Rangers (and the Scottish game more generally) finds some form of resolution and the situation stabilises, we can expect every casual remark and poorly chosen word to spark a frenzy of analysis and fresh innuendo. As tiring as it has been, I see no let up in the drama in the coming weeks. I do hope that I am wrong. One way or another, I just want this story to come to a conclusion.

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.

2,200 Responses to Rumours

  1. Johnjo says:

    If the miller deal goes through the last thing he will want is for an Oldco CVA to be agreed. In fact, I believe he will only proceed with his plans if he is certain an Oldco CVA will fail.

    If Miller is successful with his bid the immediate dealings with Oldco will not be his problem as it will still be in administration it will be down to D&P to sort out. But if D&P manage to reach agreement with a CVA then any “problems” still attached would become Millers problems.

    Why would he want this?

    Ticketus will support a CVA in the belief that this will mean the original season ticket deal stands.

    Craig Whyte will support a CVA as he will believe it maintains his 85% shareholding in the club.

    There is even a slight chance (although highly improbable) that HMRC will support the CVA (but only if they can agree to a deal that sees them getting a larger chvnk of their money paid back over a period of time).

    If a CVA is agreed Miller will have a costly fight on his hands to deal with the likes of Whyte and Ticketus.

    No an Oldco CVA in not in Millers plans.

  2. tomtom says:
    04/05/2012 at 9:22 am

    I think they’d be TUPE’d, and yes, at the end of the day they are the most affected. Players will get a contract somewhere, admin staff in the current climate, not so easy.

  3. Ballsbustedan'a'tha' says:

    Ellis in talks with Murray
    Murray says “No deal” to Ellis
    Ellis ‘walks away’
    Ellis sets up Wavetower
    Whyte joins Wavetower
    Directors of Wavetower – Whyte, Ellis & Betts (& Nominee Shareholder)
    Ellis departs from Wavetower!
    Wavetower assume debt to Lloyds (Take over Rangers) c/w Advisors (Using Ticketus money which had been topped up!)
    Whyte tells of “£10 million black hole”
    Whyte improves/extends 3 players contracts???
    Whyte does his stuff (Pays no-one)
    Administration
    Whyte hives his shares off to Daddy Whyte
    Ellis and Whyte meet in London (Courtesy of Corsica – I believe his every word)
    Ellis reappears! Wants his 25% – Big fallout with Whyte (Aye right)
    Advisors/Administrators (the same) do anti administration to the extreme
    Miller time!
    Ellis visiting the States (Courtesy of Corsica – I believe his every word)

    Ellis holds no position anywhere, does he?

    Corsica???

  4. Justinian says:

    twopanda bears says:
    04/05/2012 at 9:08 am

    “jabba” = JT – where does that come from?
    —————————————————————————
    2 PB,

    You are perhaps one of the few remaining people in the world who does not recognise that nice, cuddly entity (Jabba) in one of the episodes of Star Wars. 🙂

    To refresh your memory…. here we we have RTC laying into Jabba and the Huttites wrt the ‘correct story’.

    http://tinypic.com/r/1z68lg/6

  5. noname says:

    If “the share preserves the history” what happens when a club is relegated?

    It must therefore be the SFL share. So does that mean that the sanctions attach to the share rather than the company?

    Also, what is the value of that share? Is there a capital gain at market value? Trading losses will not cover it.

    Is it a share in a close company? Do the “directors” (of the SFL company in whom the shares are held” that permit the transfer of the share have to do so at a market value?

    What is the value of the assets being transferred to Newco? I would buy some of them for more than £11.2m. Can each individual asset be transferred at undervalue?

    #valuationminefield

  6. Buteo Buteo says:

    twopanda bears says:

    04/05/2012 at 9:08 am

    I assume from his similarity to Jabba the Hut a Star wars character who is a big fat ugly slimy git
    Google him for pictures:-)

  7. Jimthetim says:

    I picked this up from FF. Apparently it’s the creditors report.

  8. twopanda bears says:

    ok – thanks – got enough gen now – apology for distraction – really didnt know or associate with a film

  9. JJ says:

    Johnjo at 9.25

    There is not a chance that HMRC will change their policy and agree a CVA with tax defaulter.

