As you can probably tell I’m not really taking great time on this blog theses days. Even when I was outing and making a total arse of Arch Rangers hater Stuart Cosgrove There was bits missed out and poorly written -whats different I hear you shout- so lets get to the nuts and bolts of the Easy Jambo who made the RTC first 11.

Easy Jambo was an utter obsessive on the Rangers Tax Case as the reproduced voluminous -and I mean epic in volume almost biblical from start of blog too finish he was on it- RTC posts of his that will appear at the bottom of this page will testify

Now what Hearts fan a so -called cousin of William, could stand the absolute anti-British bile and Roman Catholic supremacy?

What Hearts fan a so-called cousin of William, could sit and mingle on a forum where they people that where posting where openly calling him or thinking ya dirty Diet H*n bastard, H*n without the bus fare and wanting to put him in the middle of a bonfire with the Rangers at the top just like in the dark despotic days before the Reformation and the Scottish enlightenment when Scotland was ruled by a Tyrant in Rome?

And you would think Moobsy all day long


But you would be wrong!

You would be close though seriously have a read back at some of the Rangers Tax Case posts I think the wanker has put it up again there was seriously some grown men getting some sort of sexually gratification ala Barry Bennell about the whole affair.

But he was easily ruled out as this guy seriously obsessed about figures and accounts and as far as I am aware Moobsy whatever hes called cant even do Journalism and even  perma-tanned tanned Jason Donavon tribute act Keith Jackson wins awards for that shit.

You know the Guardian gave an award to a blog littered with H*n this Hun that orange this Orange that Mason this mason that all from a hate-filled Roman Catholic outside our church there is no salvation supremacy?

Imagine they gave an award to a white supremacist blog that routinely used  and I quote “NIGGER” “PAKI” “YID” etc etc?

Well there eternal loony left wing shame they did but I dont think they give a shit the old adage 1 rule for them 1 rule for us springs to mind.

Any way I digress.

The next person I was lead too was Kevin Windram


Now Kevin Windram is as of 24 October, 2014 a new non-executive director of Heart of Midlothian FC

Ann Budge knows the Edinburgh businessman well, with Kevin – a corporate finance partner at accountancy firm Mazars – having worked closely with the Foundation of Hearts as a financial advisor for three years.

She said at the time.

“He provided invaluable expertise and guidance both to me and FoH during the financial due diligence process that preceded the final offer to acquire the club.

“His business background, coupled with his passion as a lifelong supporter of the club, are precisely the qualities that we seek and need on the Board as we move the club forward to the next stage of this remarkable Revival.”

Speaking of his honour at joining the board of directors, Kevin said: “I am delighted to have been asked to join the Heart of Midlothian board at such an exciting stage in the club’s development.

“Having been a Hearts supporter for over 30 years, I am keen to play a part in helping the club to a stable and sustainable future.”

Now the life long Hearts fan and the head for numbers would all point to Easy Jambo’s posts

But surely it would be fanciful for a board member -or future one- of a fellow club would be on the sectarian Rangers hating bigoted Rangers Tax case Blog ?

Well its not that fanciful you see Kevin Windram was a business partner in LWC Accountants LLP with -who I am reliably informed is the so-called impartial BBC journalist Chris McLaughlin- Uncle

A regular to this blog Aidan Mclaughlin


Now Aidan was very influential in the Rangers Tax Case Blog and this -ex HMRC inspector- creep really makes your skin crawl.

Anyway alas Easy Jambo isn’t a Hearts of Midlothian Director but he like Kevin was and is heavily involved in the Foundation of Hearts.


His name is Eric Clelland and I cant even claim to be the first to expose the obsessive that reall punched above his weight with the Tims that goes too Follow Follow forum.


and according to that he worked in the Hearts of Midlothian youth development.

You really have to laugh at the absurdity of this Rangers hating Cretin spouting Sporting Integrity when a Hearts manager Graham Rix would have legally had to go around his neighbours doors when he moved to Edinburgh to inform them he was a Sex offender because in In March 1999, he -married Graham Rix- was sentenced to 12 months in prison, of which he served six, for having underage sex with a 15-year-old girl. He was also ordered to be placed on the sex offender registry for 10 years, and banned by the FA from working with youth players under the age of 16

Not to mention Heart of Midlothian player Craig Thomson who Eric Clelland may or may not rubbed shoulders with. You may recall Craig Thomson was convicted on 17 June at Edinburgh Sheriff Court after admitting ‘lewd, libidinous and indecent behaviour’ towards two girls aged 12 and 14. He admitted to showing them male genitalia, asking the older one for sex and engaging them in sexual chat. He was fined £4,000 and placed on the sex offenders register for five years.

FFS!!!! Hearts should be in Saughton never mind the SPL!!

Seriously with these limp wristed sentences -along with the alleged Celtic Boys club peadophile ring-no wonder the world of Fitbaw is where it is!

So what motivated Eric Clelland to be so obsessive on the Rangers Tax case blog -who according to his posts you will see he is very friendly with and also has inside knowledge on the BBC documentaries before they where made from his posts-? This is his link by the way https://www.scribd.com/user/83650143/ec-Jambo

An undercurrant on the Rangers Tax case Blog -now remember this was started 3 years before indyref- was Scottish independence. Although as he says in his posts he is not an SNP member he certainly looks the Yes type

Either that or its the worst episode of Top Gear.

Well it appears from these posts below that I have highlighted that Eric Clelland used to work for Bank of Scotland and then HBOS -along with TSFM podcaster Ally Jambo-but not front of house as a Cashier but in the Information Technology branch.

Could this be another person breaking the law with confidential information like the many BIGOTS in the HMRC did?

Balance of Probabilities 5 247 80496 47 16/4/2012 18:43:0

easyJambo 118 1

“Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says: 16/04/2012 at 2:37 pm
Cracking post BRTH. Right up there with one of the best posted since the blog started.
I can empathise with your views on Gavin Masterton CBE as being the common link in the financial difficulties across Scottish football. I worked for BoS from 1975 until 2000 then HBOS from 2003-2008. It was the same person who changed BoS from being a low risk, prudent financial institution under the control of Sir Bruce Pattullo into a risk taking, profit seeking, bonus culture organisation the epitomises all that is wrong with both the banking system and the Scottish football economy.”
Balance of Probabilities 8 373 80627 23 16/4/2012 21:18:0

Allyjambo Taxpayer 149 1

“easyJambo says:

16/04/2012 at 6:43 pm
EJ, We quite possibly know each other, I worked for BoS in and around Edinburgh for 30 years from 1969. I agree absolutely about DBP, the bank nosedived almost from the moment he mysteriously ‘retired’ in 1998, which I would imagine was prior to any high risk assistance that might have been handed out to Murray and Rangers. I know from a short time working under him that there was no way he’d sanction any risk bearing lending as appears to have been given to Rangers and MIH. All just my own opinion though.”

Balance of Probabilities 8 384 80640 34 16/4/2012 21:37:0

easyJambo 118 5

“Allyjambo Taxpayer says: 16/04/2012 at 9:18 pm
Maybe not. I was in I.T. initially at Robertson Ave then Sighthill.”

I hope if you read this and are going to Tyncastle dont put fuck all money across their kiosks fuck this Bonhomie with Hearts and the Hearts foundation with Rangers hating Cretins like Eric Clelland involved!

Remember he was obseeing about this while wee Mad Vlad was raping his club and stiffing the little man in a CVA -thankfully Hearts had decent administrators- while all the time before that he was running Hearts on the proceeds of Eastern European crime!



Eric Clellands tome of posts follows thanks to all that helped!


Another ‘Liar’ Steps Forward 4 190 2630 40 6/5/2011 15:14:0 easyJambo 68 1 “RTC – Are you in a position to confirm that the FTT has ended today or been extended further?”

Another ‘Liar’ Steps Forward 5 208 2649 8 6/5/2011 19:8:0 easyJambo 68 2 “I’m surprised that Whyte plans to retain Rangers stock exchange listing for a minimum 12 months. It means that he will have to be transparent in any significant activities in the club, that could affect the share price, e.g transferring whatever borrowings he used to fund the takeover, onto the club.
Blinded by the Whyte 3 110 2772 10 7/5/2011 10:49:0 easyJambo 40 1 “From the last set of full year accounts issued in 2010 wage costs were £28.1M by Rangers and £36.5M by Celtic”

The Secretive Mr. Whyte 3 118 3268 18 11/5/2011 11:50:0 easyJambo 48 1 “Rangers EBTs – Figures in £ks taken from annual reports
2001 1,010
2002 5,176
2003 6,791
2004 7,252
2005 7,241
2006 9,192
2007 4,988
2008 2,291
2009 2,360
2010 1,358
That gives a total of £47.7M
Tax @ 40% = £19.1M
N.I. @ 12.8% = £6.1M
These figures are in line with the alleged £24M bill that RFC challenged at the FTT”

The Secretive Mr. Whyte 3 142 3292 42 11/5/2011 12:59:0 easyJambo 48 2 “Rangers are helpful in having their recent Annual Reports available on their website. You can view the 2007 to 2010 reports here
Just do a search for the word ‘Trust’ in the pdf documents to find references to the EBTs.”

The Waiting Game 2 98 3671 48 23/5/2011 19:37:0 easyJambo 35 1 “Some figures that may help tie in with the benefit or otherwise of CL progress
Figures in £ks from annual reports
Celtic Turnover Wages Ratio
2004/05 62,168 37,394 60%
2005/06 57,411 32,490 57%
2006/07 75,237 36,421 48%
2007/08 72,953 38,981 53%
2008/09 72,587 38,751 53%
2009/10 61,715 36,483 59%
2004/05 55,134 27,303 50%
2005/06 61,165 27,989 46%
2006/07 41,768 24,258 58%
2007/08 64,452 34,339 53%
2008/09 39,704 30,662 77%
2009/10 56,287 28,133 50%”

The Waiting Game 3 101 3674 1 23/5/2011 20:3:0 easyJambo 35 2 “Same T/O and Wages stats as before with European progress included
Celtic Turnover Wages Ratio Euro Progress
2004/05 62,168 37,394 60% CL Group
2005/06 57,411 32,490 57% Lost CL qual
2006/07 75,237 36,421 48% CL Group + last 16
2007/08 72,953 38,981 53% CL Group + last 16
2008/09 72,587 38,751 53% CL Group
2009/10 61,715 36,483 59% Europa League Group
2004/05 55,134 27,303 50% UEFA Cup Group
2005/06 61,165 27,989 46% CL Group + last 16
2006/07 41,768 24,258 58% UEFA Cup last 16
2007/08 64,452 34,339 53% CL Group + UEFA Cup Final
2008/09 39,704 30,662 77% Lost CL qual
2009/10 56,287 28,133 50% CL Group”

Whyte of the long knives 5 231 4044 31 25/5/2011 16:21:0 easyJambo 60 1 “Excellent blog as always RTC
I’d like to defend Adam’s position at the moment. My interpretation of what he has posted is that he has concerns about Whyte and his plans, but bases his position on what information in in the public domain rather than indulge in speculation at this stage.
On the other hand we have RTC who has used his knowledge and experience to speculate on possible outcomes, particularly on the tax case. I think this position is shared by the moajority of posters.
Beyond that, we have a number of ‘Celtic-minded’ posters who are already bought into the worst case scenario for Rangers and are already gloating over their demise and the prospect of 10 in a row.
As a Jambo, I consider myself to be neutral, although I guess some ‘Celtic-minded’ posters may doubt that.
For the record I am aligned closer to RTC’s line of thinking, but I am hopeful that that Rangers are forced out of business, not because they are Rangers, but as an example to the rest of the football world about the excesses of financial doping ( …… and I include my own team in that list)”
The deceptive Craig Whyte 2 55 4096 5 25/5/2011 18:38:0 easyJambo 22 1 “Rangers interim report covering the last six months of 2010 indicated that ST sales were down 4.9% (from 40,306 in 2009/10) so should be in the region of 38,331.
I’ve heard that Celtic’s ST sales were down substantially more (from 50,826) but I’ve been unable to find any figures to back it up.”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 2 57 4098 7 25/5/2011 18:40:0 easyJambo 22 2 “I don’t know how sales for 2011/12 are going.”
Rangers’ tax case: outcomes and scenarios 1 6 4957 6 3/6/2011 19:24:0 easyJambo 6 1 “Rather than liquidate the club and get next to nothing in return, I still believe that HMRC will still look for their pound of flesh from Rangers. I think they will seek to keep the club afloat as a going concern and require them to pay off any outstanding bill at say £5M a year.
It’s probably a worst case scenario for Whyte, but the club could probably just about survive that, although their playing budget would be curtailled even further from where it is now. I could see Whyte then looking to raise funds directly from the supporters to pay at least some part of the bill.”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 2 72 5268 22 5/6/2011 10:32:0 easyJambo 37 1 “Looking at other forums, the Season Tickets for most parts of the ground appear to average around £440 with the Club Deck about £630 based on the most recently available figures.
At the time of the interim report being issued in early April, it was stated that Season Ticket sales for 2010/11 had fallen by 4.9%. They sold 40,306 in 2009/10, so that figure will be down to about 38,331. On that basis 38,331 @ £440 would generate £16.87M. Ring fencing say 24,000 would generate £10.56M”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 3 114 5313 14 5/6/2011 14:13:0 easyJambo 37 2 “I’m trying to work out the current position, based on the FACTs as we know them rether than speculate on intentions or outcomes.
The MG05s was filed with Companies House on 31/05, meaning that the changes to the assets covered by the floating charge was implemented /agreed up to 21 days prior to that date.
At that date BoS (Lloyds) date still had a floating charge over the assets of RFC PLC.
The takeover document stated that the debt had been assigned to Wavetower (now TRFCG Ltd). The fact that the floating charge remained with BoS means that the debt has not been paid off (at least in full). BoS must have been agreeable to that course of action.
The Wavetower (now TRFCG Ltd.) debt to BoS remains secured against the remaining assets of its fully owned subsidary, RFC PLC.
The Season Ticket income is no longer included within the RFC PLC assets secured against the debt.
That is all we can state at present. Any thought about why these action have been taken remains as speculation.
However, it is good to speculate. LOL”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 4 152 5354 2 5/6/2011 19:35:0 easyJambo 37 3 “Adam 7:21pm
I think that the concensus view is that the floating charge remains over all RFC PLC assets with the exception of those assets that were released from the charge, i.e. there is no longer a charge over the annual c. 25,000 ST proceeds.
It may be that the ST funds are security for some other undertaking, be it Ticketus, HMRC, investment in the squad or, alternatively, free funds to be paid to CW and his backers as fess, salaries, bonuses or interest payments.”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 7 340 5550 40 6/6/2011 13:55:0 easyJambo 37 4 “I’m still in agreement with JohnBhoy’s interpretation of the MG05S in the the ST monies have been released from the charge and that the remaining assets are still covered by the floating charge.
It certainly fits in with the Plymouth scenario, in that the ST money may well be pleged to Ticketus.
I think that the key to the interpretation is simply the word ‘Released’. You cannot have a floating charge over ‘Released’ assets. The MG05S go on to define that the ‘Released’ Assets are the ST monies and accounts.
The MG05S is badly worded, but I think that the first sentence is just a statement of the floating charge as it now stands following the change (release), i.e. ‘Floating charge over the whole assets of the Company excluding the Released Assets’. If that sentence was prefixed as ‘There is now a ……’, I don’t think there would be any confusion.”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 8 359 5569 9 6/6/2011 15:15:0 easyJambo 37 5 “‘Adam says:
06/06/2011 at 2:52 pm
I still dont get what ticketus have to do with a form whereby BOS are shown to be discharging all of Rangers assets with the exception of 4 years worth of season tickets.’
I would agree with you in that scenario, but if you reverse your interpretation of the MG05S to the ST money being released from the BoS charge, then the Ticketus theory stands up.”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 8 361 5571 11 6/6/2011 15:23:0 easyJambo 37 6 “Re the future formatting of the blog. I tried the ‘blockquote cite=” HTML tag on my previous post. It works fine and may be the best way to proceed with the formatting Just prefix the quote with then put at the end of the quoted text. (I added a space within ‘blockquote’ to prevent it formatting on this occasion)”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 8 362 5572 12 6/6/2011 15:27:0 easyJambo 37 7 “‘Re the future formatting of the blog. I tried the ‘blockquote cite=” HTML tag on my previous post. It works fine and may be the best way to proceed with the formatting Just prefix the quote with then put at the end of the quoted text. (I added a space within ‘blockquote’ to prevent it formatting on this occasion)’
That’ didn’t work I as expected last time as it dropped the HTML tag from the text but I hope you understand what I was trying to explain. i.e. using blockquote cite=” and its end tag of /blockquote cite=”>”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 8 369 5579 19 6/6/2011 16:2:0 easyJambo 37 8 “‘Barry says:
06/06/2011 at 3:44 pm
Going on the basis that for every 70p invested the return is 105p would this equate to Rangers receiving £35m in cash for giving up approx £52m in season ticket money’
The investment return is not the same as the Ticketus fees or interest charged.
Octopus (Ticketus’ partent company) advertises a VCT (Venture Capital Trust) to raise money that they lend on to comapnies in need of cash. It is the VCT that is offering that return on money you invest with them.
The terms of any agreement with RFC would probably be tailored to the circumstances, term and the amount of money advanced. (It won’t be cheap)”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 8 388 5660 38 6/6/2011 18:48:0 easyJambo 37 9 “‘ 2. Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or convertedinto equity, if the Club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall, the
debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1 (b), (e) and (f) above. ‘
Looks like any money they put into the club in the short term will be added to the club’s debt to TRFCG Ltd. So if they go belly up then ALL CW’s investments in the club will be secured against RFC’s assets.
If I were HMRC I wouldn’t be happy that any money going into the club at the moment is being secured in preference to any future tax liability relating to the EBT case. CW has stated that he will ‘contribute’ to the bill for the Discounted Option Scheme, which is odd as RFC had already made provision for this is the half year accounts.”
New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 8 395 5696 45 6/6/2011 19:34:0 easyJambo 37 10 “Link to the full statement
Rangers’ Circular Released 2 80 5728 30 6/6/2011 20:34:0 easyJambo 31 1 “Is it possible that CW paid off Lloyds with the exception of the separate loan of £4m mentioned in a previousl blog? That may explain why Lloyds have allowed the ‘Release’ of the Season Ticket money from the floating charge, given that their exposure had been substantially reduced.
On a separate point the Statement confirms that:
No other person is acting in concert with The Rangers FC Group.
There are no irrevocable commitments or letters of intent which The Rangers FC Group or any person
acting in concert with The Rangers FC Group has procured in relation to the relevant securities of the
That appears to remove some of the suspicions on who in financing Whyte, other than his fellow directors Betts and Ellis”
Rangers’ Circular Released 3 102 5752 2 6/6/2011 21:4:0 easyJambo 31 2 “Following on from MB’s previous point.
if the Club has not suffered an insolvency event within 90 days of the Club’s appeal in relation
to the tax claim brought against the Club by HM Revenue & Customs (the ‘Tax Case’) being
finally determined
Does the ‘appeal’ refer to the FTT itself, or is it referring to any appeal that may follow the FTT result, or
has the FTT already found in favour of HMRC and the appeal is already in progress (in private)?
Perhaps Whyte was told the he would be advised of the outcome of the FTT by the beginning of June, hence the 3 week delay in the issue of the circular to Shareholders.
Or maybe I’m just reading too much into the circular!”
Rangers’ Circular Released 4 153 5805 3 6/6/2011 23:27:0 easyJambo 31 3 “Stuart Bathgate in the Scotsman is still towing the company line
He also hasn’t grasped the status of the Tax Bill.
‘There is one circumstance in which the debt would not be waived, and that is if the club suffers ‘an insolvency event within 90 days of (its] appeal in relation to the tax claim brought against (it] by HM Revenue & Customs’. It has been suggested for some time that Rangers could face a massive bill from HMRC for tax, and although that bill has yet to arrive – and an appeal against it has therefore yet to be lodged – this caveat introduced by Whyte amounts to an insurance policy in the event of that bill being of a crippling amount.'”
Rangers’ Circular Released 4 154 5806 4 6/6/2011 23:31:0 easyJambo 31 4 “Oops – wrong link
Rangers’ Circular Released 5 231 5884 31 7/6/2011 11:14:0 easyJambo 31 5 “‘Jock Tamson says:
07/06/2011 at 11:03 am
in short, if murray park and ibrox have a combined value of i dunno, £50M, assuming say £5M lease value per year… whyte gets £18M preferred… then say other creditors get 75p in the pound… the debts are £30M HMRC and £10M other sundry debts. £40M, x 75p = £30M. which would mean…
rangers debts would be COMPLETELY cleared, whyte would have been paid, and, presumably, own the stadium again, and HMRCs other £30M would be history. he even keeps a little over after the bills have been paid.’
Two things wrong with your scenario. One is to find someone who would actually pay £50M for Ibrox and Murray Park is a distressed assets sale. The second is that the person who would own the ground is the person who paid the £50M for it. i.e. not CW or RFC”
Rangers’ Circular Released 5 233 5886 33 7/6/2011 11:38:0 easyJambo 31 6 “I think some people are getting a bit carried away with what the Ticketus arrangement would offer.
The way that Ticketus operate is that they would effectively give RFC an advance on their season ticket sales for season 2012/13 onwards. There is no point in there being a deal for season 2011/12 as Rangers have already received 100% of that season’s ST cash (unless they already have a prior arrangement with Ticketus) . The Ticketus arrangement only gives a temporary boost to cash flow.
From the point that you take the cash you are in debt to Ticketus and you are effectively paying them a premium rate of interest for the facility which is paid back with the sale of the next batch of STs. e.g. Ticketus will give you an advance on 25K STs at a dicounted price of say £400 (£10M in total) against a face value of £500 . When next season’s ST monies come in, Rangers will pay Ticketus 25K times the £500 face value as repayment of the previous season’s advance. (£12.5M). At that point Rangers have a serious cash flow problem again and may have to repeat the exercise.
My guess is that CW will shortly do a deal with Ticketus secured against next season’s ST income. That will give him the money he needs to deal with his investment promises for this coming season and but=y him time until the HMRC case is resolved one way or another.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 6 300 5955 50 7/6/2011 19:42:0 easyJambo 31 7 “I’ve had a look around Plymouth Argle forums and official site and found that Ticketus was an unsecured creditor of the club with two sums owing of £1.26M and £151K.
As was identified in the MG05S blog, PA had agreed the ‘Release’ of two seasons worth of STs from the charge held by mortgage providers, Mastpoint. (coincidentally, using the same legal firm as Rangers). It is likely that the original charge prevented the club raising funds using any of the secured assets including the STs.
Releasing the STs from the charge freed the club to negotiate a cash advance on the ST ticket sales from Ticketus. However the deal clearly didn’t result in Ticketus holding a charge on the ST money as they were designated as an unsecured creditor during the administration process.
If CW can repeat that deal with Ticketus as an unsecured creditor, then he is in a better position either to siphon off more cash out of the club should an insolvency event occur, or to come to some repayment agreement with HMRC. Obviously if Ticketus were to become an unsecured creditor of RFC PLC, then there would be no need to register a charge with Companies House.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 7 307 5962 7 7/6/2011 20:4:0 easyJambo 31 8 “‘Barry says:
07/06/2011 at 7:47 pm
Easyjambo , can you find out how many season tickets were released each year and the average price so we can get a rough handle on how much RFC will get for the season ticket s they have released ‘
I’m afraid that the MG04 (English MG05S equivalent) document didn’t specify the number of tickets involved.
I fould a full list of Plymout’s creditors in a Devon media site. It just goes to show the range aof large and small businesses that are affected by ‘insolvency events’. It is really a sad story for them.

Rangers’ Circular Released 9 441 6096 41 8/6/2011 15:51:0 easyJambo 31 9 “There are a number of posters who have suggested that CW would be cheating the tax man if the HMRC case goes against RFC and the club is liquidated.
If you believe that then you are 100% wrong. The loss of the tax case and cheating the tax man would be down to the previous owners and Board members who knowingly set out to defraud HMRC, not CW. I guess that there would only be scope for a criminal case if the evidence from the FTT or subsequent UTT was strong enough to say that Murray or any other identifiable individual could be incrimiated of a fraud.
What CW is doing is all perfectly legal and as other posters have stated goes on day after day in other financially strapped businesses. There will be no legal action against CW if he liquidates the company should he decide that he cannot pay any HMRC bill.
For those of you calling ‘FOUL’ on Rangers recent trophy wins, it’s a pointless arguement. I’m afraid that there is no way that these will be removed from the record or reassigned to the runners up. The penalty that Rangers would suffer will be the future loss of points, or the demise of the club (1873 version), depending on the severity of the insolvency event.”

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 457 6112 7 8/6/2011 17:34:0 easyJambo 31 10 “‘TheBlackKnight says:
08/06/2011 at 4:59 pm
This has been bugging me for some time and perhaps with my (very) limited understanding of law and financial law in particular, …….. So here goes,
has anyone else drawn the similarity between the ‘players’ involved, the companies that are now in place as ‘trusted advisors’, the assignation of the debt and the fact that whilst the MG05s form is poorly drafted (confusing as to what has been released and what is still held as a floating charge) the form is signed by what appears to be a ‘P Betts’.
The part with his apparent signature is reserved for the person who either is or represents the creditor. (?)
I could understand if the MG05s was released with a clear indication of what has been released. Further I could understand fully if the form had the new ‘owners’ of the floating charges (had the debt been paid off). But the form relates to a debt held with Lloyds(BoS) and is signed by someone authorised to do so.
Simple question………. Are Rangers already in administration?’
RFC or TRFCG are the creditors to BoS with regard to the MG05S, therfore as a Director, Phil Betts is authorised to sign the document.
The floating charge is only brought into play if there is a need to call in the loan, which there isn’t as present. Therefore RFC are still able to buy and sell assets in the course of normal business, unless they would have a significant impact on the floating charge.
It is my guess that CW made a down payment on the outstanding debt to BoS as a goodwill gesture and in return BoS allowed the STs to be specifically released from the floating charge. BoS would most likely be comfortable with land, bricks and mortar as security rather than an asset of variable value like STs. (the value of the STs as an asset deminishes progressively with each home game for which STs are valid)
and NO they are not in Administration …….. yet!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 463 6118 13 8/6/2011 18:5:0 easyJambo 31 11 “TheBlackKnight says:
08/06/2011 at 5:41 pm
Easy jambo, I know I said I had limited financial savvy but I do know that legally a ‘creditor’ is the person or body loaning the money. TRFCGLTD and RFC are the debtors, surely?
Of course you are right …… I’m talking through a hole in my head… LOL”
Rangers’ Circular Released 10 466 6121 16 8/6/2011 18:14:0 easyJambo 31 12 “‘TheBlackKnight says:
08/06/2011 at 5:41 pm
Easy jambo, I know I said I had limited financial savvy but I do know that legally a ‘creditor’ is the person or body loaning the money. TRFCGLTD and RFC are the debtors, surely?
Of course you are right …… I’m talking through a hole in my head… LOL

The wording of the form states that it can be signed by someone authorised by the creditor to do so, BoS may well have authorised Betts to sign it following discussions / negotiations.’

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 468 6123 18 8/6/2011 18:27:0 easyJambo 31 13 “‘the Don Dionisio says:
08/06/2011 at 6:11 pm
Not sure if easyjambo and others have been reading my earlier recent posts.
It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say so, but I no longer think we’ll get anywhere near either administration or liquidation.The reason for that is Whyte has inherited an old style Floating Charge, (granted pre-2003),which gives him the option of appointing a Receiver instead of an Administrator.
Since a Receiver only owes a duty of care to his appointing Floating Chargeholder/creditor, as opposed to an Administrator who acts for the general body of creditors, which road do you think Whyte will go down?
The real bad news, as I’ve discovered from a closer inspection of the Insolvency Act 1986, is that a Floating Chargeholder who has power to appoint a Receiver, also has an effective veto over administration.
Whilst receivership would not, no doubt, be all plain sailing for Rangers I suspect there is much more scope for nice little cozy deals to be done between Receivers and their appointers, for the reasons already explained.
Equally, the process is designed to be fast -track, in and out, which means they might be back on their feet truly ‘debt-free’, to quote CW,quicker than any of us here might imagine. ‘
Don – I have been reading your posts with interest, but the technicalities are beyond my pay grade. However I do understand the gist of what you are saying.
I don’t know if I’m being plain stupid here, but have I missed something, or are we still to see a documented charge in favour of CW, TRFCG Ltd, or Liberty Capital. The last MG05S indicated that BoS still held the charge and not CW. i.e. BoS would have to trigger the Receivership. Is it the case that CW is seeking to use funds from Ticketus to pay off BoS and create a new charge. That being the case then a new charge would be post 2003 and the Receivership option would not be available.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 10 469 6124 19 8/6/2011 18:33:0 easyJambo 31 14 “Don – I was obviously typing as you made your last post.
Should there not be a notification to Companies house about the transfer of the charge?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 484 6139 34 8/6/2011 19:55:0 easyJambo 31 15 “Don – I’ve re-read your’s and Onand’s posts re receivership and I’m a bit clearer in my own mind about the process.
I still don’t fully understand what is materially different between a Newco being established with the assets hived down from the failing company and what would be carried out by an administrator. I don’t expect HMRC to receive anything from any Insolvency Event.
I understand that the Receiver acts primarily on behalf of the owner of the Floating Charge and that an Administrator loks after the intrests of all creditors, albeit with priority still given to the secured creditors
In the scenario you described, if receivership is invoked on receipt of the tax bill, RFC PLC has effectively gone belly up, and is unable to pay it’s debts. The Receiver allows a Newco to be formed with certain assets transferred from the failed company. CW or other specified buyer pays a price for the new company that is sufficient to cover the debt secured by the floating charge. That company can continue trading free of the previous burdens.
That is exactly what I would expect an Administration process to achieve, only it would be the original company that would continue trading rather than a Newco.
If RFC’s footballing assets are traneferred to a Newco, can they continue as a going concern with no implications for their SPL status, or would it be treated as an Insolvency Event equivalent to Administration or Liquidation.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 10 487 6142 37 8/6/2011 20:3:0 easyJambo 31 16 “Further to my last post – Is the difference only that it avoids HMRC being able to force liquidation of RFC and allows them to reform as if they had only been in the equivalent of Administration”
Rangers’ Circular Released 11 506 6161 6 8/6/2011 22:16:0 easyJambo 31 17 “Gaz – that’s close to what my understanding is with the exception of the statement Rangers Holdings now own Rangers PLC, and are debt free.. In that scenario Rangers Holdings would own certain assets previously owned by RFC PLC (stadium, MurrayPark, players, STs??). RFC PLC would still exist as it has not been liquidated. however, it would have enormous debts of £50M + with very few assets. TRFCG would probably allow it to liquidated following a winding up order from HMRC.
Rangers would get a 10 point penalty for an ‘Insolvency Event’ (Receivership) and carry on as if their debts never existed.
That’s now my understanding of what COULD happen.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 11 539 6194 39 9/6/2011 0:9:0 easyJambo 31 18 “It’s odd that the majority of posters have gone from believing that HMRC had RFC over a barrel and 12 hours later CW has HMRC over a barrel. This saga has some way to go, and I’m sure that there will be a number of other scenarios proposed and either accepted or shot down. in the weeks ahead. I don’t think any of us really know how this will pan out.
One thing I’m sure of of that the blog is doing its job in informing people of the facts and putting up a few straw men to be debated and supported or struck down.
Well done to RTC and the posters who share their knowlege and experience of legal niceties, accounting and tax affairs with the rest of us mere mortals.
I’m looking forward to the next blog.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 13 613 6268 13 9/6/2011 17:45:0 easyJambo 31 19 “In the Receivership / Newco scenario, if I’ve understood it correctly, the Receiver can hive off sufficient assets at a price sufficient to cover the value of the floating charge. Given that the STs were explicitly removed from the floating chage in the MG05S, I assume that the Receiver would have to leave the ST money within RFC PLC, potentially leaving it available to pay at least a portion of what HMRC would be owed.
In light of that, I don’t think for a moment that CW would leave the ST money or money advanced in a Ticketus deal for the tax man. Should CW siphon offf what could be anything up to 4years ST money (from Ticketus) wouldn’t HMRC have a case against CW for hiding assets from HMRC. I can understand that the value of a year’s ST money would be swallowed up by day to day running of the club, but surely spending any more than that would be highly suspicious.
Without the STs the Newco would also be struggling for regular income in the first year, unless the fans forked out twice, or could this be overcome by timing the ‘receivership event’ to coincide with the end of season when the residual value of that season’s STs is minimal.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 14 683 6339 33 10/6/2011 1:13:0 easyJambo 31 20 “Suggestion to RTC for a future blog – We have a number of what I would describe as experts contributors in the fields of Accounting, Legal and Tax affairs. How about a bit of role play with RTC, Don, Onand, Auldheid, Johnbhoy and Adam or others divvying up the roles of the Tribunal, HMRC, CW, Receiver/Administrator, SFA/SPL, Rangers fan and Celtic fan.
Let whoever represents the Tribunal set the scenario of say a £10M charge, or £20M, or £50M charge and ask our experts to say what they would do next, given their respected knowledge and experience. e.g at £20M, CW may think he could manage that without an insolvency event, but what would he actually do in terms of investing, selling or protecting his assets? How would the others react to that? If it was £50M and insolvency was inevitable what would HMRC do first, or what would CW do in response etc.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 15 706 6364 6 10/6/2011 9:44:0 easyJambo 31 21 “‘ Adam says:
10/06/2011 at 1:36 am
Dont know if its been said, but according to ‘some’ Cuellar is available for 1.5 million. We can get him on a ‘Webster’

Off topic and apologies RTC, but I couldn’t resist this piece of commentary

Rangers’ Circular Released 15 734 6392 34 10/6/2011 17:40:0 easyJambo 31 22 “Duggie73 says:
10/06/2011 at 5:01 pm
I fully appreciate that what I am asking for here may not be possible to be done
Is it possible for posters to indicate what they feel the circumstantial evidences available mean for the relative probabilities of the different scenarios of responsibility for the attempted tax avoidance
1. Lloyds, Murray and the legal team advising are all fully cognisant of the way this now has played out from the initial set up of the Lloyds debt being held as a floating charge
I wdont think that Lloyds were party to the setting up or operation of the EBTs
2 Lloyds are initally innocent of any knowledge of EBT’s being planned- this is an entirely separate plan of gaining Rangers revenue- Murray and his legal team have full responsibilityIn the end game
3 Lloyds are culpable of assisting tax avoidance by selling the debt to Wavetower as the debt they hold is secured and they have access to enough information about Rangers operations means that they would be able to see if their investment was in any way at risk. If the debt was transferred to Wavetower for less than the face value of the loan that points to- well I’m not sure what to be honest. Bank’s charging of interest for loans is their core business- are Lloyds so keen to distance themselves from any of this that they are willing to pay a cost to do so?
Lloyds is only interrested in getting their money back from the loan(s). They have actively sought to reduce their exposure to previous BoS property deals in the last year or two. The Wavetower deal is just one more deal in that process. I don’t see that what they have done is dishonest in any way
4 Murray is aware of Whyte’s plans and trusts him to recompense him to the tune of somewhat more than £1 in the event of whatever model of receivership/administration Whyte uses
Almost certainly not
5 Murray just plain saw no way out of the black hole, and sold to Whyte to allow himself to concentrate his full attention on the other parts of his stuggling businesses
Almost certainly true
6 Murray and Whyte were in cahoots, but Whyte plans to screw Murray over
No chance of them being cahoots”
Rangers’ Circular Released 16 793 6456 43 11/6/2011 18:5:0 easyJambo 31 23 “George A says:
11/06/2011 at 4:12 pm
George – Here are a couple of extracts from the SPL Handbook (‘Company’ refers to the SPL)
F1 Every Club shall keep detailed financial records and the Company shall be entitled to inspect such records and to require Clubs to provide copies of any financial or other records which the Company may reasonably require in order to enable the Company to investigate whether the Club has complied and is complying with these Rules, the Articles of Association, the SFA Articles, the UEFA Statutes and the FIFA Statutes and to ensure compliance by the Club with the same.
G1.1 The Board and, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, shall have the power of inquiry into all financial, contractual and other arrangements within, between and/or amongst Clubs and Players and all matters concerning compliance with the Financial Disclosure Requirements …………..”
Rangers’ Circular Released 17 805 6471 5 12/6/2011 12:39:0 easyJambo 31 24 “I see that Rushden and Diamonds have been expelled from the Conference in advance of a winding up petition from HMRC that will be heard tomorrow, The were docked 5pts and fined £2000 earlier this season because of outstanding tax paymements.
A sign of the times!!!”
Rangers’ Circular Released 18 875 6547 25 14/6/2011 13:53:0 easyJambo 31 25 “‘Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’ or so the saying goes. The Blog is accessible by all and is the best source of information on the tax case, potential outcomes, legal, accounting and tax expertise, so it is no surprise that it is used by journos across the country.
I am left wondering if Keith Jackson’s contacts at Ibrox are now beginning to see what it means to have insolvency specialists in charge of Auldheid’s sinking ship analogy. It may have taken the last few weeks and the 10 daysor so since the circular was released to wake up to the fact that Insolvency is very much on the agenda.
If the FTT has indeed been extended until November, then it may well be that CW has been forced to change tack from Plan A, a quick pre-pack administration/ receivership and jet back to Monaco asap, to Plan B which requires him to sustain the club at until next February/March at least.
There is no way that CW will put any of his own money (if he has any) at risk, hence the circular’s reference to any investment being added to the debt should an Insolvency event occur. One of other statements makes it clear the CW will look at alternative funding for the warchest as it reads ‘The Rangers FC Group has stated its intention to invest, or PROCURE an investment of, £20 million by 2016 for investment in the playing squad.’ It is the word ‘procure’ that Rangers fans should be fearful. The suggestion that future ST sales may be used to provide that investment may now turn out to be a very real possibility.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 18 880 6552 30 14/6/2011 15:33:0 easyJambo 31 26 “The story might just be a pe-emptive strike by McCoist or his supporters feeding the story to KJ to give CW a nudge about keeping his promises about investment.
It’s an odd one, but if Rangers were guaranteed CL Group Stage money, then I don’t think there would be any problem. Ally would get his £5M to spend and CW would trouser the other £10M for his expenses. It wouldn’t surprise me if that actually happens in January should Rangers get to the Group Stages (they should be favourites to get there from the ‘champions’ side of the draw)”
Rangers’ Circular Released 18 881 6553 31 14/6/2011 15:37:0 easyJambo 31 27 “‘Duggie73 says:
14/06/2011 at 3:06 pm
I know it’s not newsworthy but I can’t resist…’
You are right. It isn’t newsworthy, nor is it a Celtic blog and if it becomes so then I’ll stop posting.”

Rangers’ Circular Released 18 893 6566 43 14/6/2011 19:43:0 easyJambo 31 28 “‘Duggie73 says:
14/06/2011 at 4:34 pm
No problem Douggie. I value the blog because for the most part it is reasoned debate, albeit with a little partisanship that can be expected, but I wouldn’t like it to degenerate into slagging match between those of the green and blue persuasion. I can get that on any newspaper comments column.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 19 947 6620 47 15/6/2011 13:12:0 easyJambo 31 29 “‘Gary says:
15/06/2011 at 12:18 pm
McCoist and Whyte also held their own talks yesterday, at which the new manager gave an update on his targets and the new owner provided a similar briefing on budgetary issues.
Senior Rangers figures were irritated when it was erroneously claimed Whyte might want to mortgage off the next four years’ worth of Ibrox season-ticket income against a loan. In fact, under the terms of his takeover, Whyte signed documents which guaranteed to the stock exchange that he would do no such thing.

I think that the Herald has interpreted the statement wrong. The undertaking that CW took only covered the fixed assets of the club, i.e. Ibrox and Murray Park being the bulk of these.
‘It is The Rangers FC Group’s intention to:
* continue to run the Club as a football club from Ibrox Stadium in Glasgow. It is anticipated that
there will be no likely repercussions on employment and the locations of the Club’s place of
business, nor is it the intention of The Rangers FC Group to redeploy any of the fixed assets of
the Club;’
The Season Ticket money is not a fixed asset, therefore in my opinion CW is free to do what he wants with it..”
Rangers’ Circular Released 23 1125 6801 25 18/6/2011 6:54:0 easyJambo 31 30 “‘Gary says:
18/06/2011 at 5:07 am
Extract from the Herald
Contrary to a report elsewhere this week, no form has been signed that would allow season-ticket money to be used as a guarantee against any future loans; indeed, the form lodged at Companies House by RFCG last month does the opposite: it prevents season-ticket money from being used for that purpose.’
The stated ST position does put a new slant on CW’s actions, but Darrell King does not say where that interpretation of the MG05S came from. The online article makes reference to a CW interview on page 2 & 3 but is not available online, so we will have to wait a little longer to see if CW explicitly states that the STs are secured.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 25 1204 6881 4 19/6/2011 0:15:0 easyJambo 31 31 “Extract from an article in today’s Scotland on Sunday – Looks like CW is an avid reader of the blog
‘We move on to the saga of HMRC, the whopping bill that may be coming down the track. Whyte’s mantra before, and now, is that his legal counsel says that they will win the case, but even if they don’t they have a measure in place to deal with it that will keep the club above ground. But here’s the stand-out thing. He reckons it could be years before this thing is over. ‘I’m aware of a website that has dedicated itself to talking about our tax case,’ said Whyte of a site that claims to be in the know about Rangers’ financial affairs and regularly predicts a new kind of Armageddon for the club.
‘I’ve looked at it. What they’re saying is 99 per cent crap. The tribunal only starts in November so it will likely be concluded around March-time. Of course, there will probably be a series of appeals after that. This could go on for years yet. If we lose, we appeal and that’s another year. If we win, HMRC could appeal, so it’s not necessarily going away any time soon. It would be nice if it could go away sooner but it will run for some time yet.’
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 1 42 6933 42 19/6/2011 10:46:0 easyJambo 28 1 “Perhaps, CW has been reading the blog to see what information he can glean from the assembled experts as to the best way forward should HMRC win the tax case.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 5 204 7108 4 20/6/2011 15:1:0 easyJambo 28 2 “Gaz says:
20/06/2011 at 2:47 pm
I thought that season tickets were a liability and that season ticket holders were effectively creditors, having paid for a service in advance.
I agree Gaz. The lability is then reduced by 1/19th of the total as each home game is played during the season.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 5 228 7132 28 20/6/2011 19:47:0 easyJambo 28 3 “‘Gaz says:
20/06/2011 at 7:24 pm
Adam says:
20/06/2011 at 7:05 pm
When is a loan not a loan? Eh…well when the ‘recipient’ doesnt have to pay it back.
That would be a gift.