    If they did, every corporate tax advisor in the land would, like me, be designing new avoidance vehicles for clients.

  10. lastonetoleaveturnoutthelights says:

    Douglas cameron says:
    04/05/2012 at 8:53 am

    Whilst you may not like it guys the ability so do a business an assets transaction is an established principle of corporate life and the law in the uk. The business can be saved even if the company cannot. In this instance the business = the club.

    TUPE regulations exist to protect employees and ensure that when such a business and assets transaction takes place their contract remains with the business as is taken on by newco. The employee can of course opt out.

    Is the suggestion here really that legislation designed to protect employees and their livelihoods is trumped by football regulations? I find that bizarre.

    ___________________

    Yep, agree all that and also agree that we are foolish to consider that, whatever corporate entity RFC trades as, it cannot be treated as any other business.

    However. If the staff conditions you describe are correct regarding business survival what else must transfer with the staff employment rights if the business remains the same for TUPE rights?

    What about football sanctions? What about tax liabilities, future bonds against PAYE and NI; CW’s shareholding? How does one aspect that is helpful to business survival not attract other aspects that are not?

  11. Johnjo says:

    Under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Earnings) regulations the Oldco will simple say to all their staff “Report to Newco on Monday morning, they are your new employers”.

    The staff will have a choice, they can do as they are told or they can walk away with nothing.

    If they decide to report to Newco they will do so with their terms and conditions and earnings protected.

    The Newco can then attempt to renegotiate these conditions/make redundancies/terminate contracts as per company/contract law.

    This will leave the top players in a very strong position.

  12. lastonetoleaveturnoutthelights says:

    twopanda bears says:
    04/05/2012 at 9:40 am
    0 0 i
    Rate This
    ok – thanks – got enough gen now – apology for distraction – really didnt know or associate with a film

    _____________________

    Actually it’s nothing to do with Star Wars. We call him Jabba the Hut because on here we’re not allowed to call him Jabba the Hvn.

  13. jamesdar says:

    It seems to me impossible to get a CVA agreed by 13 May, as I understand is required to allow “Rangers'” participation (in whatever form) in the Scottish leagues next season, presumably the SPL if current noises are to be believed (doubtful).

    If Rangers win in the FTT(T), HMRC can (and probably will) appeal, and there is no chance of the UTT(T) hearing the case within the timescale. If HMRC win (and assuming RFC(IA) does not appeal – see my comments on timescale above), they will be owed £80-100m, and a CVA would give them a fraction of that. Given the bad publicity HMRC has had over the likes of Goldman Sachs, it would take a lot of succluent lamb for Dave Hartnett to accept that kind of deal.

    Talking of succulent lamb, and if you accept the theory that Craig Whyte was Sir David’s patsy, where is Sir David now? Who is he backing?

  14. Goosy says:

    1. stunney says:
    04/05/2012 at 6:51 am

    At this point of the proceedings I do not believe that the game has been irrecoverably damaged – I still have faith that the SFA will uphold the rules. If not UEFA will in my opinion step in and take action. However, the moment UEFA have still to step in and do the SFA’s job for them, at that point I think we will see the game in Scotland having been damaged irrecoverably, as a number of fans will have walked away by that point, with the majority (going by the views expressed here) unlikely to return
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    stunney
    Fully agree
    If UEFA are forced to step in and correct decisions made by the SPL and SFA it will be the last nail in the coffin.
    The corruption of the governing bodies will be publicised world wide and our game will die of shame

  15. Douglas cameron says:

    Stephen Henderson

    The stigma of having failed to meet obligations and only paid pennies in the pound to creditors will very much be a part of rangers history. No sane rangers fan is happy about this but you are wrong to suggest anyone is going to somehow make out this is not part of the rangers story. Clubs as with individuals have moments in the course of their life that are hardly a source of pride.

  16. Johnjo says:

    1. JJ says:
    04/05/2012 at 9:40 am

    Johnjo at 9.25
    There is not a chance that HMRC will change their policy and agree a CVA with tax defaulter.

    JJ I agree. I did say this would be highly improbable (despite what D&P) say.