I thought that it was an EBT. A friendly ‘bank’ where wealthy footballers and others can receive loans that they don’t have to pay back. 🙂 ”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 6 260 7164 10 20/6/2011 22:44:0 easyJambo 28 4 “‘tomtom says:
20/06/2011 at 10:21 pm
I think we have to (grudgingly) give Whyte a great deal of credit for some of the things he has done so far. As far as I can see he has covered all the bases in respect of securing his money.’
I agree. However, what he has done on the financial side is within his area of knowledge and expertise.
Where he is failing however, as I’m sure someone has pointed out earlier, is on the public side of the business. RFC isn’t a nondescript business than no-one has heard about or cares about. His public spat with Johnson and Bain suggest that he doesn’t have the personal skills to control himself. I’m sure that he was advised to get Hay/Mckerron to manage his PR and they are doing what they can, but I think that he will remain a bit of a loose canon in that respect.
I get the feeling that he will trip himself up at some point if there is a journo with a strong enough will to challenge him repeatedly on his financial plans. If this does happen, he may well attempt to ignore the question, but the more he does that, it will only serve to increase the belief that he has something to hide.”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 9 417 7325 17 22/6/2011 14:51:0 easyJambo 28 5 “Me 2 – In last weekend’s media CW was quoted as saying that ‘Rangers have no bank debt’
There are two ways of reading that in that either RFC PLC has no bank debt or that neither RFC PLC nor TRFCG Ltd. have bank debt.
My view is that neither has bank debt, i.e. Lloyds debt has been paid off. (possibly at a discount to the full amount). However, although RFC PLC no longer have ‘bank debt’, they do have debt to their parent company TRFCG Ltd. It is that debt that remains secured against RFC PLC’s assets (either the fixed assets or STs, depending on your interpretation of the MG05S)”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 9 422 7330 22 22/6/2011 15:48:0 easyJambo 28 6 “Duggie73 says:
22/06/2011 at 3:16 pm
Is it fair to suggest that posters on here currently see 2 different scenarios of the way Whyte owns Rangers, and there is no conclusive evidence pointing either way
1 Whyte has paid the Lloyds debt using his own, or someone else’s wealth, the debt is ultimately owed to him
2 Whyte has merely transfered the nominal ownership of the Lloyds debt from Rangers to his own company, the debt is ultimately owed to Lloyds
My problem with option 2 is what security would Lloyds have over the debt if it had merely been transferred to TRFCG Ltd?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 9 438 7346 38 22/6/2011 17:13:0 easyJambo 28 7 “On a side issue, I was browsing the Companies House website and see that Celtic have raised a new security (MG01s) for Lennoxtown in favour of the Co-Op Bank a week or two back.
Mortgaging the family silver per chance? 🙂 ”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 9 440 7348 40 22/6/2011 17:16:0 easyJambo 28 8 “Adam – how do I do that? It’s a PDF file?”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 9 447 7355 47 22/6/2011 17:40:0 easyJambo 28 9 “I hope this works – MG01s submitted by Celtic re Lennoxtown
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 451 7359 1 22/6/2011 17:47:0 easyJambo 28 10 “Duggie – there has been no ‘charge’ submitted to Companies House by TRFCG Ltd (as yet), therefore it is highly unlikely that Lloyds would have given an unsecured loan of £18M to Whyte.
I pretty sure that Lloyds main aim in all of this was to get out of RFC before the brown stuff hit the fan. They have actively been reducing their exposure to BoS’ poor lending decisions of the past since they took over HBOS in Jan 2009.”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 452 7360 2 22/6/2011 17:50:0 easyJambo 28 11 “‘Adam says:
22/06/2011 at 5:45 pm
It worked easyJambo ‘ I wonder if this is a further loan from Co-operative over and above their existing one, or recognition that Celtic are perhaps now in overdraft and with lack of CL cash this season, will move further into overdraft, meaning the bank looking for additional security.’
It’s either as you say about new borrowing, or the Co-Op are getting a bit twitchy and have ask for more security on existing lending.”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 456 7364 6 22/6/2011 18:4:0 easyJambo 28 12 “‘Adam says:
22/06/2011 at 5:58 pm
easyjambo ‘ can you back into scribd and press to follow me. Would like to send you a PM about some info

Have done so but I’m not overly failiar with the setup.”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 461 7369 11 22/6/2011 18:23:0 easyJambo 28 13 “‘Adam says:
22/06/2011 at 6:09 pm
Got it easyJambo ‘ If you hover over your name in the top right hand corner then you get the option to go to messages. One waiting in your inbox mate. Thanks.

Response sent – going offline for a while now”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 562 7486 12 24/6/2011 12:49:0 easyJambo 28 14 “All you legal beagles – some legal and financial interpretation required.
Rangers appear to have posted a document allowing the removal of the previviously submitted MG05s from Companies House records. My reading of it is that they have applied to the Court of Session (Lord Glennie) to have the MG05s dated 31/05/11 removed.
What does it all mean?
I’ve uploaded a copy of the doc to Scribd
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 563 7487 13 24/6/2011 12:56:0 easyJambo 28 15 “Rangers have also lodged a TM01 document with the title ‘Appointment Terminated, Director Martin Bain’ so it looks as if that element of CW’s boardroom changes has now been formalised”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 576 7501 26 24/6/2011 16:21:0 easyJambo 28 16 “Again it’s speculation on my part, but I think the timing of events is key.
The blog has been aware of the MG05s since the document dated 31st May was first lodged with Companies House
Keith Jackson ran his story in the Record on 15th June and it is that which drew attention to the possible (ab)use of ST money.
According to ‘Davie b’, Rangers petitioned to the Court of Session to have the MG05s removed on 17th June.
Darrell King ran his story in the Sunday Herald on 19th June quoting CW that there was no deal re the ST money and that the KJ story was wrong.
The Court of Session signed off the removal of the MG05s on 22nd June.
That amendment was posted to Companies House on 23rd June and here we are discussing it on 24th June.
I might be totally wrong, but the timing suggests to me that CW has been rumbled with regard to using the ST money for some other purpose. It’s all very well doing this type of thing with a non-entity of a failing company with few interested parties, but not for one that has thousands of individuals who have a vested interest in its future. He will now be aware that anything he does that involves regulatory documentation will come under public scrutiny, thus will have to look at alternative arrangements.
As things now stand the removal of the MG05s of 31st May means that the ‘floating charge’ must now revert to covering all assets as per the original charge.”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 579 7504 29 24/6/2011 16:39:0 easyJambo 28 17 “There is no amended MG05s as such. It was a document confirming the removal of the previous one.
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 581 7506 31 24/6/2011 16:44:0 easyJambo 28 18 “‘timtim says:
24/06/2011 at 4:33 pm
as for the MG05 news ,great find EJ
Whyte must hate this blog !!

It’s no great find. I just signed up to Companies House to receive alerts of any new documents submitted by RFC PLC or TRFCG Ltd. I got an alert by email this afternnoon. It doesn’t cost anything to do that although it costs £1 to view/download any document”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 598 7525 48 24/6/2011 22:56:0 easyJambo 28 19 “‘TheBlackKnight says:
24/06/2011 at 10:30 pm
Attention is drawn to item 12. (section 1096 of companies act) of the above and it’s reference at point 6. of the petition.

Are you suggesting that there is a possibility that the MG05s from 31st May is still in force, but has only been removed from the register on the basis of the presence of the material has caused, or may cause, damage to the company or LLP; and
the company’s or LLP’s interest in removing the material outweighs the interest of any other person in the material continuing to appear on the register.
i.e. because it is not on RFC’s interests that it should remain as a public document
Very sneaky if true.:-(”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 599 7526 49 24/6/2011 23:7:0 easyJambo 28 20 “Taking TBK’s point a step further, I guess that CW could argue that the Daily Record article had caused damage to the company (RFC) through its (in)accuracy, therefore the document should be removed.
This episode is becoming more convoluted by the day.”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 13 641 7571 41 27/6/2011 17:3:0 easyJambo 28 21 “How many more knock backs are Rangers going to have to take in the transfer market before the Scottish Media finally discover that their is a bigger story to explore in Whytes so called war chest. I cannot believe that no-one has broken ranks as yet, then again spring lamb is decidedly succulent at this time of year.
For the Rangers fans who contribute to the blog, has your support for CW begun to wane or are you sure that he will still come up with the goods?
If you are really stuck for new players, I’m sure the Hearts wouldn’t be too difficult to deal with if you enquired about the availability of Craig Thomson ……… please 🙂 ”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 14 667 7601 17 30/6/2011 20:59:0 easyJambo 28 22 “monster_mind – According to the Duedil website, Liberty Capital own 17.53% of MHG”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 2 52 7825 2 14/8/2011 13:26:0 easyJambo 37 1 “I’m with Earamacaroonbar line in thinking that CW is deliberately obfuscating RFC’s transfer dealings. I believe that the intent is either to get someone on the cheap (failed thus far) or deliberately underbidding, but hoping to placate supporters by appearing to be active in the market while blaming these pesky foreigners for him failing to land any of the top targets.
At the end of the transfer window we will see how the net spend on transfers marries up with the promised spending. We will then be able to judge whether or not CW (and RFC) has sufficient financial backing to see out the season.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 3 116 7890 16 15/8/2011 9:38:0 easyJambo 37 2 “Alastair Johnstons statement in RFC’s interim accounts on 1st April 2011 stated the following:
‘The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.’
The description of it as a ‘potential tax liability’ suggests that the bill hadn’t crystallised at that date, therefore Rangers weren’t in breach of UEFA/SFA Licensing criteria. It also refers to ‘player contributions’ therefore did not involve RFC executives.
Stick to the facts guys.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 3 127 7901 27 15/8/2011 14:27:0 easyJambo 37 3 “I see that Celtic have just announced their preliminary results for 2010/11. Turnover down 14.8% is not a good sign for Celtic (or Rangers). I would imagine that Rangers accounts will be similarly impacted.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 3 128 7902 28 15/8/2011 14:30:0 easyJambo 37 4 “SUMMARY OF CELTIC’S RESULTS
Financial Highlights
• Two home European matches (2010: 5).
• Group revenue £52.56m (2010: £61.72m).
• Investment in football personnel of £10.29m (2010: £13.64m).
• Year-end net bank debt of £0.53m (2010: £5.85m).
• Profit before taxation of £0.10m (2010: £2.13m loss).
• Operating expenses before exceptional items £52.50m (2010: £57.25m).
• Profit from trading before asset transactions and exceptional items of £56,000 (2010: £4.46m).
• Exceptional costs of £3.99m (2010: £3.14m)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 3 134 7908 34 15/8/2011 15:6:0 easyJambo 37 5 “‘JohnBhoy says: 15/08/2011 at 2:52 pm
Any Hibs fans out there fancy starting a Heartstaxcase blog?

‘Number 7 says: 15/08/2011 at 2:53 pm
easyJambo I think you should have a look at what’s going on at your club today.

The link that you posted was actually to MY Scribd account. 🙂 I subscribe to a Companies House service that alerts me when certain documents are posted there (for Hearts, Rangers, Celtic and others) I received an alert on Saturday night and uploaded the document myself early on Sunday morning, so I was fully aware of what is going on.
BTW: My understanding is that the bill has now been settled using funds received from RFC for Lee Wallace.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 3 143 7917 43 15/8/2011 16:22:0 easyJambo 37 6 “‘Auldheid says:15/08/2011 at 3:49 pm
That would be the accounts Rangers delayed signing to 1st April? Join the dots.’
I’m well aware of the dates involved, but if AJ made a false statement to the London Stock Exchange that this was a ‘potential tax liability’ rather than an outstanding bill or arrears, then he leaves himself open to legal proceedings.
We are where we are. Rangers, rightly or wrongly, have a licence to play for season 2011/12. Nothing is going to change that unless you can provide evidence that Rangers lied both to the SFA and the LSE. Even then it would still need the SFA and UEFA to act.
I understand that you, along with many other Celtic fans, have a great desire to twist the knife to hasten the end for RFC, but be assured that they are already bleeding to death.
What is your preference? Administration with a 10 point penalty then business as usual, or a slow lingering death where they are financially constrained for year on year.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 173 7947 23 15/8/2011 21:9:0 easyJambo 37 7 “‘TheBlackKnight says: 15/08/2011 at 8:17 pm
Hi EJ,
Have to disagree. Given the austere times and lack of European/Championship money for three years running, I believe they have done a grand job in reducing the debt.
IMHO of course. ‘
Hi BK.
I wasn’t having a go at Celtic. They have indeed done pretty well to manage their finances without CL football. All I wanted to highlight was that if Celtic are suffering a reduction in turnover to that extent then it is not good news for RFC, or any other SPL teams for that matter. Ref the PWC report on SPL finances last week.
If I wanted to have a go at Celtic, I would have said something about only making a profit because of the transfers of McGeady, Boruc and McManus, which you may not be able to repeat, or make reference to the 16.4% reduction in season ticket sales. 🙂
Rangers ST sales were only down 4.9% (following two successive SPL titles). Still not good.
My personal interest in the RFC case is one about financial doping. I know that my own club are guilty of it too. I just wish that all clubs would learn to live within their means (and the law). I have no great desire to see either Celtic or Rangers have a monopoly on CL money year after year. Without several years CL money the SPL may then become more competitive. That said, if you play well enough to get there, then so be it. You will have earned the right.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 188 7962 38 15/8/2011 21:58:0 easyJambo 37 8 “‘Adam says: 15/08/2011 at 9:40 pm
TBK ‘ in the accounts
Interest-bearing liabilities/bank loans = 10,968m
This is the outstanding loan to the Co-operative bank.’
Is that loan not mostly offset by the Cash equivalents they have of £10.818M in coming up with the net debt.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 190 7964 40 15/8/2011 22:0:0 easyJambo 37 9 “Celtic’s preliminary accounts
Credit Where Credit Is Due 5 235 8010 35 16/8/2011 10:56:0 easyJambo 37 10 “‘Auldheid says: 15/08/2011 at 11:51 pm
Easyjambo 4:42
HMRC will have the details of when the bill was served and at what point it became ovrerdue.
What AJ says from a Rangers perspective could be a reflection of his ignorance of the facts but it is irrelevant to the rules as it is not in Rangers power to decide a bill is due.
They can influence that decision but not decide when tne money is demanded.
What I want is Rangers pay their taxes and live within their means and if that means pledging all future UEFA money to HMRC and competing on a level basis with all
other Scottish clubs I would welcome that novelty.
Celtic do not factor CL money net of Europa money into their budgetting so there would be a return to the days the club with the biggest crowds has the advantage
This was never enough to stop other clubs outside Celtic and Rangers winning titles and if Hearts were also jiggery pokery free then they too might be in with a shout.
I do not want Rangers to go under, I want them to once and for all stop messing up Scottish football and every day this farce is allowed to continue by their aiders and abetters is another nail in tne integrity coffin of Scottish football

I agree with you almost 100%.
The clubs with the biggest crowds (income) will have an advantage, but in the days when that was the case there was always that chance that that a club with a good crop of players coming through together and a good coach would make the difference as in the case of Aberdeen and Dundee Utd in the 80s. We would have a much healthier game if the duopoly was broken 2 or 3 times in a decade.
But if you want financial fair play across the board, then you have to look at things like the distribution of SPL TV money. The 32% shared by the top two SPL side only serves to perpetuate the status quo, as does the 11 v 1 voting structure which aloows Celtic and Rangers to operate a a cartel (i.e. what’s in their best interests)
The SPL TV money is actually a very small proportion of Celtic and Rangers turnover, but is much more significant for the other teams. A small change in the distribution away from the top two would benefit the other teams substantially, but that would not be in the selfish interests of Celtic and Rangers.
Rant over 🙂 ”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 6 266 8042 16 16/8/2011 18:36:0 easyJambo 37 11 “It appears that Rangers received £16.8M for their participation in the CL and EL last season. I guess that it is confirmation of how the debt at takeover time was as low at £18M
Champions League
Europa League

Credit Where Credit Is Due 6 269 8046 19 16/8/2011 19:7:0 easyJambo 37 12 “Adam – Rangers stated net debt as at Jun 2010 was £27.1M including the £18M loan. The interm report issued in Apr 2011, indicated a profit of £11.9m for the 6 months to Dec 2010, mainly due to the CL monies received. I can’t believe that Rangers end of year net debt would have been any more that the £18M outstanding to Lloyds.
Had Rangers not received CL & EL money last season then the debt position would have been much worse and CW’s exposure would have been significantly more.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 633 8415 33 19/8/2011 20:9:0 easyJambo 37 13 “Like RTC, I’m getting switched off by the sheer volume of off-topic messageboard type posts.
If anyone has forgotten, the subjects covered in this blog were:
The 2nd tax bill
The financial implications of Rangers exit from the CL
CW’s promised investment in the team
Rangers cash flow
What if an insolvency event occured before the FTT resumed for the main tax case?
Can we please stick to those topics as far as possible.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 17 832 8620 32 22/8/2011 10:23:0 easyJambo 37 14 “tomtom –
The ‘Duedil’ website has Andrew Charles Peter Ellis b.2nd May 1967 as the director of TRFCG Ltd.
He is also listed as a current director of Blunham Properties Ltd and Newaston Ltd.
He is listed as a former director of 17 Lowndes Square Property Management Company, Wilton Estates Ltd and Bradfield Marketing Ltd
All are small property companies with the last two having been dissolved some years ago.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 17 834 8622 34 22/8/2011 15:54:0 easyJambo 37 15 “I think it’s worth reminding everyone of some of CW’s promises from the circular of 6th June.
1. The assigned debt will be waived should the club not suffer an insolvency event within 90 days of the end of the ‘big’ tax case and appeals process.
2. Provide £5M for investment in the playing squad
3. Provide or procure £20M further investment in the playing squad up to 2016 (any cash payment up to £5M a year for transfer fees would form part of that investment pot)
4. Provide or procure £5M for working capital
5. Pay any debt liability in connection with the Discounted Option Sceme (the ‘small’ tax case)
6. Provide £1.7M for capital expenditure on the stadium
In the event of an insolvency event before the debt is waived, the sums involved in 2., 5 & 6 will be added to the assigned debt figure.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 851 8640 1 22/8/2011 18:36:0 easyJambo 37 16 “‘Lloyd S Bank. says: 22/08/2011 at 4:40 pm
How can one waive a debt unless it actually exists to be waived. The debt must be there just now.
How does it tie in with ‘My understanding is that a material condition of the acquisition is that the investment put in ONLY becomes a debt to Rangers FC if there is an insolvency event.’
My reading, as I said earlier is that there is a debt, but that Whyte’s company will waive it so long as there is no ‘insolvency event’. That is not the same as there being no debt.

The debt certainly does exist. Extract from the statement of the Independent Board issued with the CW circular
‘Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the Club for £1 and the Club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower.’
The exact wording from the circular should an insolvency event occur.
‘Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or converted into equity, if the Club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall, the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1 (b),
(e) and (f) above.’
The paragraph references were to the items I listed as 2, 5 & 6 previously. There is no ambiguity here. The debt does exist and will be increased by the specific amounts invested by TRFCG Ltd. should an insolvency event occur either before or directly following the result of the tax case.
To that extent, any new investments being made by CW are effectively loans to RFC, UNLESS they win the tax case.
Note in the promises made re the £20M by 2016 and £5M working capital CW commits only to ‘Provide or Procure’ these sums. i.e. he could look to raise these funds from a 3rd party or even the fans, rather than invest his own money.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 888 8677 38 22/8/2011 22:38:0 easyJambo 37 17 “‘Adam says: 22/08/2011 at 9:46 pm
My opinion has always been:
1) Lloyds had a charge over all assets when we owed them £18m + Overdraft
2) Whyte paid Lloyds the £18m
3) The overdraft remained in place, at least until its renewal date which is November 2011
4) Lloyds released all the assets, except for a stated amount of season tickets
5) Those stated number of season tickets will be released when the Overdraft is withdrawn.

I can understand your thinking a bit better now with the inclusion of item 5, which is the first I’ve seen that posted (I may have missed it if you have posted it previously). However, I still believe that LBG gave up the security over the Fixed Assets at the time of the takeover. The contradictory MG05S could still have marked the release of the ST money as security for the LBG overdraft, but 4 years worth of ST money doesn’t make sense if LBG had no intention of renewing the overdraft facility.
The renewal date for the overdraft actually 31st December 2011 as stated by Alastair Johnston in the interim accounts published on 1st April ‘Bank facilities have been renewed in the normal cycle until 31 December 2011. ‘”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 898 8687 48 22/8/2011 23:25:0 easyJambo 37 18 “Adam – I suspect that both statements will be valid. The overdraft arrangement may well expire in December but will be reviewed (renegotiated) in November 🙂 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 20 957 8747 7 23/8/2011 17:55:0 easyJambo 37 19 “As an Arsenal supporter, I wonder what the acconutant’s view is of his club’s £11M settlement with HMRC in 2005.
Credit Where Credit Is Due 20 966 8759 16 23/8/2011 20:18:0 easyJambo 37 20 “Adam, – I’m definitely not ‘an’ accountant, but Arsenal definitely took a hit with a provision on their P&L in 2005. Maybe I’m just not clued up in these matters and please correct me if I’m wrong, but surely if they have allowed for it in one set of accounts there is no need to show the bill in a later set of accounts. Similarly if the bill wasn’t paid, then then there would be no need to show it in the accounts as it would just be added to bottom line operating profit in a later year. I would have expected that it would have been reported if they had won their argument with HMRC in any event.
I’m sure that is the way that Banks work with their bad debt provisions. If a bank recoups some of the money it had previously written off then it will just form part of their profit in a later year.
P&L Pre tax profit & Taxation
2004 – £10.577M – £2.425M
2005 – £19.265M – £10.972M
2006 – £15.885M – £7.983M
2007 – £5.573M – £2,757M
Based on those figures, I’d guess that Arsenal paid the full whack over the two years 2005 and 2006.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 20 990 8783 40 23/8/2011 22:20:0 easyJambo 37 21 “Each club making the EL group stages is guaranteed about 1M Euros plus so much per point, plus additional bonuses for the KO rounds, plus the Scotland element of the ‘tv pool’ which is around 2M Euros. If both Rangers and Celtic both go through then the TV pool money will be shared. I’m guessing that Hearts probably won’t make it through 😦 ”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 20 992 8785 42 23/8/2011 22:26:0 easyJambo 37 22 “‘Each club making the EL group stages is guaranteed about 1M Euros plus so much per point, plus additional bonuses for the KO rounds, plus the Scotland element of the ‘tv pool’ which is around 2M Euros. If both Rangers and Celtic both go through then the TV pool money will be shared. I’m guessing that Hearts probably won’t make it through ‘
Sorry – I read it wrong – the TV pool money will only amount to around 700K Euros.
Celtic earned a total of 1.875M euros in 2009/10 when they were Scotland’s only participant in the EL group stages.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 20 997 8790 47 24/8/2011 0:30:0 easyJambo 37 23 “‘tomtom says: 24/08/2011 at 12:15 am
Is the EL not 2 home and 2 away?

No it changed a couple of seasons ago to 3 home 3 away”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 21 1004 8797 4 24/8/2011 17:7:0 easyJambo 37 24 “‘rab says: 24/08/2011 at 4:20 pm
However, no-one addressed the point about the small tax bill, i believe it was in the accounts before the cut off date, and as such, rangers should have been banned from europe as per eufa’s regulations regarding outstanding tax liabilities. Have rangers misled the sfa, or have the sfa misled eufa.’
A provision for paymemt of the bill was recorded in Rangers interim accounts. If a payment date for the outstanding bill had been been agreed with HMRC but was after 31st March, then Rangers would not be in breach of UEFA rules or at risk of being denied a licence for 2011/12.
We can guess that Rangers either failed to make a payment due to HMRC or have been presented with a new bill, hence the recent visit from the Sheriff’s Officers. As things stand they would be art risk of being denied a licence for next season, but are ok to continue this season.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 21 1010 8804 10 24/8/2011 19:38:0 easyJambo 37 25 “Johnobhoyo – I don’t recall RTC suggesting that. It is probably worth rereading the blog posted at that time.
Credit Where Credit Is Due 23 1108 8907 8 26/8/2011 20:13:0 easyJambo 37 26 “‘Lord Wobbly says: 25/08/2011 at 9:54 pm
Hearts produce the best Scottish result of the round. My tongue is most definitely not in my cheek EasyJambo.’
Thanks LW. I’m not long back from White Hart Lane. It was a good trip and has certainly helped us forget the humiliation of the first leg.
I’ve just been catching up on the blog and I’m not surprised that it has strayed into the future of Scottish Football. I am in the same camp as Mark D, Adam, Ian F etc. However, I fear that the SPL has already fallen off the cliff and it will be a long, painful and difficult climb back.
The current business model for most SPL clubs doesn’t work and I’d expect some may end up going part time within the next couple of years. The loss of CL and EL income may help focus thinking into how we start to rebuild the game, but I don’t think that Celtic and Rangers have quite ‘got it’ yet. It may actually take the tax case and an insolvency event to be that catalyst that brings both Celtic and Rangers back into the real world, Only then can we develop the radical thinking and a framework that benefits the whole of Scottish Football and not just that of the selfish interests of Celtic and Rangers.
I have my own thoughts on what could benefit the game but this isn’t the place to discuss them.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 24 1163 8966 13 29/8/2011 21:7:0 easyJambo 37 27 “Wow! I don’t look at the blog for 24 hours and it appears is if partisan interests have taken over.
I will however answer some of the points raised about my own club.
‘Hugh McEwan says: 29/08/2011 at 3:40 pm
Forgive me if I am wrong but as I understand it Hearts are 98% owned by Romanov, or his businesses. They owe him £25m and have had recent tax problems, up to the point of HMRC petitioning the Court for an administration order.
How different is their position to the one Rangers is in. ‘
Very little difference in terms of the last reported numbers. However Hearts have settled their debts with HMRC.
The RFC tax case aside, Hearts are in deeper poo than Rangers in that their current debt level 3 or 4 times their annual turnover (depending on whether or not you include the last Debt for Equity swap), with absolutely no prospect of being able to pay it back.
Mark D’s description of the situation at Hearts is pretty spot on
‘Hugh McEwan says: 29/08/2011 at 4:50 pm
Has he written off debts. I was under the impression he converted them to equity.

Hearts debt in their last set of accounts (to 31/07/2010) was £36.1M. In November 2010, another £10M was written off in a DfE swap. Hearts are still trading at a substantial loss (wage costs were still at 115% of turnover) so there is still a long way to go to reach a break even point although I do expect that we will show good progress over the next two sets of accounts, (2010/11 & 2011/12).
In the last three years Vlad has given Hearts £22M in DfE swaps and written off a further £7.9M in simple debt forgiveness. That was the extent of Vlad’s overspending on wages and extended contracts during the first season that saw us split Celtic and Rangers then go out the the last round of CL qualifying.
The DfE swaps do get rid of debt. There is no value to Vlad in the equity as the club is technically insolvent and he is just diluting existing shareholdings (mainly his own companies’ interests)”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 24 1165 8968 15 29/8/2011 23:28:0 easyJambo 37 28 “‘SBhoy says: 29/08/2011 at 10:55 pm
May we just call him VladaMurray then?,cos he appears to be doing the same thing…………O wait, property development down GOrgie and GOvan way???
tsk tsk…’
Call him what you like. With Vlad in charge we have been as guilty of ‘Financial Doping’ as RFC, Motherwell, Livingston, Dundee, Dunfermline, Gretna etc. I’d rather Hearts lived within its means, and the law, at all times.
……. however there is one significant difference. Murray’s spending excesses were carried out using money borrowed from BoS. Vlad’s excessive spending has been largely financed by money borrowed from Vlad (i.e. his own company interests in Ukio Bankas and UBIG). Better comparisons would be between Vlad and Brookes Mileson at Gretna or current examples of Tom Farmer at Hibs or Gavin Masterton at Dunfermline (sadly it was Masterton who was in charge of BoS when Murray was allowed to borrow all his millions).”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 25 1201 9006 1 30/8/2011 17:6:0 easyJambo 37 29 “Rangers may sort out their cash flow problem if the reported Leicester City interest in Jelavic comes to fruition.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 25 1236 9045 36 1/9/2011 14:25:0 easyJambo 37 30 “Davie B – What is the security charge held on? i.e. what asset(s)”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 26 1258 9068 8 1/9/2011 20:2:0 easyJambo 37 31 “RTC’s latest Tweet about 7:55
rangerstaxcaseRangers Tax-Case
Bank accounts not frozen. HMRC have escalated process and RFC closer to serious problem if cash for bill not found. See RTC blog tomorrow.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 27 1301 9111 1 2/9/2011 0:59:0 easyJambo 37 32 “My theory on the £6.5M Jelavic offer (assuming that it actually existed) is that HMRC would get their £4.2M, Jelavic himself would get a cut as he didn’t ask for a transfer. Rapid Vienna would get a cut as a sell on fee as Jelavic’s previous club. Rangers would be left with zilch, having lost their best player. Even CW would be struggling to justify that to the fans.
Alternative 1 is to appear in a strong position with the fans, negotiate some repayment schedule with HMRC and cobble along until he can put his Plan A administration into action.
Alternative 2 is that the lack of free cash and HMRC’s demands for payment now allows him to accelerate the administration process Plan A+ before the big bill hits.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 27 1306 9116 6 2/9/2011 1:22:0 easyJambo 37 33 “I have uploaded a copy of lastest MG01S here

Looks like the security is over any money owed to the catering contractors. Doesn’t look like a major issue unless someone can tell me differently”
Leaks & Lawsuits 2 71 9250 21 2/9/2011 20:46:0 easyJambo 52 1 “Interesting series of tweets from Charles Paterson at Sky
charlesp_skyCharles Paterson
BREAKING: HMRC yesterday issued an arrestment order to the bank controlling Rangers’ finances after gaining legal authority to do so. #SSN
34 minutes ago
charlesp_skyCharles Paterson
Bank have today acted on this order & and moved/seized money ‘owed’ to HMRC into a holding account, where it will stay for 14 weeks. #SSN
33 minutes ago
charlesp_skyCharles Paterson
Rangers can appeal this decision, if not then HMRC keep the money & 2.8M tax dispute is settled. RFC accounts have NOT been frozen…
33 minutes ago
charlesp_skyCharles Paterson
To clarify: RFC accounts NOT frozen; but money has been ‘seized’ by the bank & moved out. It is illegal for HMRC to publicly comment…
14 minutes ago
charlesp_skyCharles Paterson
…but of course that doesn’t mean information doesn’t get out! RFC understandably are raging once again over this. #SSN
12 minutes ago”
Leaks & Lawsuits 2 73 9252 23 2/9/2011 21:2:0 easyJambo 52 2 “RTC – Looks like you were spot on with the end game scenario once again 🙂
I guess that CW has probably gone to a Karaoke night and is currently singing his favourite song
And now the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend I’ll say it clear
I’ll state my tax case of which I’m certain
There’s lots of apt words in the lyrics of that song.”
Leaks & Lawsuits 2 78 9257 28 2/9/2011 21:46:0 easyJambo 52 3 “‘rangerstaxcase says: 02/09/2011 at 9:26 pm
I think that I got the raising funds from the catering thing all wrong, so this looks like it is moving faster and more dramatically than I would ever have dared commit to a blog post. However, it is the endgame. Will the Huns pull rabbits out of hats? I do not know, but I hope HMRC have thought this through.

From what you and others (with contacts) have brought into the open, I think that HMRC are doing the right thing. Their timing was spot on if there was knowledge that ST installments would be coming into the account at month end. If they have indeed managed to freeze the £2.8M or thereabouts, then it is £2.8M more than they might have received had CW managed to siphon off or spend the funds.
In the short term (before the big case FTT), it will not be HMRC who will now pull the plug on RFC. It is more likely to be some other creditor. Surely there is some ‘Rangers Minded’ fan with say £5-£10m to spare that will step in to avoid the ignominity of administration.
The most plausible explanation for the MG01s that I have read is that Close have financed the refurbishment of the kitchens and catering facilities and will take repayment in the form of future catering income. It’s another ‘no cost’ investment for CW, despite his promise to fund it in the circular dated 6th June.”
Leaks & Lawsuits 3 111 9291 11 2/9/2011 23:48:0 easyJambo 52 4 “Some amateur accounting – I’ve been trying to work out Rangers cash flow needs from the last published set of full year accounts (to 30 Jun 2010)
Gate receipts + hospitality were £26M (aided by European games)
Sponsorship & Advertising £3M
Broadcasting £4M
Commercial income £22M (Mainly due to CL money ‘ was £6M the previous year)
Other Income £2M
Total £57M
Wages were £28M
Other operational costs £14M (does not include amortisation of contracts etc)
Total £42M
Best guess for STs was £17M ‘ I’m assuming that to be ‘Accruals and other deferred income’
My guess would be that income streams will be down to around £36M for this season without European games, CL money and reduced ST sales.
Costs are likely to remain around the £40M mark meaning that they need £3.33M a month to pay the bills while income is only £3M.
The ‘wee’ tax bill £2.8M is almost a month’s income plus there has been a small outflow on transfer dealings. So unless CW has actually handed the club £5M or so, that will probably be the minimum operating ‘loss’ since he came on board.
RTC – any reason why my last post at 9.46 is still awaiting moderation?”
Leaks & Lawsuits 6 284 9466 34 4/9/2011 9:41:0 easyJambo 52 5 “Does anyone know if Glasgow City Council or the Glasgow 2014 organisers have paid RFC for work in connection with preparing the stadium for the Commonwealth Games? Has this work been completed? If not I would be asking some questions about it. If RFC have still to receive some money, I would be reluctant to give them it until the tax situation(s) are resolved.
I hope that Glasgow 2014 will pay suppliers directly, but I’m sure that all you Glasgow citizens wouldn’t want your council tax being misused.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 2 76 9755 26 5/9/2011 10:34:0 easyJambo 20 2 “Lloyds must now be completely out the picture, otherwise they would still have someone on the board pulling the strings”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 4 169 9851 19 5/9/2011 16:11:0 easyJambo 20 3 “I must admit that I’m having difficulty with this blog, which offers a view that goes against so much of what was discussed at length and subsequently became the concensus view of the majority of contributors. It appears to rely much more on speculation than previous efforts.
I do believe that CW (and his backers?) may well have come to an agreement on the amount that Lloyds would accept for the assignation of the debt. That figure may well have been significantly lower that suggested £18M level of debt at that time. It would be typical of a debt recovery company buying up bad debt from a lender at a heavily discounted price.
The question I would have on that is whether CW retains a floating charge to cover the full value of the debt (lets say £18M) or would the charge only cover what CW paid for it (let’s say £10M).
If the charge covers the original £18M figure, then CW would remain on course to make a substantial profit from the deal, if he could exercise control over the timing of the step into AR should he lose the FTT decision. Ideally he would have liked to have the CL money banked before that event, but I don’t think that the outcome will be significantly different.
The major stumbling block appears to be HMRC’s determination to chase RFC hard on the ‘small’ bill. That may force CW’s hand into an early AR which would make it almost impossible to sell a debt free RFC as a going concern, while the threat of the big tax bill remained and the FTT would surely continue the process against what would still be the same company.
I’m increasingly coming to the view that an early liquidation and rebirth is the only feasible option to kill off the threat of the major tax case. Then again I might be guilty of wild speculation. 🙂 ”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 5 234 9916 34 5/9/2011 20:1:0 easyJambo 20 4 “‘Duggie73 says: 05/09/2011 at 7:08 pm
The biggest problem with seeing Whyte as having paid the full amount of the Lloyds debt c.£18mil is that it’s beyond anyone that’s looked at it to see Whyte as having made that much from his recent business ventures, then deciding to stake the entirety of his personal wealth on the one horse, as it were.
It doesn’t read as plausible. ‘
Duggie – I don’t believe that CW paid anything like the full value for the debt, hence my example that he may have paid £10m. In the circular he said that Wavetower was wholly owned by Liberty Capital Ltd which was wholly owned by himself.
Lloyds had no desire to see RFC go out of business for goodwill reasons, nor did they wish to see MIH (SDM) increase its indebtedness should RFC have lost the tax case. Hence they were desperate to get out, even as a loss on their debt.
The point that I was looking to have clarified is as follows: If CW has had the £18M assigned to him at less than full value, then RFC go into an administration, can CW use the floating charge to realise the value of assets to the full £18M, or is he restricted to getting back what he actually paid for the assignation.
I know in a bad debt recovery situation, a lender may sell a bad debt of £100 for £10. If the debt collector ultimately manages to get £11 of that debt back then he is in profit. That may be the situation that CW is in, and how he may yet be able to make a profit in an administration/ liquidation process.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 5 246 9928 46 5/9/2011 20:19:0 easyJambo 20 5 “Should the worst for RFC hand they are liquidated, how do you belive that Celtic will mark the event? 🙂
1) A minute’s silence
2) A minute’s applause
3) A rendition of God Save The Queen in honour of HMRC”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 253 9935 3 5/9/2011 20:31:0 easyJambo 20 7 “How about a late bid for Jelavic from Fenerbache? – (according to Bryan Swanson at Skyon Twitter)
skysports_bryanBryan Swanson
We’re told Fenerbahce had bid rejected by Rangers for Nikica Jelavic over weekend. Turkish window closes later tonight.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 289 9971 39 5/9/2011 21:51:0 easyJambo 20 8 “I was browsing the list of companies associated with Craig Whyte on the duedil.com website and came across an interesting entry for RFC. Duedil say that they provide a record of documents lodged at Companies House. There is a reference to a ‘Memorandum of Satisfaction from Lender Lodged’ on 26th May 2011, but there is no corresponding entry on the Companies House website.
Could this document be the confirmation to RFC of an arrangement between Wavetower (TRFCG Ltd.) and Lloyds re the assignation of the debt or that a settlement had been made between the parent company and the Bank? There are no similar entries under TRFCG Ltd.
Unfortunately, there is no document attached to the entry that can be viewed in Duedil, but I have uploaded a screenprint of what I can view to Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/64010489/RFC-Duedil-Status-05-09-11
Can anyone advise under what circumstaces a ‘Memorandum of Satisfaction from Lender Lodged’ would be made?”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 298 9981 48 5/9/2011 22:41:0 easyJambo 20 9 “Thanks TBK
Based on what you have posted and that the memorandum was from the ‘Lender’, it would suggest to me that this document was between RFC and its ‘Lender’, i.e. Lloyds. Therefore you could make an assumption that RFC had a debt or charge with Lloyds that had been cleared.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 309 9993 9 5/9/2011 23:1:0 easyJambo 20 10 “‘TheBlackKnight says: 05/09/2011 at 10:47 pm
Duggie and EJ,
Cleared in full? Or in part? Or Assigned?
Based on what we were told was happening during the period following the takeover (6th May) my take would be confirmation that RFC were no longer in debt to Lloyds. The assumption that has been made consistently since then is that TRFCG had been assigned the RFC debt that was formerly with Lloyds. Thus RFC were now in debt to TRFCG Ltd.
Despite the questions that have been raised by RTC and P.Mac, today, that is what I believe remains the situation. What I / we don’t know is what if anything CW paid Lloyds for the debt.'”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 312 9996 12 5/9/2011 23:17:0 easyJambo 20 11 “Duggie – Confirmation that it was expected to happen in this extract from the statement made by the independent board on 6th May. This was also included in the CW circular dated 6th June
Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the Club for £1 and the Club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower.

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 316 10000 16 5/9/2011 23:23:0 easyJambo 20 12 “also …. from the material conditions in the CW circular released on 6th June
1a) if the Club has not suffered an insolvency event within 90 days of the Club’s appeal in relation
to the tax claim brought against the Club by HM Revenue & Customs (the ‘Tax Case’) being
finally determined, then The Rangers FC Group will either waive the debt that it has acquired or convert it into equity by way of an issue of new voting ordinary shares in the Club. The acquisition of the debt by The Rangers FC Group is described further at paragraph 2 below. However, The Rangers FC Group has separately undertaken to the Club that it will waive the debt that it has acquired and not exercise its option to convert it into equity as provided for in the Agreement;
2. Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or converted into equity, if the Club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall, the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1 (b), (e) and (f) above.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 319 10003 19 5/9/2011 23:31:0 easyJambo 20 13 “TBK – we are only discussing this again because RTC has used this particular blog to raise the possibility of some alternative arrangement between CW and Lloyds without the evidence to support the theory. If RTC or P.Mac can come up with some proof of such an alternative then I could go with it, but otherwise I’m still aligned with the original thinking.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 330 10014 30 5/9/2011 23:58:0 easyJambo 20 14 “Duggie – I think we are in danger of reinvenyting the wheel here.
We have to take CW statements in the circular at face value as being what was the plan on that date. The document went to all shareholders and would also have gone to the Stock Exchange.
We discussed the ‘responsibility’ for Section III at the time and the consensus view was that it should have been Section II (the Independent Board statement). It was probably due to how each section was sequenced into the final document.
I think we can leave it at that.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 8 374 10059 24 6/9/2011 9:54:0 easyJambo 20 15 “The Levy McCrae case is another example of the tardiness and inexcusable non reporting of negative articles against RFC by the Scottish media. Paulie Walnuts advised us of the pending court case on Thursday of last week. It is now Tuesday and only now do we get the first press acknowledgement of the existence of the case, but without any apparent investigation or comment on why the action was brought.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 9 408 10093 8 6/9/2011 12:5:0 easyJambo 20 16 “Ciaran’s Dad- good to have you back.
I don’t have knowledge of the administration process either, but from reading the various ‘experts’, I think that RFC are currently headed for a double whammy of administration prior to the FTT outcome and a second administration / liquidation after it.
I’m sure that CW had planned for only a single insolvency event in the event of the FTT going against him and that he would be able to sustain the club until then through CL income.
Let’s say CW pulls the plug within the next couple of months saying that he can’t pay the small tax bill penalty or normal VAT or PAYE dues. Administration follows. Assets are realised (players or fixed assets are sold to pay off CW and the other creditors) The administrator continues to attempt to run the club as a going concern in the absence of a buyer willing to take on future tax liabilities. Rangers take a 10 point hit.
The FTT subsequently rules in HMRC’s favour, then the administrator is forced to sell the remaining assets (payers) and either extend the administration beyond that allowed by the SPL or liquidate the club. Rangers, at best, are hit with a 25 point penalty (ref Dundee) or are shut down and forced to reapply to the SPL as a pheonix club.
I honestly can’t see Murray getting involved at any point in the future as Lloyds wouldn’t allow it given the perilous state of MIH finances. If SDM has say £30M to re-invest in a pheonix RFC, then I think that Lloyds would be pressing him to use those funds to reduce the MIH debt to them”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 9 430 10115 30 6/9/2011 13:11:0 easyJambo 20 17 “Mark D – I agree 100% with what you have said about the JW case..”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 10 465 10151 15 6/9/2011 14:22:0 easyJambo 20 18 “Jock T – On websites I viewed after the assault, there was much debate on whether or not the aggravation could be proved.
I attended the the Hearts AGM a few weeks after the event and listened to Chief Exec David Southern expresss his dismay about the assault and confirm that JW had been banned from Tynecastle for life with immediate effect. He outlined the discussions with police and stewards that had been taken prior to the game and that it had been given the highest category of risk and was manned accordingly.
He also also reported that there had been an injury to a policeman, a steward and two ball boys (one of whom needed hospital treatment) at the Celtic end that evening. It odd that such events have not been subject to wider media scrutiny in the same way as the Lennon assault has been.
Celtic have had another Northern Irish catholic manager who was regularly seen in exuberant celebration of goals or results who was not subject to religious aggravation from the Hearts support. My reading of the thoughts of the wider Hearts support is that there is a general dislike of the man and not his religion.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 10 467 10153 17 6/9/2011 14:24:0 easyJambo 20 19 “Jock T – On websites I viewed after the assault, there was much debate on whether or not the aggravation could be proved.
I attended the the Hearts AGM a few weeks after the event and listened to Chief Exec David Southern expresss his dismay about the assault and confirm that JW had been banned from Tynecastle for life with immediate effect. He outlined the discussions with police and stewards that had been taken prior to the game and that it had been given the highest category of risk and was manned accordingly.
He also reported that there had been an injury to a policeman, a steward and two ball boys (one of whom needed hospital treatment) at the Celtic end that evening. It odd that such events have not been subject to wider media scrutiny in the same way as the Lennon assault has been.
Celtic have had another Northern Irish catholic manager who was regularly seen in exuberant celebration of goals or results who was not subject to religious aggravation from the Hearts support. My reading of the thoughts of the wider Hearts support, rightly or wrongly, is that there is a general dislike of the man, Neil Lennon, and not his religion.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 10 474 10160 24 6/9/2011 14:41:0 easyJambo 20 20 “I’ll echo that