    The point I was making is that talk about a CVA is just a smoke screen and it is the last thing Miller would want. Despite what he claims.

  17. Garry88 says:

    twopanda bears on 04/05/2012 at 9:08 am said:
    ==================================

    Trying to keep it clean here 2pb , Ahem

    Think star wars !!

    ” Jabba “

  18. Timalloy says:

    A bit off topic but I just wanted to say what a Breath of Fresh Air were the wonderful Thai Tims at Celtic Park last night. Their infectious smiles gave all of us who were privileged to see them at Celtic Park a sense of what exactly the “Celtic Family” really means..
    Here were a bunch of children from a poor area of Thailand who one of our own Reamon Gormley (RIP) went out on a gap year “to make a difference” and what a difference his legacy has made. The Celtic Family (in the best usage of this word) got together and embraced these children, they will have a far better life because of people like Reamon, Celtic FC and our wonderful Celtic fans. What do us fans get out of the Thai Tims? In words Joy, Happiness but so much more.. We look across the city at all the sordid happenings at that club and then see Celtic embrace these lovely, UNTAINTED children. Today I have never been more prouder of being part of the world wide Celtic INCLUSIVE family. Just Can’t Get Enough…….

  19. shouting from a distance says:

    The fact that there is no one, including all the specialist talking heads brought in by the Beeb, STV etc, is clear as to how this plan of Miller’s can work a little bit concerning to say the least.
    The view I’m forming here is that the cunning plan can only be achieved by some pretty savage side stepping of the existing football rules and some tenuous interpretations of the legal and financial rules. Aided and abetted of course by a compliant media that cannot/will not ask the difficult question but will quite willingingly print any old nonsense (HMRC approval?) to talk up the Bold Bill’s (it had to be a Bill) plan.
    I’m sure this obsfucation, bluff and bluster is all part of the wider plan.

  20. Douglas cameron says:

    Lastone

    You have illustrated one if the problems here which is the rangers case making people aware of the inherent flaws in corporate and insolvency laws. This is leading to a perception things are unfair. The instance of employees though illustrates the opposite as quite clearly treating rangers differently to any other business (as some would wish) is patently unfair.

    Generally people dislike business and assets deals where the old debts are left behind. Ignore rangers for a minute. The principle exists to allow what is essentially a good business I carry on which it otherwise couldn’t as it is weighed down by debt it could not realistically repay (let us assume recklessness on the part of directors and if a new owner sorts costs it is a profitable business). This saves jobs. It can also benefit creditors in the long run. Imagine you are owed 10m. You will be annoyed if you only get back 1m from a business and assets deal. However what if this is a major customer and in the course of a year you would have 100m of sales from them. If they go under then potentially so do you. Taking a long term commercial view the b&a deal is in your interests.

    In recession/depression Britain b&a deals are the norm.

  21. Arabest says:

    A bit off topic but I just wanted to say what a Breath of Fresh Air were the wonderful Thai Tims at Celtic Park last night. Their infectious smiles gave all of us who were privileged to see them at Celtic Park a sense of what exactly the “Celtic Family” really means..
    Here were a bunch of children from a poor area of Thailand who one of our own Reamon Gormley (RIP) went out on a gap year “to make a difference” and what a difference his legacy has made. The Celtic Family (in the best usage of this word) got together and embraced these children, they will have a far better life because of people like Reamon, Celtic FC and our wonderful Celtic fans. What do us fans get out of the Thai Tims? In words Joy, Happiness but so much more.. We look across the city at all the sordid happenings at that club and then see Celtic embrace these lovely, UNTAINTED children. Today I have never been more prouder of being part of the world wide Celtic INCLUSIVE family. Just Can’t Get Enough…….

    —————————————————————————————————————-

    I thought it was a little tribute to those busy wee beavers who make most of the ‘Celtic family’s’ merchandise. 😉

  22. Hugh McEwan says:

    Johnjo says:
    04/05/2012 at 9:25 am

    If Ticketus is part of a CVA then that means their contract has been broken and the season Tickets are irrelevant. If the season ticket contract stands they are not creditors and a CVa is nothing to do with them.

    Craig Whyte, if anything is a secured creditor, though I don’t see hw he is owed any money at all. Either way he would not be part of a CVA.