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 10 491 10177 41 6/9/2011 15:28:0 easyJambo 20 21 “Jock T – thanks for taking the time to respond in a reasoned way. I was at the game and will just add one comment. After the game I read severval threads on KDS which I considered to be perfectly reasonable and fair. One particular post, supported by others at the game, reflected the atmosphere on the night. ‘I thought I had gone back to the 70s’.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 12 592 10279 42 6/9/2011 22:32:0 easyJambo 20 22 “RTC – the ‘Don’s’ analysis would appear to pour cold water on the theory you put forward in this blog.
‘However, a source has approached me with information that Whyte’s deal to purchase Rangers’ bank debt was something other than what Whyte and his co-conspirators in the Scottish media have made out. I am told that Whyte has indeed signed a contract obliging him to buy Rangers’ debt but that he has not paid for much of that debt, possibly not any of it.’
As others have suggested the ‘Lex Parsimoniae’ approach may be more appropriate, unless you can tell us more about the ‘source’
CW may not have paid full value for the debt, but I think that is as far as anyone can reasonably speculate at this point, unless of course if you ‘know’ differently”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 13 629 10317 29 7/9/2011 9:56:0 easyJambo 20 23 “If the floating charge was retained by Lloyds, then why was it that Phil Betts signed the MG05s at the end of May as the creditor (or authorised to act for the creditor)?
I know that the original creditor, Bank of Scotland, was still named as the creditor in that document, but my view is that retaining details of the original charge holder and the date simply provides provenance that the charge pre-dates changes in legislation that affect the AR process.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 13 630 10318 30 7/9/2011 10:27:0 easyJambo 20 24 “I’ve just had a read through the last accounts for Merchant House Corporate Recovery (who had investments in Countryliner and LM Logistics), of whom CW is a director and whose ownership forms part of the Liberty / MHG net of companies.
MHCR’s ‘Investment objectives and strategies’, specifically their policy onn interest charges, perhaps give an indication of how much CW could be charging RFC in interest for the assigned debt.
‘Interest will be payable by borrowers on a monthly basis and will be generally at a rate of 2% or 3% of the amount advanced per month calculated on the amount outstanding each day. Where a borrower is unable to repay the facility within the initial period, the Company will have the option of continuing the facility at a higher rate or calling its security in order to obtain repayment’
…. and I thought the the interest rates on the Glazers PIKs was excessive 🙂 ”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 14 690 10378 40 7/9/2011 18:13:0 easyJambo 20 25 “Duggie – there is at least some evidence (albeit some of it is circumstantial) that TRFCGLtd hold the debt. The public statements by CW that RFC had no bank debt, the circular to shareholders and the stock exchange, the ‘Memorandum of Satisfaction from Lender Lodged’ by RFC
Can you show some evidence to the contrary other than a gut feel that CW is a liar.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 14 697 10385 47 7/9/2011 18:47:0 easyJambo 20 26 “Duggie – have a look at this Merchant Capital press release and you may find the source of CW’s financial backing to pay Lloyds. Check who has been appointed to the advisory board of a fund which was looking to raise £50M to invest in ‘companies that are struggling to secure finance from traditional sources.’
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 15 710 10398 10 7/9/2011 19:18:0 easyJambo 20 27 “Duggie – CW is involved in a number of inter-connected companies that trade as Merchant xxxxx or Liberty xxxxxxx.
One of the companies Merchant Capital was seeking to raise £50M that they could then invest in other companies where there is a prospect of turning a profit. The attraction to investors in the Merchant Capital Fund may be a promise of let’s say a 7% return on capital invested.
Now let’s take a hypothetical series of transactions.
Multiple Investors pay a total of £50M into the Merchant Capital Fund
Wavetower receives (borrows) an investment of £18M from the fund at an interest rate of 10% (7% goes back to investors leaving a 3% profit for MC)
Wavetower pay off Lloyds with the £18M, leaving RFC in debt to Wavetower for the £18M.
Wavetwower starts charging RFC 15% on the loan (10% goes to MC leaving a 5% profit for Wavetower)
RFC goes into AR.
Assets are sold off raising £18M.
CW pays the original £18M loan back to Mercahnt Capital.
Everybody makes a nice little profit and in particular CW who has also been siphoning off cash from RFC as salary, consulantacy fees etc.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 761 10450 11 7/9/2011 21:26:0 easyJambo 20 28 “Duggie, johnbhoyo, TBK et al.
The scenario I painted is just a hypothesis, as are the sums involved and interest rates I used.
However, I do think that is a possibility of how CW is / was funded. It may or may not not be one of the MHG companies involved but the principle of using Rangers as a cash cow initially, then liquidating the club when the free cash runs out to get the capital investment back seems a reasonable line of thinking.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 18 879 10573 29 8/9/2011 12:7:0 easyJambo 20 29 “I suspect that in normal circumstances Vlad wouldn’t have given Rangers the time of day. Accepting an installment plan may have much more to do with Hearts facing an HMRC threat of administration than the financial status of RFC.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 19 933 10628 33 8/9/2011 19:27:0 easyJambo 20 30 “‘Paulie Walnuts says: 08/09/2011 at 7:01 pm
The rule on transferability is that to date it has not been thought to be transferable. CVA has been the only way out (apart from the whole Airdrie Utd/Clydebank kind of deal). Which is not to say that a secial case could never be made for ‘the Rangers’

After what happened to Clydebank, I guess that there would be nothing to stop an individual or group of ‘Rangers minded’ folk with a few million to spare, buying St Mirren then moving them lock stock and barrel to Ibrox and renaming them as ‘Glasgow Rangers’
No offence to any ‘Buddies’ out there, but you are probably the cheapest SPL club to buy with no debt.:)”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 19 941 10636 41 8/9/2011 19:50:0 easyJambo 20 31 “AN Other – The problem with Queens Park is that they don’t have an SPL place.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 19 949 10644 49 8/9/2011 20:37:0 easyJambo 20 32 “AN Other – A ground share with Queens Park would be an eminently sensible option, particularly if the ‘new’ Ibrox owner played hardball with rent or other charges.
It would probably please them even more if they felt that they were getting an advantage over Celtic and all other clubs of playing cup semis and finals there.
I guess there would then be claims of bias from Celtic and demands that the national stadium should no longer be desiganted as such and that some other arrangement for neutral or rotating venues for finals would have to implemented.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 20 951 10646 1 8/9/2011 20:50:0 easyJambo 20 33 “‘Hugh McEwan says: 08/09/2011 at 8:07 pm
Celtic and Rangers get most because their games are on more and they are the draw.

That’s not strictly true (at least in terms of their games being on more).
All 12 SPL clubs get 4% of the pot each (48% total). The remaining 52% is based on final league position. That is where the major inequality comes in.
1st gets a total of 17% (4% + 13%)
2nd 15%
then a big drop to
3rd 9.5%
4th 8.5%
5th 8%
6th 7.5%
The complaint from the smaller clubs is that 32% of the pot almost exclusively goes to the same two clubs, to the detriment of every other team.
Those two clubs will argue that is is open for any other club to finish 1st or 2nd, thus get the biggest share.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 20 968 10663 18 8/9/2011 21:43:0 easyJambo 20 34 “Potential league table if RFC goes into administration tomorrow 🙂
1 Motherwell 6 4 13
2 Celtic 5 8 12
3 Hearts 6 3 8
4 Dunfermline 5 0 8
5 St Mirren 6 -1 8
6 Kilmarnock 5 2 6
7 Dundee Utd 6 -4 6
8 St Johnstone 5 -2 5
9 Inverness CT 6 -6 4
10 Aberdeen 6 -6 4
11 Rangers 5 9 3
12 Hibernian 5 -7 3
It’s pretty shocking that Hibs are that bad that they would still be bottom 🙂 ”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 20 971 10666 21 8/9/2011 21:53:0 easyJambo 20 35 “JJ – we don’t know the status of their other current outgoings. £1M PAYE + NIC a month, probably more for VAT from the ST renewals / installments. They may even pull the plug on the MB case and agree to pay £1M in compensation, then say they can’t afford to pay it.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 23 1131 10834 31 9/9/2011 15:58:0 easyJambo 20 36 “Sensitive chaps over at Edminston Drive
stvmikeMike Edwards retweeted by Follow_Follow_
Rangers withdraw cooperation with Herald, Sunday Herald and Evening Times over legal bill story.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 23 1140 10843 40 9/9/2011 16:30:0 easyJambo 20 37 “Sam – I guess that Gavin MacCall must have been recast as the Invisible Man
‘Gavin MacCall, counsel for Rangers, confirmed that agreement had been reached.'”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 23 1142 10845 42 9/9/2011 16:34:0 easyJambo 20 38 “Seems like our Gavin MacColl(sp corrected) has a penchant for ‘Corporate Insolvency cases’ amongst others
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 24 1151 10854 1 9/9/2011 17:4:0 easyJambo 20 39 “Sam – I’m happy to discuss the facts. Like RFC have an arrestment served on their account following non payment of a bill to HMRC. Two appearences in a week at the Court of Session in connection with non-payment of a bill to their former legal represenatives., or are these just nasty rumours being put around by people with an agenda.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 24 1156 10859 6 9/9/2011 17:17:0 easyJambo 20 40 “Sam – I wish I had done what I had planned to do this morning and actually gone to watch the court proceedings and sit in the Public Gallery. Unfortunately, it was peeing down in Edinburgh all morning, so I watched the Rugby instead.
But as it was not on the internet list, I would have ended up watching a virual case.
Sam – I suggest that you grow a pair and start facing facts. (Unless of course your full name in Samantha, in which case you would probably be able to twitch your nose and all would magically turn out fine) 🙂 ”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 24 1186 10890 36 9/9/2011 20:10:0 easyJambo 20 41 “One element of cashflow that hasn’t been discussed to my knowledge is the average time to pay creditors. The last set of full year accounts (to Jun 10) gave this average as 23 days, which is a very creditable figure. If CW pushes that figure out to something like 90 days for discretionery spending (i.e. not wages), then he has just created a one-off cash windfall for himself of something like 3 million. (Rangers average spend will be about £3.5M a month with 60-65% going in wages).
It’s worth comparing this with Hearts where Vlad inherited an average of 36 days in 2004, a figure that has gone out to 94 days last year.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 25 1213 10919 13 9/9/2011 22:59:0 easyJambo 20 42 “Paulie – In the BBC report Levy and McCrae’s representative said
‘Any fault, he suggested, lay with London-based solicitor Gary Withey who is Rangers’ company secretary.’
Might be the London connection you refer to.”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 26 1286 10995 36 10/9/2011 3:16:0 easyJambo 20 43 “Duggie73 says 10/09/2011 at 3:07 am
my best guess would be that someone’s squealed. If there’s any conspiracy it relies on everyone keeping mum- in the face of possible jail time, taking the immunity option has to be tempting, and there’s no point being 2nd to do so.
I don’t think so. RTC said he had a link to a file. That suggests that it is a document, e.g. a security, maybe the amended MG05s, maybe a Ticketus type agreement. The potential files are numerous.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 1 34 11045 34 10/9/2011 9:52:0 easyJambo 29 1 “RTC – you have finally been outed. You are Martin Bain 🙂 or at least you should be given the accuracy of what has come out in the various blogs. Great find BTW.”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 1 39 11050 39 10/9/2011 10:5:0 easyJambo 29 2 “I really hope the source is in a legally protected position of not having any connection with MB lawyers.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 2 59 11071 9 10/9/2011 10:46:0 easyJambo 29 3 “It’s amazing that Martin Bain is now seen by some to be the good guy in this tale, given that he was an integral part of the tax arrangements that have brought RFC to the edge of insolvency.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 3 145 11160 45 10/9/2011 14:53:0 easyJambo 29 4 “Here is a link to a 2003 article about the uprating to the valuation of the stadium and Murray Park

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 4 152 11167 2 10/9/2011 15:0:0 easyJambo 29 5 “Just heard the statement on BBC. There was no denial about the content of the papers, only a complaint about the ‘whispering campaign’ against the club.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 4 170 11186 20 10/9/2011 16:18:0 easyJambo 29 6 “Where do the latest revelations leave us?
The extent of the actions to raise or retain cash is probably key. Mortgaging 4 years worth of STs, Catering contracts, stopping payments to creditors, disputing the MB dismissal case, disputing the small HMRC bill and that’s the ones we know about.
Could it be that CW has pulled a fast one and arranged for a short term financing deal with some venture capitalists looking for a quick profit, in order to purchase of the debt from Lloyds. With the funds raised from the ST deal (say £25M-£30M) he could already have actually paid off his backers who provided the finance. That could have been anything up to the £18M mooted as the debt at the takeover point, while he banks the rest.
CW would be left retaining the security of RFC’s debt to him (TRFCG Ltd) of £18M+, charging RFC a punitive rate of interest for the privilige, plus holding the cash balances which in all probability are diminishing fast as he takes a substantial salary and consultancy fees.
All in all he may already be in ‘profit’ and he still has the accruals from the sale of assets once he finally pulls the plug. It could well be a very efficient asset stripping venture, with the fans bearing a substantial part of the cost.”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 5 250 11268 50 10/9/2011 22:23:0 easyJambo 29 7 “I guess that the outstanding balance on the Jelavic transfer from Rapid would have been another consideration for turning down the alleged £6.5M bid from Leicester. Like selling a car I don’t think it is possible to sell on a footballer who has outstanding finance on him.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 6 253 11271 3 10/9/2011 22:33:0 easyJambo 29 8 “‘Duggie73 says: 10/09/2011 at 10:21 pm
guys, the MG05 came out AFTER Bain has left his job never to return.
Not necessarily. MB was suspended at a Board Meeting on 23rd May (he was in the US on business on that day).
The MG05s is not dated as to when it was signed by Phil Betts. Companies House logged it on 26th May. I would assume it was posted to them, so I’d hazard a guess that it was probably signed (and any associated deal agreed) before Bain left.'”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 6 261 11279 11 10/9/2011 22:55:0 easyJambo 29 9 “Henry Clarson says: 10/09/2011 at 10:15 pm
After I wrote the entry you commented on, I revisted the Jun 6th Circular as I had it in my mind that he had committed not to do this (i.e. ‘borrow’ money from RFC). The circular does indeed say that he won’t borrow from RFC, but adds the caveat ‘unless the borrowing (and the granting of the security in relation to it) is principally for the club’s benefit’
The London bankers scenario seems plausible. I certainly know that Hearts have similar issues with their main financing coming from Lithuania as and when required (occasionally means late payment of wages)”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 6 263 11281 13 10/9/2011 22:59:0 easyJambo 29 10 “Johnobhoyo – I’m sure a sell-on transfer could go through, but it would mean that a portion of it would have to go to the players previous club.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 6 267 11285 17 10/9/2011 23:11:0 easyJambo 29 11 “Timtim / Auldheid I think you are right in your understanding of how a Ticketus type deal works.
The 100K STs involved a 4 year deal probably have a face value of £40M (after VAT). If RFC did receive £30M as their resale value in May or June, £10M would be due to be paid back around now as Year 1’s (2011/12) repayment, leaving CW with £20M
Such deals only help your cash flow in the first year as you are guaranteed to have a shortfall in subsequent years as your free ST income is slashed, by £10M for the next 3 years.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 9 446 11468 46 11/9/2011 16:0:0 easyJambo 29 12 “‘JJ says: 11/09/2011 at 3:41 pm
Has anyone seen Sam, TheAccountant and ME in the same room?

Only in a room with smoke and mirrors.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 12 552 11576 2 11/9/2011 21:14:0 easyJambo 29 14 “Looks like the press are finally going to tell the real story
@GrahamSpiersGraham Spiers
My column in The Times tomorrow: the state of Rangers FC, heading for financial meltdown, and the moral culpability of Sir David Murray.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 12 563 11587 13 11/9/2011 21:39:0 easyJambo 29 15 “Henry C – perhaps ‘real’ was more in hope than expectation, but I do think that the shackles have been loosened by the realease of the ‘Bain Papers’ and a lack of direct feeds from CW. I do hope that Spiers and Co. do start questioning the role of SDM in this debacle.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 14 659 11684 9 12/9/2011 1:14:0 easyJambo 29 16 “Graham Spiers has now posted his articles. Unfortunately you need a subscription to view them in full.
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 15 745 11779 45 12/9/2011 13:50:0 easyJambo 29 17 “Where are folk getting the information that Rangers have sold 40,000+ STs?
The last published figures were:
2008/09 – 43,107
2009/10 – 40,306
2010/11 – 38,331 (based on a 4.9% reduction reported by A.Johnston in the last interim report)
2011/12 – ????? (I’d guess probably no more than 37,000 given the uncertainty re the takeover)
I know there’s been a recession, but for a team that has won 3 successive SPL titles it’s a pretty poor set of stats.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 15 748 11782 48 12/9/2011 14:8:0 easyJambo 29 18 “Tweet just out from FF
Follow_Follow_Follow Follow
Mr. Whyte talking to the daily journos this afternoon. Hopefully something interesting to come but don’t hold breath.
I won’t hold my breath either 🙂 ”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 16 751 11785 1 12/9/2011 14:20:0 easyJambo 29 19 “P.Mc. now saying the Rangers paid the €500,000 to Rapid for Jelavic on Friday.
That would in some ways support the view of some on this blog that RFC are hoarding cash (offshore or in London) and paying out only when issues are raised in the public domain, either through the courts or press / media / internet blogs.”
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 16 778 11812 28 12/9/2011 16:0:0 easyJambo 29 20 “STV now confirming what P.Mc tweeted earlier re the payment to Rapid Vienna. However the STV story adds that there is still a further installment to be paid.
Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 17 810 11845 10 12/9/2011 18:22:0 easyJambo 29 21 “New blog now posted
Analysis of the Bain Papers 12/9/2011 45 4 2405 49 214 12/9/2011 18:27:0 easyJambo 2/10/2011 12:1:0 tenerifetim
Analysis of the Bain Papers 1 1 11846 1 12/9/2011 18:27:0 easyJambo 1 1 “No real new iformation here RTC
Securitisation of Season Tickets – we don’t know
Assignmenmt of the debt – we don’t know
Amount of the tax bill – Established (as at 23rd May)”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 1 3 11848 3 12/9/2011 18:29:0 easyJambo 1 2 “apologies – my spelling is getting worse. Probably due to a mis-spelt youth 🙂 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 1 8 11853 8 12/9/2011 18:41:0 easyJambo 1 3 “No problem RTC – we are spoilt.
It may have been worth holding back with this particular blog until you heard or were given a heads up on the feedback from today’s meeting between CW and the printed press (excl Herald + ET etc.)
Then again it may give you material for the next one.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 1 21 11866 21 12/9/2011 19:9:0 easyJambo 1 4 “Johnboy & Private Land – I think Mark Dingwall actually came across reasonably well. You wouldn’t expect him to want to put the boot it, but I think he is fully aware of the potenial outcomes. I’m sure that it was he who first reported that HMRC had obtained an arrestment on RFC’s accounts for the small bill, so fair play to him.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 2 55 11902 5 12/9/2011 19:55:0 easyJambo 1 5 “Spiers latest tweet doesn’t fill me with confidence that he has seen the light. 😦
GrahamSpiersGraham Spiers
Intriguing stuff from Craig Whyte in tomorrow’s papers. I’ve been a Whyte sceptic since Day 1, and still am, but he batted away well today.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 5 227 12079 27 13/9/2011 11:12:0 easyJambo 1 6 “Quote from the Times article
‘When I took over the club back in May we eradicated the bank debt to the Lloyds Banking Group – but that seems to have got lost along the way. We have inherited a mess from the previous management and there are a lot of issues we are working through just now. But I repaid the debt. I now own the club’s debt so we don’t need to deal with Lloyds anymore’
Whatever nuances you wish to take from the words used, I remain convinced that Lloyds are no longer involved.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 5 231 12083 31 13/9/2011 11:23:0 easyJambo 1 7 “A further quote from the Times article
‘In fact, we spent around £5.9 million this year. I know that has been treated with some cynicism by some, but we actually did spend that in net terms , including transfer fees, agents fees,etc.’
As Patrick Campbell might have said ‘b..b…b..bluff!'”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 5 245 12097 45 13/9/2011 12:10:0 easyJambo 1 8 “Johnboy – I have access to Rangers Media Investments accounts of to 30th June 10. There is no evidence of any business being carried out during that year.
In the notes to the accounts it states:
‘A loan of £15M to the Rangers Football Club PLC was waived in 2009’
‘As a wholly owned subsidiary the company is exempt from the requirements of FRS 8 to disclose transactions with other wholly owned members of the group headed by Rangers Football Club plc’
I’ll see what I can find out with the AR01 SOC”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 5 249 12101 49 13/9/2011 12:28:0 easyJambo 1 9 “Johnboy – There is nothing in new in the Statement of Capital for Rangers Media Investments which just looks like their annual return.
There are 15M Preference shares in the name of Rangers Footbal Club PLC and 500 Ordinary shares also in the name of RFC plc. held as at 30/05/11.
I suspect that SDM deposited £15M of capital for 15M shares when the company was set up in 2000. RMI then gave RFC plc a loan of £15M sometime around 2006/07. The loan was subsequently waived in 2009.
No smoking gun I’m afraid.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 7 325 12182 25 13/9/2011 17:48:0 easyJambo 1 10 “If the suggested sum is £500k, then I’d guess that Lord Hodge decided against the inclusion of Bonus payments. He must be sharp for a Judge to know that Rangers have little hope of reaching the CL or EL group stages in the short term. 🙂 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 7 337 12194 37 13/9/2011 18:46:0 easyJambo 1 11 “Traynor on Sportsound saying that CW wrote a cheque for £1M to James Beattie.
Now that is a fine piece of business…… not!”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 7 340 12197 40 13/9/2011 18:56:0 easyJambo 1 12 “‘Lord Wobbly says: 13/09/2011 at 6:53 pm
I am really fed up with that echo 😦

You can say that again 🙂 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 8 355 12212 5 13/9/2011 20:13:0 easyJambo 1 13 “‘bhoyant says: 13/09/2011 at 7:59 pm
The points deduction in SPL for going into administration is 15 points according to Clyde1 was with Gretna being the precedent.

According to the SPL rule book it’s 10 points
A6.8 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event that Club shall be deducted 10 points. Where the Insolvency Event occurs during the Season, the points deduction shall apply immediately. Where the Insolvency Event occurs during the Close Season the points deduction shall apply in respect of the immediately following Season, such that the Club starts that immediately following Season on minus 10points.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 12 570 12438 20 14/9/2011 10:17:0 easyJambo 1 14 “As a side issue, there seems a high probability that RFC won’t have a licence to play in Europe next season, even if they finish 1 st or 2nd in the SPL, due to outstanding tax bills, being in administration, or having been reborn. That could leave a CL qualifying place and EL fallback open to whoever finishes 3rd in the SPL. Worth thinking about for Hearts, Dundee Utd, Motherwell etc.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 13 617 12486 17 14/9/2011 14:7:0 easyJambo 1 15 “‘Auldheid says: 14/09/2011 at 10:40 am’
Sorry for the delay in responding – I was out for a while.
There is no way we should be changing rules mid-season re any points penalty. Your plea to delay any penalty until 2012/13 sounds extremely partisan
If Hearts are denied a licence because of their financial status, then so be it. The club are aware of the rules and should be working to ensure they are not in breach of them. Hearts, like Rangers, Dundee Utd, Dunfermline, even Celtic and others have been living beyond their means for years, paying wages that appear to be inversely proportional to the quality of the players on the park.
I respect your views on tainted titles and the case for reviewing what happened re the licensing of RFC for this season, but I think you are flogging a dead horse. We are where we are and I don’t see any prospect of any action being taken retrospectively. RFC’s punishment for their misdemeanours has yet to determined and could be anything up to their liquidation.
Some questions for you? Should Rangers go into liquidation, do you think that Celtic would support the readmission of RFC 2012 directly into the SPL? If yes, will you lobby them not to?
Should Rangers be omitted and the SPL rules remain unchanged, how would you feel if Celtic were left isolated in an 10-1 or 11-1 vote for a more equitable redistribution of TV revenues?”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 13 633 12506 33 14/9/2011 15:40:0 easyJambo 1 16 “Not the huddle….
I’m with you 100% on your position..
Auldheid – I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the TV money distribution. It’s such inequalities that only serve to maintain them. The SPL TV rights are negotiated as a collective deal and should be distributed as such.
It used to be that travelling Celtic and Rangers fans would significantly boost the match day receipts of all the other clubs. That is diminishing year on year as armchair Celtic and Rangers fans increasingly choose to stay at home and watch their away games live, a service that is denied to the fans of other teams when they visit Celtic Park or Ibrox, i.e it’s the home teams that lose out on revenue and not Celtic or Rangers. It’s a double whammy.
I would be comfortable beating Rangers into 2nd place by a point if it was does within the rules, including any 10 point penalty. My only concern would be if we were edged into 2nd place by Hibs 🙂 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 13 641 12514 41 14/9/2011 16:23:0 easyJambo 1 17 “Hugh – The limit is 4 home gaves covered each season. For Celtic and Rangers that would normally mean games against one another, vital games in the run up to winning (or losing the SPL) and the opening ame of the season for the champions – all tend to be sell outs
I’d quite happily stuff the TV contract and limit live games to those that are sell outs. If the TV companies want to buy up spare tickets, then give them away to create sell outs, then so be it.
The EPL is merit based, but from the last figures I have (2009/10) the bottom club got 62% of what the top club got. The corresponding figure in the SPL is 26%.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 13 642 12515 42 14/9/2011 16:25:0 easyJambo 1 18 “gave or ame = game 😦 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 13 649 12524 49 14/9/2011 16:49:0 easyJambo 1 19 “‘Paulie Walnuts says: 14/09/2011 at 4:16 pm’
Fair comment, and I plead guilty of taking the blog off topic to some extent today.
However, it is essentially ‘football fans’ reviewing the blog rather than ‘tax officials’, so it is hardly surprising that posters look at the possible footballing consequences of the tax case on quiet news days.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 792 12669 42 14/9/2011 23:7:0 easyJambo 1 20 “‘TheBlackKnight says:14/09/2011 at 9:53 pm
Droid and I discussed the very sane last night. It’s a bit of ‘whatiffery’ but if the money alleged to have been put in Rangers Media Account, was placed there by MB to help the club?, and as PMacG is now suggesting, the Whyte Knight cannot get his wee lance into the funds (only MB can do that as signatory), do you think the best course of action is to try to tarnish MB’s name, reduce the money available, thus increasing the debt to TRFCGLtd (Wavebyebye)?

I looked into that yesterday after ‘Johnbhoy’ picked it up. The Statement of Capital submitted as at 30/05/11, showed that Rnagers Media Investments had 15M preference shares of £1 and 500 Ordinary shares of £1 as capital. All shares were owned by RFC plc. Oddly enough, Bain and McIntyre remain as the directors of RMI. 🙂
I’m not an accountant so I could be wrong, but checks on previous financial information appear to show that SDM deposited the £15M as capital when RMI was set up in 2000. RMI then gave a loan to RFC plc around 2006/07. That loan was waived in 2009.
There were no transactions recorded in the 2010 accounts.
As I said to Johnbhoy, there’s no indication of a smoking gun there.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 793 12670 43 14/9/2011 23:8:0 easyJambo 1 21 “forgot to add that the Loan was £15M”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 20 952 12834 2 15/9/2011 21:32:0 easyJambo 1 22 “I’ve located the ‘missing’ £15M that Rangers acquired from Rangers Media Investments. It was reported as an exceptional gain in RFC plc accounts for 2005.
‘The profit on ordinary activities before tax of £12.4m (2004 – loss £5.9m) does include the gain on player sales, and an exceptional gain on the purchase of shares in our subsidiary company Rangers Media Investments Ltd. These shares had been issued for £15.0m on 12 June 2000 and were acquired back by the Club for £1 on 30 June 2005 creating an exceptional gain in the accounts of £15.0m.’
This was reported as a ‘loan’ in the RMI accounts but its repayment was waived in 2009. As as result, the Shareholder funds remaining in RMI amount to just £500, instead of the £15,000,500 initial capital when the subsidiary was set up in 2000.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1191 13086 41 17/9/2011 14:28:0 easyJambo 1 23 “From RFC accounts 1999/2000
DE Murray Chairman
DJ Odam Finance Director (app 30/03/00) previously Financial controller since 1989
RC Ogilve (Exec Director / Secretary)
IB Skelly
DP Levy
J MacDonald
DC King (app 30/03/00)
JDG Wilson (app 08/06/00)
HRW Adam (resigned 30/09/00)”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1303 13200 3 18/9/2011 1:13:0 easyJambo 1 24 “RTC – I’m afraid that your requests to stay on topic have evidently failed, as the last few days posts have become increasingly ‘Celtic – minded’. I’m afraid that it time for me to refrain from making further posts.
I guess the rot set in around the time of the HMRC arrestment of the RFC account, after which a triumphalism appeared with several new posters jumping on the bandwagon, almost exclusively Celtic fans. You also lost the balancing views of ‘Adam’ at that point and I’d suggest that you take direct action to restrict the contributions to the specifics of the tax case or you risk the blog becoming just another Celtic forum.
I will of course continue to view the blog periodically as it reamains the best source of information on the tax case thanks to yourself and the likes of Onand x3, the Don and Paulie Walnuts to name but a few.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 32 1594 13509 44 21/9/2011 1:2:0 easyJambo 1 25 “‘spanglebhoy says: 21/09/2011 at 12:10 am
I am afraid Easy Jambo was right, this blog is infected with sectarian Celtic fans, who are only interested in silly gloating and snidey comments even before a verdict is arrived at.

I know that I said that I would stop posting, but I also said that I would continue reading the blog.
However, I do object to my previous posts being misrepresented in this way. Can you show me where I said anything about ‘sectarian’ Celtic fans. You are out of order spanglebhoy.
My issue was to do with ‘triumphalism’ following the HMRC arrestment, where a number of new posters seemed to think it was it was appropriate to wallow in the thought that RFC would be in administration within days and that Celtic could now look forward to 10 in a row. That coupled with off topic posts on football issues, religion, flirting with the female posters etc. was the reason I chose to stop posting.
I’ll now revert back to my cave.
BTW – good stuff in the last 24 hours on the case from the usual suspects.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2258 14202 8 28/9/2011 20:9:0 easyJambo 1 26 “As the blog’s content has currently settled down to discussing the matters of the tax case and its implications, I will now resume making contributions.
One of the current discussion points is related to what the SPL will do in relation to RFC’s administration, rebirth etc. It is worth looking at the SPL’s own handbook and articles of association for guidance.
The implications of Administration in itself is clear, a 10 point penalty, for each ‘event’ and for each season in which the club is in administration. What is not so clear is the likely reaction to a newco being established.
The 12 SPL clubs each hold a single ‘Share’ in the SPL Company. The share held by any relegated club is transferred to the promoted club at the end of a season. I looked at the Articles of Association for guidance on how that is handled in an Administration or Newco scenario and was a little surprised by what I read.
’14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place. ‘
My reading of this above is, subject to the passing of a ‘Qualified Resolution’ at a General Meeting of the SPL, the ‘Share’ owned by the failing club, will then be transferred to the new owner or club (possibly without further penalty?). I can’t find anything about how that process would be managed mid season, but I may read further through the rulebooks.
A ‘Qualified Resolution’ is one that requires a 90% vote in favour, 11-1 or 10-1 would be sufficient. It would therefore take two clubs to block a newco RFC 2012 taking up RFC’s place in the SPL.
I guess that makes a pre-pack a valid and relatively low impact option, assuming that RFC could count on the support of the rest of the SPL teams for their re-admittance to the SPL. If the event occurred mid-season, then I remain uncertain of what would happen to the points gained beforehand or if any other sanction may be applied (e.g. a further points penalty or to deny RFC 2012 entry to Europe for a season)”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2266 14210 16 28/9/2011 21:56:0 easyJambo 1 27 “Re my earlier post, It would be an interesting scenario if Aberdeen were to be in the relegation position towards the end of the season, but could vote against RFC 2012 being admitted to the SPL thereby saving themselves from the drop. That would leave Stewart Milne in a bit of a quandry given that he was so much in favour a 10 team league.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2267 14211 17 28/9/2011 22:1:0 easyJambo 1 28 “‘Mark Dickson says: 28/09/2011 at 9:47 pm
During the Gretna meltdown the SPL did everything they could to enable the league season to be completed with as much integrity as possible and existing points & results maintained and validated.
I think IF some newco club was allowed to participate in the SPL as a continuation of the failed club then the SPL would try to keep the points tallies and results the same minus of course any penalities or points deduction for the insolvency events.

Would that scenario not put a newco at risk of HMRC coming after it as a pheonix company if it was seen to be operating as a ‘debt free’ continuation of the oldco?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2273 14217 23 28/9/2011 22:45:0 easyJambo 1 29 “I think what Mark D. alluded to regarding Gretna may give us a clue to how the SPL may react. If I recall correctly, the SPL gave Gretna an advance on money that would be due to them at the end of the season in order to allow them to complet their fixtures. Assuming that RFC will still finish at least 2nd even with a 10 point penalty, then they would be due at least £2M in TV money/merit payments. That could be just enough to see a depleted squad limp through to the end of the season together with the promise of fresh working capital for the newco.
As you say PW, the politics of it all will be very interesting. Dundee Utd’s Stephen Thomson wasn’t very co-operative with RFC either on a 10 team league or in the Goodwillie negotiations. Then there is mad Vlad who could go either way, but was keen on a redistribution of the TV money. ICT or Dunfermline could occupy the bottom place. George Fraser I think has stepped down at ICT, but both he and John Yorkston at Dunfermline were both in opposition to the 10 team set-up.
There could be some horse trading to be done in order to accommodate RFC 2012.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2290 14235 40 29/9/2011 0:58:0 easyJambo 1 30 “Auldheid – I’m not overly concerned with what has happened in the past with regard to Hearts or any other clubs’ ‘history’. We may all missed out on celelebrating what might have been and I don’t really feel the need to celebrate a 2nd place finish instead of a 3rd place 5 or 10 years ago. I’m much more interested in the future, in seeing RFC or any other clubs punished as and when they are found guilty of malpractice.
Johnboy – a) The Floating charge does pre-date the EBTs, but has no bearing on the EBTs b) The floating charge does not relate to a specific sum of debt. That is why it is a’floating’ charge, i.e. it will go up or down with the debt owed on whenever it is called in. c) The assignations has been discussed previously and the concensus of the ‘experts’ on here is that it is a perfectly legal process.
I don’t think that HMRC could challenge any of these with any hope of success.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 47 2334 14285 34 29/9/2011 17:59:0 easyJambo 1 31 “I’ve done another bit of digging into the SFA’s Club Licensing rules. I found some potential hurdles for a Newco to overcome.
‘3 Licence Applicant and Licence
3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 The Licence Applicant is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity and member of the Scottish Football Association. This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
3.3 Licence
3.3.1 Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another. Meeting the domestic requirements
A Licence may be awarded unconditionally or on a qualified basis. An unconditional licence is granted to clubs that meet the SPL criteria in full. A qualified licence award is granted to clubs that fail to meet all aspects of the criteria but meet the minimum mandatory requirements. A qualified award may be accompanied by timescales for clubs to address variances.

My reading is that a newco will not be awarded an unconditional licence until the club has been a member of the SFA for a minimum of three years.
Licences are not transferable, therefore RFC 2012 would have to apply for a licence on its own behalf rather than have RFC’s or any other club’s licence transferred to it.
I’m unsure of the implications of only having a qualified licence with regard to participation in UEFA competitions – i.e. could this affect RFC 2012’s participation in European competitions for up to three years?”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 47 2336 14287 36 29/9/2011 19:9:0 easyJambo 1 32 “NTHM – My understanding was that the Clydebank club and it’s Licence was bought by new owners and was then renamed as rebadged as Aidrie Utd. i.e. Clydebank hadn’t gone under. It was Airdrieonians that went under.
In the case of Rangers it would be RFC that would go under. Therefore someone could buy a solvent club (say, St Mirren) then rename and rebadge them as RFC 2012, but a newly formed RFC 2012 couldn’t buy or transfer St Mirren’s registration.
Subtle difference but an important one.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2359 14311 9 29/9/2011 21:45:0 easyJambo 1 33 “Further tweet from Al Lamont suggests Bain didn’t get all that he wanted.
BBCAlLamontAlasdair Lamont
#Rangers have agreed to hand over a certain amount of what was being requested, though not all”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 1 43 14399 43 30/9/2011 10:33:0 easyJambo 26 1 “‘iain says: 30/09/2011 at 10:23 am
Oh and right down to the Philesque pop at armistice remembrance and kit for soldiers

It’s not very often that I agree with Iain, but he is right on that one. It’s a needless and disappointing departure from the thrust of the blog.
Stick to the taxcase and don’t get involved in the political posturing RTC.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 108 14467 8 30/9/2011 15:41:0 easyJambo 26 2 “Today is the first time that RTC has suggested a timescale of 12-18 months for CW’s stewardship of RFC. Most knowledgeable posters have been sugegsting that any insolvency event is most likely to take place in January, following a decision on the FTT and the opportunity to raise cash from the sale of RFC’s most marketable assets during the transfer window.
How would CW benefit from keeping RFC afloat for longer? I know he could appeal the FTT decision to delay the inevitable, but he has admitted that there is a £10M black hole to be filled in terms of ongoing running costs to the end of this season. Could he keep RFC afloat until next Autumn and have another go at CL qualifying?
I can’t see why CW would want to risk any short term profits to be gained in an early insolvency event by sustaining an inherently loss making business beyond January.
……or does someone have a different view.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 113 14472 13 30/9/2011 16:13:0 easyJambo 26 3 “abrahamtoast – I didn’t get the impression that RTC believes that HMRC wil lose the tax case.
What he has highlighted is the more open acknowledgement by CW that he holds the vital cards (floating charge) and that HMRC are not in a position to significantly influence the outcome in their favour (at least in a monetary sense).
RTC appears to be hoping that HMRC will seek alternative means of restraining CW through his other business interests, but doesn’t show how this could be achieved”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 462 14879 12 3/10/2011 16:20:0 easyJambo 26 5 “‘weeminger says: 03/10/2011 at 3:04 pm
The Merchant House Group share slide might be down to the move to strike off Merchant Turnaround Plc which was enacted on 28th September due to no accounts being filed. Yet another company linked to Craig Whyte getting dissolved, this one was the behind the £50m Merchant Gemini Turnaround Fund, what does it all mean?