  23. The Iceman says:

    Of course D and d are whyte’s men – I have no idea what his plan is – if it is even his plan or partg of a bigger plan but D and P are not administrators – they don’t look like administrators , they don’t sound like administrators they don’t act like administrators. They were all over the Whyte takeover, Whyte named them – the Miller thing is the most bizarre and unachievable nonsense ever – to keep the bears from ripping down the house for another week. What the end game is – we will just have to wait and see – but Whytey will be at its core. personally i think Whyte walks off with the proceeds of the sale – onbce the dand P have taken their three mill – Miller ‘s newco turns out to be a new company with no football at all – merely a cheap asset grab/ by end of may – RFC liquidated – assets sold to Miller – Creditors shafted – and Miller owning abig truck park in Govan and some potentially lucrative green belt. Oh I just came up with Whyte’s plan – surely I am wrong.

  24. tomtom says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/05/2012 at 10:02 am

    Johnjo says:
    04/05/2012 at 9:25 am

    If Ticketus is part of a CVA then that means their contract has been broken and the season Tickets are irrelevant. If the season ticket contract stands they are not creditors and a CVa is nothing to do with them.

    Craig Whyte, if anything is a secured creditor, though I don’t see hw he is owed any money at all. Either way he would not be part of a CVA.
    ———————————————————-

    Would the clause that allowed “Group” to lay claim to any funds invested in “Club” not allow them to be part of any CVA?

  25. Para Handy says:

    Interesting interview with PK on the BBC can be found halfway down this article. Sounds like there are many unknown, unknowns still to come out…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17921616

    Chust sublime…

  26. Johnjo says:

    1. Hugh McEwan says:
    If Ticketus is part of a CVA then that means their contract has been broken and the season Tickets are irrelevant. If the season ticket contract stands they are not creditors and a CVa is nothing to do with them.

    Craig Whyte, if anything is a secured creditor, though I don’t see hw he is owed any money at all. Either way he would not be part of a CVA.

    Hugh, I agree. What I was trying to say that it will be in both Ticketus and CW interest for a CVA to be agreed.

    It will give Ticketus a claim on future season Tickets and CW a claim that his shareholding stands.

    But my main point is that there is no way that Miller wants a CVA to be agreed.

    Because no matter how hard they scrub Oldco it will still retain some of its toxicity. (A bit like Dalgety Bay).

  27. Jonbhoy says:

    Read some things today about the Senior RFC (IA) players not wanting to transfer to the Newco. I’m assuming (shouldn’t do it I know !) that the Bill Miller transaction will be covered by the TUPE laws. If so I thought it might be worthwhile logging some of the employee rights under TUPE.

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

    Does TUPE apply to RFC(IA)

    TUPE applies when an undertaking or part of it is transferred from one employer to another, eg:

    1. Where all or part of a sole trader’s business or partnership is sold or otherwise transferred
    2. Where a company, or part of it, is bought or acquired by another (if the second company buys or acquires the assets and then runs the business rather than acquiring the shares only)
    3. Where two companies cease to exist and combine to form a third
    4. Where a contract to provide goods or services is transferred in circumstances which amount to the transfer of a business or undertaking to a new employer.

    TUPE can apply regardless of the size of the transferred undertaking, ie from large organisations employing thousands of employees to small businesses like a village shop with one assistant.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    To me Option 2 above tells us that TUPE will apply to the Newco setup.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Employee Rights under TUPE

    Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE), if a business – or a part of a business – is transferred to another business, in most cases the employees of the old employer will automatically transfer to the new employer on their existing terms and conditions.

    However, an employee can’t be transferred to a new employer against their will and may object to the transfer before it takes place.

    In this case, if they refuse to have their contract transferred to the new employer, the employee is regarded as having resigned with effect from the transfer date. As a result there is generally:

    no dismissal
    no redundancy and therefore no right to statutory redundancy pay
    no obligation for the new employer to take them on

    From the above it looks to me that the RFC(IA) players can quite legitimately walk away from the Newco. Raise’s a few questions though in terms of how this would apply to footballers.