It’s not off topic at all.
Info from duedil.com
Directors: Thomas Millar, Philip Betts, Craig Whyte, David Gillespie
Shareholders: Liberty Capital 40%, Merchant House Group 36%
I wonder if any Journo will ask CW why MT PLC has not lodged accounts. Publication of RFC’s annual return is already later than normal, but SPL rules will require accounts to be lodged before the next club licensing round at the end of March.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 11 522 14943 22 3/10/2011 22:40:0 easyJambo 26 6 “My understanding of the HMRC requested arrestment was that the reported sum involved (£2.3M) would be placed in a suspense account for 14 weeks at which point, if the arrestment had not been successfully appealed by RFC, the funds would automatically go to HMRC.
IIRC the arrestment was on 1st September, therefore if RFC have not had an insolveny event by the end of the first week in December, then HMRC will receive payment for the ‘small’ bill (although not the allegedly disputed £1.4M penalty)”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 14 656 15081 6 5/10/2011 0:52:0 easyJambo 26 7 “I’ve got some questions that the Don, Onandx3 or Paulie may be best placed to answer.
I’m intrigued by the suggestion that 27/28 Oct is a critical date. The only thing I can come up with is that it is around the 57-58 day mark following the HMRC arrestment. I know about the 14 week (98 days) limit re the automatic transfer to the funds to HMRC, but is there some thing that kicks in after 60 days that does actually ‘ring fence’ the £2.3M in such a way that a receiver can’t access it?
If there is no such rule then it seems odd to me that HMRC would go down the arrestment route with the knowledge of the possibility of RFC’s insolvency, yet still have no recourse should such an event occur prior to the transfer of funds. Surely HMRC should have just sought a petition for administration rather than an arrestment? It’s a contradictory position where HMRC are effectively gambling that the company will not go bust within 14 weeks, but still ask for an arrestment with the knowledge that the company could go bust before then. Am I reading too much into this action? Is it just standard procedure for HMRC to seek an arrestment in preference to an administration petition?
The other question I would like to ask is re Receivers/Administrators/Liquidators. Is it possible for HMRC to seek the appointment of an Administrator or Liquidator in parallel with CW appointing a receiver to satisfy the debt covered by the floating charge? The reason I ask is that it would make sense to me for the unsecured creditors (HMRC included) to have their interests looked after by ensuring that the ‘Receiver’ doesn’t shaft them by selling off any assets below market value.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 15 711 15137 11 5/10/2011 13:12:0 easyJambo 26 8 “Onandx3 & AllWhyteOnTheNight – Thanks for the responses. I was obviously aware of the HMRC petition for adminstration aginst Hearts at the end of July. (I’m also a shareholder who didn’t sell out to Vlad).
Am I right in saying that an ‘Administrative Receiver’ appointed by CW will not make any payments to other creditors by restricting himself to only sell what he needs to satisfy the debt covered by the floating charge. In that case is would seem reasonable for the largest of the unsecured creditors to petition for Administration or Liquidation immediately CW appoints an AR.
What controls are in place to prevent abuse of the AR role, e.g. if the AR sells the Ibrox and Murray Park for a knock down price of say £10M, to someone with a vested interest e.g. Ellis. Surely there must be some professional standards body with a code of practice in which ARs operate. Similarly, is there a requirement for an AR to advertise the assets for sale on the open market. If so, how does that square with a pre-pack deal in which the buyer and seller appear to do a deal in advance that precludes any other party becoming involved?”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 16 797 15223 47 5/10/2011 21:36:0 easyJambo 26 9 “‘droid says: 05/10/2011 at 9:22 pm
Mr Reagan has already commented on the need for the SFL and the SPL to merge.
Draw your own conclusions as to how members of the new flag of convenience will be selected / invited. ‘
Much of the reform ideas were lost with the ’10 team’ SPL debacle during the Spring, therefore will have to be reworked. I can’t see how the reform of the leagues will come soon enough to save a newco Rangers 2012 from the existing SPL and SFA rules on membership and licensing.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 801 15227 1 5/10/2011 21:46:0 easyJambo 26 10 “Hugh – SDM stepped down on 31st Aug 2009 (at least according to Companies House)”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 803 15229 3 5/10/2011 21:50:0 easyJambo 26 11 “Hugh – correction from RFC’s accounts:
Sir David E. Murray – resigned 26 August 2009
A.J. Johnston – appointed as Chairman 26 August 2009”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 804 15230 4 5/10/2011 21:51:0 easyJambo 26 12 “Surely the chairman is the ‘Chairman of the Board of Directors'”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 806 15232 6 5/10/2011 21:58:0 easyJambo 26 13 “‘Hill of beans’? Isn’t that just a pile of orange balls? 🙂 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 812 15238 12 5/10/2011 22:10:0 easyJambo 26 14 “Fourfourtwo’s football’s rich list has just been published. The top 100 goes from £20M upwards. Funny that CW doesn’t appear in the list. Must be a mistake. 😦
Apparently a total of 5 Celtic directors on the list though. (skinflints 🙂 )”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 818 15244 18 5/10/2011 22:24:0 easyJambo 26 15 “‘ Apparently a total of 5 Celtic directors on the list though’
Correction … the 5 are not all directors of Celtic.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 836 15262 36 6/10/2011 1:3:0 easyJambo 26 16 “Paulie – To get back on topic, you appear to be the only person with access to new information at the moment, e.g. the feverish activities in legal circles yesterday.
I’m sure you will keep everyone informed of any breaking news, but do you know of anything specific that is being asked of counsel(s) with regard to insolvency processes, e.g. personal liability or directors roles once an Administrative Receiver or Administrator or Liquidator is appointed.
What’s your gut feel on timescales, given the level of activity?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 20 963 15396 13 6/10/2011 21:49:0 easyJambo 26 17 “Thanks Paulie
Is Whyte really clever enough to set hares running among his opponents and sit back and enjoy the commotion? I doubt it.
If your source is right about the newco, then surely it would point to a ‘low cost ‘ sale (transfer) of assets to the newco via a pre-pack, which would go against the theories that Whyte is piling on the debt just now so as to asset strip RFC”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 21 1022 15456 22 7/10/2011 1:16:0 easyJambo 26 18 “To summarise the rule boks as I understand them:
SPL membership is the easy bit. In an insolvency event, the receiver / administrator owns the SPL ‘Share’ and can transfer it to a new owner. Even if it is a newco, then they can be admitted with 90% vote of the member clubs, (a 10-1 vote). Alternatively, it could be vetoed by two teams voting against their admission.
Club Licensing is a different matter and is handled by the SFA. Their requirement is that a newco club has to be a member of the association for 3 years before that will be granted an SPL License. My initial reading of that is that RFC 2012 would therefore be prevented from playing in Europe for 3 years. However, they could be given a ‘Qualified License’. It is not clear to me from the regulations what that actually means. It may be that the SFA could allow them to play in Europe with certain conditions..
Licences may not be transferred between clubs, so RFC 2012 couldn’t buy St Mirren and shut them down and use their licence. However a newco could buy St Mirren (license and all) then rename and relocate them to Ibrox. In that situation RFC would be no more and the newco would have the history of St Mirren.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 23 1102 15536 2 7/10/2011 17:13:0 easyJambo 26 19 “Baffies oan ma feet says: 07/10/2011 at 4:39 pm
If St Mirren were purchased and moved/rebadged, then it would initially be their players on the books. The better players would be retained, others would be let go. Ex RFC players may be offered contracts with St. Rangers, maybe on their previous terms, maybe better or worse.
Ultimately St Rangers could have similar revenue to RFC and would thus be able to attract and afford better players.
A newco ‘Paisley St Mirren’ may well be formed and start life in Division 3 playing in black and white out of New St Mirren Park with 1,000 diehard fans. The other 3000-4000 would have given up senior football for good. (probably along with another 15,000 season ticket holders of the other SPL teams who would just give up football in disgust)”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 23 1106 15540 6 7/10/2011 17:25:0 easyJambo 26 20 “Re the Bond Holders – They are effectively both unsecured creditors and Shareholders. i.e. when the company goes bust it is the shareholders who lose the value of their stake.
There are currently 6.050 bond holders with a total of £7.736M invested.
From the accounts:
‘The debentures rank pari passu with respect to voting and repayment, are unsecured and no interest is payable. The debentures are repayable under the following conditions:
i. at the discretion of the Company on or after 16 December 2026, being the 35th anniversary of the completion of the Club Deck in the Bill Struth Main Stand,
ii. if an order is made or an effective resolution is passed for the winding up of the Company, or
iii. if an administrator or receiver is appointed to the undertaking of the Company or any of its property or assets, or
iv. if the Company ceases on a permanent basis to carry on its business at the Stadium.’
As unsecured creditors they could gat maybe 10p-20p in the £ out of a liquidation”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 23 1136 15571 36 7/10/2011 21:44:0 easyJambo 26 21 “Just a correction to what I stated earlier re a vote to admit a new team to the SPL. I said it needed a 90% vote. It actually only needs an 83% vote. Assuming the demise of RFC, that would mean that a 10-1 vote would still be required. However, if there was no relegation at the end of the season and a club was promoted from the SFL to maintain a league of 12, then the 12 could vote for a 13th team to be admitted on a 10-2 vote.
Extract from the SPL Articles of Association
’38. A Special Qualified Resolution, (83%) shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:-
(i) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new Members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL);
(ii) any reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Premier League (other than as a result of a Member ceasing to be a Member of the Scottish Premier League in accordance with the Rules and/or these Articles or as a consequence of the expulsion of a Member); and,
(iii) the allotment and the issue of a Share.
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1151 15587 1 7/10/2011 23:12:0 easyJambo 26 22 “‘greengrass says: 07/10/2011 at 10:30 pm
if there was no relegation at the end of the season and a club was promoted from the SFL to maintain a league of 12, then the 12 could vote for a 13th team to be admitted on a 10-2 vote.
how would that work? why would the 12th team vote to let them back in, would the 12th be relegated to accomodate newco after voting?

I was only using it to illustrate the voting difference of a 90% vote against an 83% vote.
If RFC were to drop out the league because of Liquidation, I would still expect an Newco RFC 2012 to seek re-election direct to the SPL. Problem! How do you accommodate them?
Do you still have a team relegated and promoted, then immediately admit RFC 2012 as the 12th team? I can’t see that happening. Only 11 teams would be able to vote and it would require a 10-1 vote to allow them entry. I don’t think you would get the ‘relegated’ team voting for that and it would only need one other team to vote against to veto their entry.
If there was a demand for their entry to the SPL for financial reasons by the clubs and SKY/ESPN, then I would expect an accommodation to be made to elect RFC 2012 as a 13th team for one season. That would allowed the the relegated team to escape the drop while allowing a promotion as normal. You would then have 12 teams voting, for which a 10-2 vote would be enough..”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1156 15592 6 7/10/2011 23:44:0 easyJambo 26 23 “TBK – It’s difficult to say. Every team seems to have its own agenda. I couldn’t understand why some teams supported a 10 team league earlier in the year, particularly those at risk of relegation.
What I think clubs should be wary of is the impact on their own fans / attendances if an ‘accommodation’ is made that allows a newco RFC preferential treatment.
I think that there are probably a few thousand ST holders across the SPL, who are already somewhat disillusioned with the SPL, for whom that scenario would have them saying f*** it, I’ve had enough and I won’t be back.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1158 15594 8 7/10/2011 23:49:0 easyJambo 26 24 “TBY
Make that two …. and I’ve have a ST for the last 26 years.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1159 15595 9 7/10/2011 23:49:0 easyJambo 26 25 “‘had’ not ‘have'”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1162 15598 12 7/10/2011 23:51:0 easyJambo 26 26 “TBK – I’m afraid my ‘typong’ has gone a bit dyslexic 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1166 15602 16 8/10/2011 0:2:0 easyJambo 26 27 “I wonder if CW believes that there’s a loophole in SFA / SPL rules that will allow a newco RFC to continue if the stadium / players / IP are transferred to the parent company (TRFCG Ltd. / Wavetower.) i.e. the ultimate ownership of the club is unchanged.
There is lttle information in the SFA / SPL rules that cover liquidated clubs, so much so that I think they can (and probably will) make up any rules that they want to achieve a specific end.
I honestly can see Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster coming out and saying that HMRC being shafted by CW is nothing to do with the SFA or SPL, therefore we see no reason why we can’t allow special dispensation to RFC 2012.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1169 15605 19 8/10/2011 0:13:0 easyJambo 26 28 “Mark – could be. You would think that he must have a purpose somewhere in life. It certainly wasn’t as a football pundit or as SFA chairman. 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1172 15608 22 8/10/2011 0:19:0 easyJambo 26 29 “TBK – I agree with your understanding, but I have a nagging feeling that there will be heavy lobbying by SKY/ESPN, the media and Celtic to allow them to escape relatively unscathed (at least in terms of their status or perceived importance or value to Scottish Football).
I happen to believe that such an outcome could actually have the opposite effect of killing off the interest of a lot of fans across the league.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1397 15846 47 10/10/2011 1:17:0 easyJambo 26 30 “‘Hugh McEwan says: 09/10/2011 at 10:59 pm
We are told there will be further activity in Court, however the general assumption is that is will be Rangers seeking payment from someone else this time.

I don’t know where you have got that assumption from. The information re a court hearing this coming week has come again from Paulie. He(she) has stated that it is another attempt at an arrestment, but the name of the pursuer is not known. Paulie intimated that further informantion of the financial workings of RFC will be revealed in the submissions.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 29 1436 15885 36 10/10/2011 15:30:0 easyJambo 26 31 “I wonder if RTC will be making an appearance in Mark Daly’s documentary, or maybe he is Mark Daly? 🙂 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 29 1442 15891 42 10/10/2011 17:8:0 easyJambo 26 32 “Stop Press
Tweet from Alasdair Lamont
BBCAlLamontAlasdair Lamont
Donald McIntyre has resigned as #Rangers’ finance director. He remains an employee but is taking advice over a potential claim against RFC.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 29 1443 15892 43 10/10/2011 17:15:0 easyJambo 26 33 “It appears that McIntyre has had no involvment in Board matters since the Whyte takeover when he was suspended along with Martin Bain. He has resigned due to him being excluded from matters of corporate governance (paraphrased from another Alasdair Lamont tweet)”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1457 15906 7 10/10/2011 18:39:0 easyJambo 26 34 “‘MidlothianCelt says: 10/10/2011 at 6:01 pm
Phil’s site appears to be down. Any info as to why?

He said that it was a DOS (Denial of Service) atack. If you are not familiar with the term, then it is due to someone maliciously flooding the website’s host server(s) with spam messages or reequests. It normally takes few hours to identify and block the source of the attack, then clear out all the spam messages, before service can be restored.
It may or may not be a specific attack on Phil’s site”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1459 15908 9 10/10/2011 18:49:0 easyJambo 26 35 “‘Ray Charles says: 10/10/2011 at 6:31 pm
Was told a while ago the BBC documentary will examine Craig Whyte’s past ‘ including the allegation he used two different names, with separate dates of birth, in his business dealings.
I believe the vast trail of companies he has set up will be examined.
It will not be a preCraig Whyte PR job ‘ that’s for sure.

BBC Scotland did something similar a few years ago with Romanov. It wasn’t a particularly revealing programme. They confirmed that he started his business career by selling bootleg Beatles LPs in Russia. The worst they came up with was that some Bosnian pensioners had lost out following a deal Vlad had done with an aluminium plant in that country.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1490 15939 40 10/10/2011 20:44:0 easyJambo 26 36 “I’m guessing that it will be Gavin Masterton. Things started to go wrong with BoS’ lending policies during his tenure.
He doesn’t have a good record of fiscal management at football clubs he has been in charge of either. Dunfermline Athletic owe his companies, Charlestown Holdings Ltd and East End Park Ltd, a total of £8.2M, a sum that the Pars have no prospect of ever paying off.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1493 15942 43 10/10/2011 20:54:0 easyJambo 26 37 “Slim – Mark was making reference to the friendly game in Hamburg at the end of November, which has clearly been arranged to raise funds to pay the tax bill once the FTT decision is made 😉 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 32 1566 16019 16 11/10/2011 12:18:0 easyJambo 26 38 “Confirmation of what we already know – Rangers have submitted a TM01 form to Companies House confirming that Donald McIntyre’s appointment as a director has been terminated.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 32 1581 16034 31 11/10/2011 14:47:0 easyJambo 26 39 “Duggie – Banks and other organisations have been selling their bad debts to debt collection agaencies for decades. That’s the essence of what has happened here.
Please understand that RFC was a toxic debt for Lloyds. The £18M in itself wouldn’t have been a problem if Lloyds had retained financial control at board level, as they had already demonstarted that they could reduce the debt over the last couple of years (albeit with the benefit of CL money), while player recruitment was constrained.
However, the risk that Lloyds saw was the tax case. They would have had two choices while their major shareholders are you and I and millions of other taxpayers. They could either pay the tax bill which was a sum they would be unlikely to recover or they could liquidate the club. Neither was a palatable option. Paying the bill would mean that they either took on the debt themselves, or allow some leg of MIH to take it on. As MIH is already in deep merde with Lloyds as their bankers that was not an option. Liquidating the club could have lost Lloyds’ BoS brand 10s of thousands of accounts.
Hence they effectively sold the debt to CW, probably for a sum less than face value. That way, Lloyds have taken a relatively small hit to rid themselves, and MIH, of a potentially high risk exposure.
It’s quite a straight forward and routine measure of risk management on Lloyds part.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 32 1582 16035 32 11/10/2011 14:49:0 easyJambo 26 40 “Hugh – you obviously posted the same as I did while I was still typing. 🙂 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 33 1620 16075 20 11/10/2011 18:25:0 easyJambo 26 41 “RTC – I don’t think it is quite as simple as you think for a newco to continue as the oldco.
From the SPL’s articles of association
’14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place. ‘
A Qualified Resolution requires an 83% vote of the member clubs. That would mean a 10-1 vote of the clubs to vote in a newco’s favour. There is also the issue of points earned / games played prior to the demise of the oldco. That hasn’t been an issue with clubs going into administration, as they have been able to exit as a going concern with a CVA. .
The only loophole that I can see is if Wavetower ‘buy’ RFC. That way they could claim to have kept the club under the same ultimate ownership.
Similarly a newco should not be granted a full Licence under SFA rules. From the SFA Articles.
‘3 Licence Applicant and Licence
3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 The Licence Applicant is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity and member of the Scottish Football Association. This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