    • What happens to player registrations in the event they decline to join the Newco ?
    • Can the players leave now out with the transfer window and get a new club ?
    • Do transfer fees apply if they do decline the move and find a new club ?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lots more to come on this one for sure !!

  28. ps I should add to my previous tongue in cheek post that it’s funny because they are presenting themselves differently to different parties.

    …except on reflection if you look at the first part:

    ———–
    So…the players are registered to the club not the company and so they have to go with newco Rangers..because that’s the same club.

    But…any footballing sanctions or penalties against the old club will not transfer to the new club because… ummm.. because in another sense entirely they are a totally different club.. or something!
    ————

    …that can’t really wash because the player registrations and sanctions are coming from the same party – i.e the SFA/SPL. So they can be hypocrites by making different claims to lots of different parties HMRC, Ticketus, SFA etc…,

    but they cannot claim to be different things to the same party at the same time.

  29. Hoopy 7 says:

    Private Land says:

    04/05/2012 at 9:14 am

    twopanda bears says:

    04/05/2012 at 9:08 am
    _______________________________________

    Notoriously corpulent character from Star Wars
    ——————————————————————
    Do they get succulent lamb in space?

  30. qwogimitch says:

    Having read all the posts from last night and this morning. I am led to believe that BM is No different than the Scottish Bono(lookee likee) Mr Kennedy he will be soaking up lots of good press (EGO’SrUS),with no intension of buying Rangers(i.a) . The thing is if this is the case and he does do the walking away . Where does that leave things, he will milk this as far as it will go a week today I am led to believe the 11th of may then the weekend. So if it true the14th is as good a day as any for the big “L” . Can this be done in a day and does this still leave TBK to deal with our hero..

  31. Chris says:

    Douglas Cameron,

    Celtic are a football club who are incorporated as a PLC.

    If you bought a share in Celtic then you own a part of the football club.

    If Celtic decided to sell Parkhead and all the players to another company you would STILL own a part of Celtic Football Club.

    If the club resign from the SPL and transfer their share to another club, you still own a part of Celtic Football Club.

    If the club sell the stadium and move somewhere else (or just don’t bother with a new stadium), you still own a part of Celtic Football Club.

    Whether its one player in a transfer window or all of them in one go, it changes nothing, you still, as a shareholder, own a part of Celtic Football Club.

    So no matter what the administrators do with Rangers Football Club’s assets, the shareholders of Rangers Football Club still own the football club. If they transfer the membership they hold in the SPL, it does not change the fact they STILL own Rangers Football Club.

    The club is a PLC but it’s still the club regardless of the assets held or sold off. Whatever buys the clubs assets is not the club, by definition it is a new club (which doesn’t even need to be a PLC, it s the fact the old club is a PLC and constituted by its shareholding that counts)

    People may decide to go and watch this new club who employ some of the players who played for Rangers Football Club, in the stadium Rangers Football Club played in before they sold it, wearing similar strips to those the old club’s players wore.

    It changes nothing.

    The new club is a new club is a new club.

    Fans can attach themselves emotionally to this new cub all they like but they need to be reminded at all times that once the old club incorporated and sold itself off as shares the ownership of the club itself – no matter what buildings they own or people they employ – resides in the shareholding. That shareholding is attached to the original company number and anything which buys bricks and mortar and/or players afterwards is not the same club.

    NewCo = New CLUB

  32. WOTTPI says:

    Douglas cameron says:
    04/05/2012 at 10:00 am

    Hear what you say but what if you take the £1m in a CVA in place of the £10m owed in the hope of the £100m and the newco does the same again and shafts you – where does that leave you.

    How many of these deals actually work?
    How many companies clear the debts then just go on to make the same mistakes and adopt the same business model again and again?

    Of course in the case of Rangers they are not offering you a £100m order. In fact once they get back on their feet they will want to continue on their merry way (aided by Celtic) and want keep as much money as they can for themsleves.

    As I said the other day it may all turn out to be legal but it is highly immoral.

  33. Johnboy says:

    The SPL can talk about their Share all they want but this all comes down to the Club Licence, as administered by the SFA (using UEFA guidelines).
    And the simple rule that cannot be sidestepped is: “A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another.”
    So if Bill “how do you score a touchdown in that goddam soccer ball?” Miller creates a new company, he needs a new Club Licence for a NEW CLUB. Simples.
    And if Doncaster and Reagan don’t think that’s how it works, UEFA will be on the scene sharpish to remind them.
    This whole charade depends on intimidating the football authorities into breaking or rewriting their own rules. It won’t work.
    My money’s still on Cowdenbeath Rangers.

  34. twopanda bears says:

    Douglas cameron says:
    04/05/2012 at 10:00 am
    _________________
    Take your point but under SPL rules they are rewarded 900k for second place and not paying 9m PAYE in the current season. [That is about 20% of their season’s turnover alone] The SPL sees nothing wrong in that so much so they intend to transfer their SPL share no questions asked to another company. To get out of obligations they play the corporate law / role debt shedding lark and expect no football penalties because that is seen by their support as victimisation. Yes there is a recession but that’s no excuse in my view – no mitigation at all is merited for that behaviour. Yes jobs have been lost and businesses damaged and nobody I’m sure wants that. RFC have benefited in league position from not paying tax and – expect – to get away Scott free. Put this exemplar to the wider economy in the long term commercial view and more jobs and businesses will suffer. I`d like to put my “hoose” into administration if that’s the game. I accept your view is sincere and reflects reality in corporate finance law. But I believe what RFC has done is beyond excessive and justifies a change in the law to stop it. It is more than just a perception that things are unfair

  35. PG says:

    how will Rangers’ minority shareholders be treated?
    In NewCo, they own 0% of shaes but if it merges with the OldCo, hypothetically, of course, then Windy’s shareholding will be diluted to ~85%…that’s not something anyone would readily opt to do.

    Or am I just plain wrong?

  36. Johnjo says:

    Bill Millers unconditional bid still retains the strongest condition that he needs. He still has a risk free opportunity to walk away from the deal, and D&P know it.

    This was one of the main reasons D&P tried to secure £500K as a security for PB status.

    Miller is now free to detail all the conditions that are applied to his unconditional bid and if the SPL/SFA/Players/Fans etc do not play ball he will simply pick the ball up (as it is now belongs to him) and walk away.

    From his point of view he is playing a risk free game with Rangers and Scottish football. With a healthy profit being the ultimate aim.

  37. WOTTPI says:

    Good to see from the link to the creditors meeting paperwork that Duff & Duffer have run up fees to £1.2m from 14/2/12 to 30/3/12, plus £43k in pre adminstration costs.

    Nice work if you can get it.

    At around £26k a day that could mean another £913k by the end of today.

    Therefore BM’s does that mean BM’s £11.2m is looking more like £8m???

  38. Jimbo milligan says:

    So , bottom line stuff here ,for a mere layman like myself .

    Can HMRC or anyone else prevent the asset sale to a newco ?

  39. Trimm Trab says:

    Johnboy says:
    ——————

    I certaily think this Oldco business is just bait to keep the baying hordes happy – I dont think he has any intention of merging them using his specially designed “company incubation machine” (c).

    This feels like (a few have mentioned) the DDs have been heading in this direction since the start.

    Obviousy if they had come in an stated – “we are going to liquadise Rangers and move the assets to a new company/club which may play anywhere from the SPL to the SFL D3 depending on charges and football licencing” they would have been a mass revolt!

    Instead its crept in that direction bit by bit pretty much taking the fans along with them. Next step is get the newco together and playing somewhere for next season and once thats done the oldco plan can/will fall apart.

  40. Bhoywonder says:

    Too many peeps on here insistent on going over old ground; CVA/Newco/TUPE.

    Rangers FC plc (IA) 18whateveryear, will be placed in Liquidation, probably next week. That is a bookies banker. Anything else is small talk and gibberish. There are too many “what if’s” and “maybes”, where there are no intelligible reasons for them.

    Two flies scrambling up a wall can conive and cheat as much as they like, as to who reaches the celing first, but we all know Hector is standing close by with the flyspray!!

  41. AllWhyteOnTheNight says:

    Extract of an email from one of my colleagues and fellow diddy club supporter :-

    “On Rangers – Murray was the central figure in the dodgy dealings but there were plenty more on the board who were more than happy to join in – no questions asked. These guys were “astute businessmen” and none of it felt wrong to them? Just following orders sounds a bit familiar.

    As for Russian billionaire and Madrid councils – how could anyone think they had the ability to compete financially with that lot? Tacit approval is a big issue – fans (they had no idea of machinations), media (too close and no balls), SFA (three monkeys approach and RFC at high level), SPL (controlled by the Old Firm) while other clubs were forced to spend money on white elephant stadia and facilities for TV purposes and a share of the scraps.

    Every other club, outside the Old Firm, had to throw money they couldn’t afford to provide what was laughably called competition. Debt was called ambition in those days.

    In sport and football integrity is essential – they impose penalties on drug cheats and look at Swiss and Italians dealing with financial irregularities. RFC should not be contemplating applying for SPL share transfer. They don’t do walking away, a club of integrity and a whole load of problems still to rear their head.

    They’ve a big enough base to reapply to SFL, build up their club and get back to where they should be just as euro ban expires.

    The outpouring of bile and anger that RFC are being picked on sickens every other club as we know that financial mismanagement will lead to extinction not a choice of where to restart. Cretins or not – all we want is reasonable penalties applied and a level playing field. The extent of mismanagement is mindblowing.

    Despite all that’s gone on there are still too many vested interests in the usual suspects. Living in hope that somebody can widely report this debacle but not counting on it. That’s how all cretinous, pseudo political, provincial club football supporters generally feel anyway – it’s our lot.”

  42. Douglas cameron says:

    Chris

    The proposal at present would see the sfa membership transfer with the business and assets. As I understand it this dates back to 1873 when the sfa was formed. The company on the other hand dates to 1899.

    Continuation of membership is the key to the continuation of the club. That is the time line that matters.

    The record books don’t show club have 2 titles and limited/plc 54. You will argue because club became plc. I will argue because they both had the same sfa membership. If they are the same club then the club is more than the ownership structure.

    Let the negative ratings begin! We can all argue this forever. Next year rangers will still here. You will know they are rangers as they wear blue, have Rfc on ther chest, the (spl?) league table lists them as ‘rangers football club’ and Celtic will want to beat them more than anyone else.

  43. The Whisperer says:

    “jabba” in Greek means free of charge ! … Just thought I’d throw that in ……. Also as a relative layman wrt big finance/corporate/contracts etc …… But with a lengthy small business background …. I cannot understand why anyone on their right mind would want to buy ANY football club let alone one in the condition of rfcia ? …. Is it just a love of the club thing …. Wink Wink

  44. juniblu says:

    Apologies for going off topic

    diamondtim says:
    03/05/2012 at 9:58 pm
    5 48 i
    Rate This
    Why don’t we take over Shamrock Rovers or Donegal Celtic and let this corrupt little country look after its self, this way a trip to the emerald isle and taking money out of the right wing cheaters pockets that we are currenty subsidising…

    Oh dear me DTs displaying SDM like arrogance with regard to Scotland, Shamrock Rovers and Donegal Celtic. Two of which most probably don’t want you coming near them and the third probably quite happy to see you go. By you means the individual and not CFC. Oh, and have you ever pondered the philosophies and politics of the owners of the club that you support?

    Juni

  45. rantinrobin says:

    alex thomson‏@alextomo

    Leaving Glasgow, am stunned that tax-dodging Rangers’ latest Big Idea is….a tax dodge. Glasgow papers report this as some kind of triumph!
    ——————————————————————————————————————————— Alex flies off to London, clearly thinking ‘What a shower of rogues!’ as was clearly apparent in his justifiably belligerent OB at Ibrox on Ch 4 News,

    If this is business and asset management ,you can keep it.I call it shameful ,immoral and downright embarassing.

    I just looked at Scotsman pictures of now extinct Third Lanark, and mentions of Kilbowie,Muirton,Boghead,………I was sad

    After this shameful episode i do not have the same feelings towards Ibrox no matter what happens

  46. Chris says:

    Douglas,

    So if the Old Firm were to be granted membership of the Atlantic League as once mooted by none other than Wattie Smith, and resigned from the SFA and SPL as a result (lets say they even got into the Premiership) they would no longer be the same clubs?

    Nonsense. The club sold themselves off via their shareholdings, attached to their company numbers. Their membership of one league or another, or a national association, does not change or dissolve their club.

    Rangers remain the same club formed in 1873 except these days the ownership of the club, regardless of which bodies they are members of, resides in the shareholding.

    A NewCo is a new CLUB and the original club will remain the PLC it incorporated as, regardless of whether they are members of the SPL, the SFA, whatever.

    Otherwise you are saying ( for the rules apply equally to Celtic or Rangers as they are both PLC’s) the club is only a club as long as it has SFA membership.

    Which is simply untrue.

    This is the deal the club made with society as framed in company law when it incorporated and took in money in exchange for part ownership of the club.

    NewCo = New CLUB

  47. tigertim says:

    Did Bill Millar get paid the full £500k for becoming the preferred bidder?
    Was Aidan Eardley first preferred bidder at £250k?

    Lets go for the guy who never sets foot in Scotland and has no companiy assets here that can be damaged. If the Blue Knights think they are off the hook so far as blame goes I think they better think again.

  48. metanight says:

    +Private Land

    “If Jabba truly believes that they meant HMRC approved the deal (which they are on the record as saying they know nothing about), he’s even dafter than we first thought. Totally out of his depth.”

    I don’t think Traynor is under any illusions to what the reality out the situation is. The same kind of lies peddled as truth were implied by Chris MacLaughlan on the BBC, STV’s nightly news at 6, Scotland Tonight and I’m quite sure if I had listened to Clyde last night it would have been there as well.

    To focus on JT and the Record:

    Paul Clark gave him an inch and JT took a mile and the reasons for that?

    Court of public opinion/Pressure – Regardless of their history HMRC will be hesitant to be branded as the responsible party when this whole thing goes belly up. The broadsheets and tabloids have constantly stated that keeping RFC(IA) alive was in the best interests of everyone in Scotland. By stating that HMRC (and the other creditors) will agreed to a CVA Traynor has applied pressure on HMRC to do just that. The court of public opinion is something he knows how to adapt in his favour.

    Record readership/Public Disorder – We have seen recently in the Hampden march that if pushed RFC(IA) can mobilise substantial enough numbers for the police to have concerns about rioting. JT is obviously well within his rights to publish whatever magical fairy tales his heart desires but he knows that there is a more violent element to the following as well.

    There can be little or no doubt that if the outcome of this can be painted in such a fashion that SDM is absolved of all sins, then it will be. Anything that can be blamed on someone else will be from here on in. The Record is a vital tool in pushing that message to the people who actually pay to go and see RFC(IA). I guess, as it’s so obviously skewed, that what we are really witnessing is the comical and uniquely bitter end of this era of what is basically tabloid/radio-phone-in induced Stockholm Syndrome.

    The digital age is upon them and the internet is something JT and his counterparts are entirely unable to control. This will never ever change.

  49. waco says:

    have you ever pondered the philosophies and politics of the owners of the club that you support?

    THATS A GOOD ONE,do you mean paying TAX on time ,paying all bills on time and in FULL ,collecting charity money and PASSING it on without having it resting in your account for a time or until someone asks for it or in some cases NEVER passing it on to those who thought it was for them ,

    I’m at easy with my clubs philosophies /politics and the owners are very nice people very giving never TAKING ,THERE ARE EVEN A COUPLE WITH OFF THE RADAR WEALTH ,

    i see by the number of thumbs DOWN on a number of good posts that we are infested with trollingtaxdodgersfc fans and friends ,liquidation beckons taxdodgersfc me thinks and wild bill ain’t gonna stop it he`s out to pick over the bones,

  50. tilhotdogsbark says:

    Stephen Henderson says:

    04/05/2012 at 10:21 am

    SH, It’s painfully obvious they are making their own rules up, they are merely selecting the perceived good bits and intending to leave behind the not so clever aspects. We will take the stadium, the training complex, the players and the SPL membership; we will leave the debt, the fines, the sanctions both present and future and any other toxic elements (apart from the fans).

    This “pick and mix” approach may be their undoing, remember what happened to Woolworth!