My reading is that the newco will have to have been a member of the SFA before being granted a licence. That may affect participation in Europe for 3 years. However, there is provision for a ‘qualified licence’ to be granted but I don’t know what conditions would be attached to it. The Wavetower ‘parent’ ownership may again be a loophole that could allow CW to bypass this requirement.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 33 1622 16077 22 11/10/2011 18:38:0 easyJambo 26 42 “Should Wavetower buy RFC’s assets and seek to have them continue in the SPL as previously, using the ultimate ownership arguement, then I think that would give HMRC the opportunity to go after Wavetower for RFC’s debt. HMRC could rightly claim that RFC is continuing to operate unhindered, as a going concern, and that they have simply ‘evaded’ their debt to HMRC.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 34 1689 16155 39 11/10/2011 22:13:0 easyJambo 26 43 “Links to the Documents requested:
SPL Articles of Association
SFA Articles of Association
The extract I posted was from the ‘Manual’, Section ‘3 Licence Applicant and Licence'”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 34 1692 16158 42 11/10/2011 22:15:0 easyJambo 26 44 “Correction – the SFA documentation is the Club Licensing document.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 35 1719 16198 19 12/10/2011 0:51:0 easyJambo 26 47 “DeRichleau says: 11/10/2011 at 10:57 pm
I stand by my original interpretation of the regulations. e.g. Reg 11 and 13 would be used when ownership of RFC transferred from MIH to Wavetower. The only ‘forced’ circumstance I see is that the SPL could force an administrator to transfer the share that he ‘owns’ to another club that will take the place of the club in administraton or liquidation, e.g. transfer it to Ross County who would take the place of RFC (Ross County currently being 2nd in Div 1)”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 37 1818 16304 18 12/10/2011 19:29:0 easyJambo 26 48 “Paulie Walnuts says: 12/10/2011 at 6:33 pm
Thanks again for the update Paulie. I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s next installment of Judge Judy, or is it the Punch and Judy show 🙂 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 37 1843 16329 43 12/10/2011 21:19:0 easyJambo 26 49 “Just thinking out loud so feel free to shoot me down in flames if appropriate (I hope you do)
Is there a scenario whereby there could be a two insolvency events, but for RFC to continue its existence?
Lets say CW goes for AR at the end of the month. I assume that HMRC could be forced into a CVA as things stand and take a write down on what they are owed re the small tax bill and any other VAT, PAYE & NIC that is currently outstanding as they wouldn’t necessarily hold the 25% creditors veto at that point. CW could walk away with the Stadium and Murray Park to cover his floating charge
The administrator would then have a decision to make as to whether or not to continue the appeal against the big tax bill. Let’s say he continues with the appeal. Is it possible for a new investor to come along and agree a deal with the Administrator to buy and protect certain assets, like RFC’s IP and SPL registration, and for that to be hived off or ring fenced against a future adverse outcome in the FTT. RFC could then come out of Administration with a CVA, say in January, i.e before the FTT decision.
If/when the FTT rules against RFC, administration would again follow later in the spring. Any remaining assets would be sold to satisfy as much of the big bill as possible, but could RFC’s ring fenced IP and status continue, even if it meant fielding youth players until the end of the season?.
The crux of the question is whether or not it is possible to hive off the minimum essence of the club in the first administration process and leaving a denuded RFC to take the hit of the big tax bill in a second administration/liquidation.
Please tell me that the administrator / receiver cannot make such deals.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 38 1853 16339 3 12/10/2011 21:39:0 easyJambo 26 50 “Mark D. The rules already accomodate clubs going into administration and out again, with a new owner. The administrator basically sells the club as a going concern to a new owner for the best price he can get. If there is enough left over for a CVA to be agreed among the creditors, then the club emerges from administration with a 10pt penalty and a new owner. This process has always agreed by the SPL members, so a new owner isn’t an issue in itself.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 38 1861 16347 11 12/10/2011 22:11:0 easyJambo 26 51 “Mark D & Hugh I probably haven’t phrased what I was thinking too well. I’ve read and re-read the rules several times and there certainly isn’t a rule for every insolvency scenario.
However, past precedent tells us that clubs can go in and out of administration with a CVA and a new owner. That hasn’t been an issue for the clubs to disagree on previously.
My question was more to do with the possibility of the sale, in administration, of what is the mimimum possible manifestation of a club, allowing it to continue as a going concern (with a 10 point penalty) while the rump of the club emerges from administration with a CVA. The rump of the club with its remaining assets continues to run until a second insolvency event hits and is liquidated by HMRC over the big tax bill. It could be that the Rump is the parent of the mini football operation.
Are there sufficient loopholes 1) in insolvency legislation and 2) in SFA/SPL rules that could allow that to happen?
Remember that the SFA/SPL have no interest in whether or not HMRC get all they are owed. All they are concerned about is the continuation of the football club operating within its rules.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 39 1929 16419 29 13/10/2011 12:47:0 easyJambo 26 52 “‘curious onlooker says:13/10/2011 at 12:00 pm
Any word on the McIntrye v Rangers FC case that was suposedly due up this moning ?
Thank´s !
Tweet just in from David Currie
mrdavidcurriedavid currie
Ex #Rangers director Donald McIntyre applies to have 300, 000 of Rangers cash frozen'”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 40 1978 16468 28 13/10/2011 19:32:0 easyJambo 26 53 “Paulie – thanks for the additional information.
I wouldn’t have thought it possible for anyone to stop CW forcing an insolvency event. Surely all he needs to do is to arrange for TRFCG Ltd. to call in the £18M ‘loan’. RFC don’t have the funds so an insolvency event would inevitably follow.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 40 1985 16475 35 13/10/2011 20:12:0 easyJambo 26 54 “Just as an aside to the Public Accounts Committee hearing, I heard the chair say the HMRC currently has a total of £25BN in dispute. I think that reinforces the desire for HMRC to have test cases / pecedents set in order that they can move forward to recoup a significant proportion of the money in dispute.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 41 2039 16530 39 14/10/2011 12:37:0 easyJambo 26 55 “PW – Rangers received €18,526,000 from their CL participation in 2010/11. They also received a further €724,972 from their fallback to the EL for the same seasoon.
Figures from the UEFA website.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 41 2042 16533 42 14/10/2011 12:45:0 easyJambo 26 56 “Link to Champions League distribution
Link to Europa League distribution
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 41 2044 16535 44 14/10/2011 12:51:0 easyJambo 26 57 “MD – Yup – I was about to post exactly the same point. The £20M is easily verifiable by the loss of CL/EL games.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 44 2151 16647 1 15/10/2011 10:23:0 easyJambo 26 58 “Paulie – I agree with your assessment. I’m becoming increasingly of the mind that administration will come because of cash flow problems rather than the FTT outcome.
I expect that any available cash has been taken out of RFC accounts and routed to Wavetower or other accounts. I think HMRC were clever in their timing to get the arrestment as ST installments came into RFC accounts at the end of August.
RFC have limited income this season, hence the need to organise friendlies to replace the CL/EL money, although they will be lucky to gross £500K from the two games scheduled thus far. ST sales will have been no more than last season. They would have received their merit payment from the SPL for winning the league of approx £2.5M lesss any staged payments they had received earlier in the season.
Other than that is will be up to £3M from JJB plus sponsorship income from Tenants and other sponsors.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 45 2208 16706 8 16/10/2011 21:7:0 easyJambo 26 59 “I’ve finally got round to reading the full opinion of Lord Hodge on the Martin Bain case, rather than limiting my reading and understanding to what was reported in the media.
Can one of you fine legal chaps please clarify a couple of points from Paragraph 16.
‘Mr Ellis submitted that it was reasonable to grant the warrant as Mr Bain had lost substantial benefits from his contract and an arrestment, if effected more than sixty days before insolvency, might confer a preference. ‘
Does that mean that if 60 days elapse from the ruling without an insolvency event, then the funds on which the ‘dependence’ was given could be protected from a receiver / administrator.
Does the same 60 days rule apply to HMRC’s arrestment of the small bill. That being the case, the 60 days would be up at the end of the month. Is that the reason the PMac has been suggesting that 27/28 Oct would be critical dates?
‘Rangers’ tangible assets were subject to securities which had been assigned by its bank to Group, and Mr Bain could expect no benefit from those assets.’
Can someone confirm my reading that CW’s ‘floating charge’ will therefore only cover the tangible assets, i.e. Ibrox, Murray Park, cash in the bank and little else. As players’ registrations are considered to be intangible assets in the accounts, does that mean that the Receiver / Administrator cannot sell player registrations himself to satisfy the floating charge? .
I take it as read that CW would be able to sell players prior to an insolvency event and profit from any cash received in advance of an insolvency, or have those funds available to the receiver / administrator as cash in the bank, post insolvency. That being the case it would make sense for CW to limp on until January, if at all possible and sell every player that he can during the window.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 47 2313 16811 13 17/10/2011 16:33:0 easyJambo 26 60 “Hugh & Mark D. – Celtic’s total salary costs were reported as £32.66M in the 2010/11 accounts published last week, down 10.5% on the previous year.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 47 2348 16846 48 17/10/2011 21:15:0 easyJambo 26 61 “Paulsatim – I’m sorry to burst a bubble, but Lloyds do not hold any ‘Convertible Preference Shares’ in MIH. They hold ‘Cumulative Preference Shares’ issued as part of a debt for equity swap as confirmed in MIH’s most recent annual accounts
There is a significant difference between the share types, the key one being that Cumulative shares will accrue dividends year on year for any dividends that are not paid on the due date. Any backlog on dividend payments must then be paid in full on these shares before dividend payments can resume to ordinary shareholders. Convertible shares also receive dividends, but offer insulation against a falling share price in that there is no requirement to ‘convert’ them to ordinary shares. However if the share price goes up then you can convert the shares into ordinary stock at a pre determined price, thus benfit from any capital growth..
I seem to recall that RTC made reference to that source in an early blog, but I don’t recall if any correction was made about the share types at a later date.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2355 16853 5 17/10/2011 21:45:0 easyJambo 26 62 “Paulsatim – I was simply remarking on the inaccuracy within the original blog and highlight the misapprehension that Lloyds could convert their shares and leave SDM with no control over MIH.
SDM still controls 70% of the MIH shares. Lloyds hold just over 23%. Of course, Lloyds continue to be exposed to MIH’s net debt of £713M and will thus be able to exert influence over SDM’s decision making.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2357 16855 7 17/10/2011 22:2:0 easyJambo 26 63 “RTC – My understanding is that they are completely different categories of share types. It may be possible to have ‘Cumulative Convertible Preference shares’ but I haven’t come across them before.
The blog is accurate about the offshore holdings, but inaccurate when it comes to Lloyds being able to take complete ownership, albeit that will have influence because of the debt situation.
Extracts from the MIH Accounts
‘Lloyds Banking Group increased it’s equity interests in the Group , subscribing for £150m of additional share capital and share premium in Murray International Holdings Limited (‘MIH’) while reducing debt levels by a similar quantum.’
‘There was a debt for equity conversion which gave rise to 5,263,389 of ordinary ‘B’ shares of 1p each and 150,000,000 cumulative redeemable preference shares of 0.1p each that gave rise to a share premium of £149.767M ‘”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2361 16859 11 17/10/2011 22:17:0 easyJambo 26 64 “Interesting tweet from FF 🙂
Follow_Follow_Follow Follow
BBC prime-time doc on RFC (Thur) doesn’t appear to appeal to Whyte. Co-operation thereafter in doubt, says rumour mill.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 1 32 16937 32 18/10/2011 10:7:0 easyJambo 23 1 “I’m disappointed by the number of posters who have immediately jumped down RFColin’s throat for the temerity to say that Rangers supporters are not responsible for the mess they are in. (consider the situation of Public Service employees v Bankers)
RTC responded to RFColin in a reasonable and measured way. Remember that blog is about the ‘wee tax case’, not about RFC’s sectarian issues. Otherwise, there is a risk that that blog will descend into ‘whataboutery’.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 395 17310 45 19/10/2011 0:53:0 easyJambo 23 2 “It’s amazing when you are away for the day then have to catch up with close to 400 posts. Seems just like another day in the life of CW. 🙂
Let’s look at some dates going forward
19/10 – Rangers Supporters Trust meet with CW
20/10 – BBC show ‘Rangers – The Inside Story’
27/10 or 28/10 – PMac predicts a defining day in the history of RFC
31/10 – 60 days elapse since the HMRC arrestment
23/11 – 60 days elapse following the Martin Bain ruling on ‘dependence’
29/11 – RFC due to play in Hamburg
8/12 – 14 weeks since the HMRC arrestment – HMRC receive the funds arrested (£2.3m?)
19/12 – 60 days elapse from the Donald McIntyre ruling on ‘dependence’
31/12 – Transfer window opens
31/1 – Transfer window closes
xx/xx – CW pulls the plug and appoints an Administrative Receiver
any other key dates missing?
any guesses on the xx/xx date?”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 10 482 17403 32 19/10/2011 14:58:0 easyJambo 23 3 “Paul McConville – Quick question for you re the HMRC arrestment
Can you confirm that the 60 days figure mentioned in your blog only applies if the company is actually being liquidated? I took from your blog that a receiver or administrator would have to apply to the court to have the funds freed from the arrestment regardless of the timeframe between day 1 and 14 weeks.
If CW is looking to avoid HMRC getting their hands on the £2.3M, then the implication would be that he has to go for a pre-pack or a liquidation asap in order that the process could be completed before the end of the month, otherwise the receiver would be at the mercy of the courts (no doubt this would be contested by HMRC and cost the receiver (and ultimately CW) money in legal fees).”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 12 573 17495 23 19/10/2011 20:45:0 easyJambo 23 4 “The Rangers Supporters Trust seem to be taking things seriously with their ‘Gerspride Conference’ next month
Fraser MacDonald, Dundee FC Supporters Trust – What Administration Means For Fans and a Football Club'”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 12 586 17508 36 19/10/2011 22:0:0 easyJambo 23 5 “Don & HMcE – I’d only do it if I got the fee paid up front. 🙂 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 12 594 17516 44 19/10/2011 22:23:0 easyJambo 23 6 “‘black swan says:19/10/2011 at 10:14 pm
my sequencing has always been suspect…but could a company do this?
receivership ‘ admin ‘ further appeal ‘ share issue ‘ fans buy out ‘ exit admin ‘ tax bill…
now that surely cant happen, can it? Would be dreadfully unlucky, for some.
all fantasy of course just mulling about processes in general really.’
Possible but very unlikely.
Receivership – Buyer found for Stadium and Murray park raises enough to pay off floating charge.
Admin – Other creditors force the rest of company into admin. The administrator is approached with a plan that a share issue to fans would be successful and continues with the appeal.
Share issue/fans buy out is successful and creditors are paid off or a CVA agreed
FTT/UTT finally reports – Tax bill crystalises
Admin / Liquidation. – Fans lose out on their share buy out.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 13 611 17533 11 20/10/2011 1:3:0 easyJambo 23 7 “Iain McG
What you suggest is similar to an early post by ‘the Don’ from June
‘the Don Dionisio says: 08/06/2011 at 1:59 pm
‘he will then persuade the Receiver to transfer the assets to him as part of an offset arrangement’. What is your authority for that proposition, and how sure are you about the offset arrangement?
This is hugely important, because in my experience in a previous life, the position was as follows at least in relation to private companies, albeit I recognise we are dealing with a listed plc here.
To facilitate a sale, a new subsidiary of the failed group may be set up by the Receiver and the relevant assets ‘hived down’ to the new company. The new company will have a low share capital and the consideration for the assets hived down will be left outstanding and perhaps undetermined for the time being. If a purchaser agrees to buy the business he will purchase the share capital of Newco for a nominal amount and provide funds to satisfy the debt to the former parent. The debt will at this stage be crystallised as the amount the buyer has agreed to pay for the business.
Through the hiving down procedure, the buyer can buy a business which starts with a clean sheet and the liabilities and commitments of which can be precisely assessed.
To my mind, this could be the key to avoiding any question of administration/ liquidation, as no unsecured creditor will get anything given the figures. There would be no point to admin/liquidation unless I am missing something.
There has to be a ‘sale’ however for ‘hive down’ to work, and hence my query to Onand.
However, from memory, and it’s a vague memory, the Receiver’s preference in ranking still comes after that of any creditor who has already executed diligence prior to the Receiver’s appointment. The Receiver can still sell, with the authority of court, free of the burden of that creditor’s diligence, but ‘subject to such order as the Court sees fit”(i.e presumably the creditor executing diligence gets some sort of pound of flesh, as he was in first!)
Therefeore, it seems to me that HMRC ‘and I hope they are listening’ should immediately lodge Inhibitions against both Ibrox Park and Murray Park preventing the sales of those heritable properties, as soon as they win the tax case, if that happens.
Any views out there, as this is getting complicated?? ‘
I understand the logic behind this scenario for most business types, but the problem with the Newco scenario remains as far as RFC’s membership of the SFA/SPL is concerned.
I’d suggest that HMRC’s approach is now less forgiving and that they would be unlikely to agree such an arrangement, when 1) the small bill remains unpaid and 2) they are looking for a precedent to be set re the big tax case.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 735 17663 35 20/10/2011 18:7:0 easyJambo 23 8 “Tweet from Alasdair Lamont
BBCAlLamontAlasdair Lamont
BBC Scotland investigation uncovers evidence of alleged criminality in the past business dealings of the #Rangers owner Craig Whyte.
Could be interesting”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 737 17665 37 20/10/2011 18:11:0 easyJambo 23 9 “Follow up tweet
BBCAlLamontAlasdair Lamont
Programme claims Whyte illegally controlled a company, for which he could have been sent to prison for 2 years. Whyte denies any offences”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 739 17667 39 20/10/2011 18:15:0 easyJambo 23 10 “More tweets coming in
dglsfDouglas Fraser by BBCAnnieMcGuire
BBC Scotland: #Rangers’ Craig Whyte previously defied a 7-year ban as company director, while shareholders misled:”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 740 17668 40 20/10/2011 18:16:0 easyJambo 23 11 “BBC website now reporting criminality
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 742 17670 42 20/10/2011 18:21:0 easyJambo 23 12 “Well the STV ‘spoiler’ was a damp squib.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 744 17672 44 20/10/2011 18:29:0 easyJambo 23 13 “BBCAlLamontAlasdair Lamont
I was told that if I stood in the way of this deal happening, they said we’re gonna cancel your credit line tonight – Alastair Johnston
AJ tells BBC Lloyd’s Bank threatened to cut #Rangers credit line if Craig Whyte’s takeover of the club did not go ahead
Lloyds forced through the takeover ………

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 749 17677 49 20/10/2011 18:36:0 easyJambo 23 14 “BBC News seem to think that the documentary content warrants national news coverage. It seems that AJ was the internal source supplying Mark Daly with the information he required.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 15 750 17679 50 20/10/2011 18:51:0 easyJambo 23 15 “This gets better
dglsfDouglas Fraser by Follow_Follow_
Rangers’ Craig Whyte announces he’s suing the BBC over documentary claims. ‘Any false repetition will also be met with legal action'”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 804 17734 4 20/10/2011 20:44:0 easyJambo 23 16 “I didn’t think that there were actually any great revelations tonight, merely confirmation of a lot of the research into CW’s past that had been speculated upon in RTC, other blogs and messageboards.
Confirmation too of Lloyds desire to get RFC and their business risks off their and MIH’s books.
Disappointing to hear the (ex) chairman of RFC to give the ‘No Surrender’ quote while the public face of RFC has been claiming that they have been cleaning up their act.
I don’t think the documentary will change CW’s plans to any significant degree, but I think that it may convert a few CW waverers in the RFC support to come down against him.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 848 17779 48 20/10/2011 21:40:0 easyJambo 23 17 “‘paulmac says: 20/10/2011 at 9:35 pm
Anyhow I feel sorry the lass who went to court to get her wages…was awarded over £2k in back pay…and he shafted her..

Should be able to get him for Rape then. 🙂 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 20 962 17898 12 21/10/2011 10:4:0 easyJambo 23 18 “I’ve been looking at the rulebook again. As someone pointed out earlier CW would be in breach of the ‘Fit and Proper’ test if indeed he was disqualified as a director between 2000-07.
However I may have found a loophole in the SPL rules that could allow a newco to bypass the SFA’s 3 year membership rule for licensing.
‘Membership of League confers Membership of SFA
H13 In accordance with the SFA Articles and to the extent that it is not already a full or associate member of SFA, membership of the League confers registered membership of the SFA.’
My reading would be that if a newco was admitted to the SPL then their registered membership of the SFA would be granted automatically, thus potentially allowing licensing rules to be bypassed?
There is a contradiction in the SPL rules as it says elsewhere that you have to be a member of the SFA to become a member of the SPL.
‘A2.5 The Membership Criteria are:-.
A2.5.1 A Club participating in the League must be a member of the SFA.’
chicken-egg or egg-chicken 🙂 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 20 968 17904 18 21/10/2011 10:24:0 easyJambo 23 19 “Weeminger – The extracts I took were from the SPL Rules, therefore ‘League’ in that case refers to the SPL”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 20 986 17923 36 21/10/2011 12:50:0 easyJambo 23 20 “Looks like the full hearing of the Bain case will not be until 24 July 2012.
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 22 1061 18000 11 21/10/2011 18:44:0 easyJambo 23 21 “Thomas – You need to re-read the whole paragraph in the circular.
‘However, The Rangers FC Group has separately undertaken to the Club that it will waive the debt that it has acquired and not exercise its option to convert it into equity as provided for in the Agreement;'”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 22 1065 18004 15 21/10/2011 18:55:0 easyJambo 23 22 “I’m guessing theat the Share Purchase Agreement had already been drawn up with the debt for equity option included. However, CW was clearly persuaded by someone (perhaps the Independent Board representing the small shareholders), to remove the DFE option and reference it in the circular to shareholders, as he subsequently did.
The STV interview reflects that position”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 22 1067 18006 17 21/10/2011 19:2:0 easyJambo 23 23 “Ramsay – Its a two word moniker. The 2nd word is indeed capitalist, but the first word should be ‘vulture’ 🙂 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 23 1111 18051 11 21/10/2011 21:59:0 easyJambo 23 24 “Jonny – CW will remain in contol until such time as some action or event takes that control away from him.
What I am saying is that while he can pay everything that needs to be paid, e.g. players wages, he is in control. He cannot control the actions of anyone who has not been paid.
If/when the money runs out he can even retain effective control of entry into receivership, by his appointment of the receiver and execution of any pre-pack or other sale of specific assets to himself or other interested parties.
Only after that point, when the unpaid creditors take action, he will not be in control of subsequent events.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 23 1116 18056 16 21/10/2011 22:29:0 easyJambo 23 25 “Jonny – The loss of Euro revenue will only have influenced the timing of events rather than the control CW has.
I should have added at the end of my previous post that when he loses control of subsequent events, he will most likely be in a position where he doesn’t care how it unfolds, i.e. he will have already have obtained what he wanted from the deal.
Of the three arrestments to date, only the HMRC is likely to influence his timing. The other two are too far out in terms of time scales to have an affect on his actions.
A FTT ruling will be a trigger event. Otherwise, CW will trigger receivership at a time of his choosing.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 23 1121 18061 21 21/10/2011 22:59:0 easyJambo 23 26 “OnceABhoy – Those questions were never going to be asked (or answered) while the FTT has still to come to a decision.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 23 1127 18068 27 21/10/2011 23:34:0 easyJambo 23 27 “Barry – The original 24/02/1999 date will apply. It survived the ‘merger’ of BoS and Halifax so it would have survived the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds.
The MG05s issued in May retained the original 1999 date.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 24 1171 18113 21 22/10/2011 10:15:0 easyJambo 23 28 “‘duggie73 says:
22/10/2011 at 4:25 am
easyJambo says:
21/10/2011 at 11:34 pm
Barry ‘ The original 24/02/1999 date will apply. It survived the ‘merger’ of BoS and Halifax so it would have survived the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds.
The MG05s issued in May retained the original 1999 date
Why did it survive? Sheer coincidence?
I asked a very long time ago on here, thinking it was paranoic to do so, but having seen Baxendale-Walker’s comments on minimising the worst possible hit on businesses his company advises, I’ll ask again…
Was the concept of receiversip in the minds of those who commited RFC to the EBT scheme at the time it was initially set up?
And for a third and hopefully final time-
This is perhaps in need of some comment from those in the know-There is no possibility that Lloyds did not know what they were about by agreeing to the assignation of the floating charge to Wavetower. It was clearly to allow a vulture capitalist complete control over the disposal of RFC’s assets held under the charge so as to satisfy the £18mil+debt, yes?
It is beyond any stretch of anyone’s credibility to say that Lloyds were unaware of what they were doing.
Is this universally agreed?
So what if any sanctions do Lloyds as a part publicly-owned company face for this? It is obviously true that the move is legal, but surely HMRC and the public are likely to be somewhat inclined to penalise a bank which tries to dodge out of taking a measure of social responsibility for its actions?
And is such a move of using an arm’s-length debt collector by a bank a possibility in the future particularly with regards to the case of other football EBT cases.
Of course, if you don’t know- there’s no point in answering.
Duggie – There is no way that receivership would have been considered when the EBTs were set up in 2001, despite Hugh Adam’s misgivings about the future of RFC. Insolvency law hadn’t changed at that point to the procedures were what they were.
I’m sure that Lloyds knew exactly what they were doing when they accepted £18M to pay off RFC’s debt. It was exactly that. They had concerns about RFC’s ability to pay it and if someone new was coming in to pay it off, then fantastic. Lloyds bit his hand off. It is not Loyds concern about CW’s future plans for the club. For all they knew he could have brought in another £100M investment. Lloyds knew there was a huge business risk for RFC re the Tax case therefore were happy to get out with no questions asked.
You have answered the last part yourself in the words ‘the move is legal’ There is no liability on Lloyds part therefore no prospect of sanctions. Banks sell bad debts to debt collectors on a regular basis. Indeed they write off Billions in bad debts every year. Those debts still exist for companies that haven’t gone bust. If the banks can sell them on at 10p in the £ then it is to their advantage.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 24 1174 18116 24 22/10/2011 10:24:0 easyJambo 23 29 “BarcaBhoy – In the CW circular to shareholders in June he commited to the following:
‘continue to run the Club as a football club from Ibrox Stadium in Glasgow. It is anticipated that there will be no likely repercussions on employment and the locations of the Club’s place of business, nor is it the intention of The Rangers FC Group to redeploy any of the fixed assets of the Club; ‘
I would have thought that statement would give the small shareholders the power to block the sale of Ibrox as a fixed asset.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 24 1178 18120 28 22/10/2011 10:40:0 easyJambo 23 30 “AWOTN – The statement of CW in the Bain papers referencing the fact that he could deal with a tax bill of £10M-15M could well be the 25% CVA veto threshold he forseen. i.e. he could ‘create’ up to £60M of debt, thus denying HMRC the power of veto.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 24 1194 18137 44 22/10/2011 11:22:0 easyJambo 23 31 “Jonnybhoy says: at 10:58 am
You are probably right about the small shareholders. They will want what is best for the future of the club.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 24 1196 18139 46 22/10/2011 11:24:0 easyJambo 23 32 “LW – ‘Craig Thomas Whyte’ – anagram of ‘Oh Gay Tims Watcher'”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1511 18457 11 23/10/2011 21:19:0 easyJambo 23 33 “Paulie Walnuts says: 23/10/2011 at 4:40 pm & rangerstaxcase says: 23/10/2011 at 5:12 pm
Maybe I’m putting 2+2 together and getting 5, but from earlier posts by Paul McConville, my understanding was that 60 days after the HMRC arrestment (end Oct), that a ‘preference’ would be accorded to the claim. Would that not put HMRC in a queue behind Wavetower’s floating charge but ahead of the unsecured creditors?
Does that scenario apply between the 60 day mark and the 14 week automatic trasfer of funds?
Does the receiver also have to apply to the court to have the funds released form the arrestment? If so, surely HMRC would oppose such a release on the basis of the takeover documents and missed payment dates, when the club was still solvent.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1513 18459 13 23/10/2011 21:40:0 easyJambo 23 34 “AWOTN – Hearts can request that the SPL withhold any money due to RFC with respect to TV or Merit payments and have it paid direct to them.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1529 18487 29 23/10/2011 22:45:0 easyJambo 23 35 “TBK – I’ve just loaded up a copy of Tixway UK’s last set of accounts obtained from duedil.com
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1540 18511 40 23/10/2011 23:18:0 easyJambo 23 36 “Onandx3
Tixway UK was formed in Jan 2007.
2008 figures show Total Assets as £1.749M and Liabilities of £232K
2009 equivalent figures are £2.003M and £177K
2010 equivalent figures are £2.507M and £138K”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 32 1555 18555 5 24/10/2011 1:12:0 easyJambo 23 37 “OnandOnandOnand says: 24/10/2011 at 12:24 am
pity, we could have had easyjambo post the Merchant Corporate Recovery accounts, last ones, make interesting reading
Sorry – popped out for a couple of pints.
MRC last published accounts to Jan 2010 as requested

I haven’t had a chance to read the accounts in detail, but if you read the section on ‘Investment Objectives and Strategies’ it will give you an idea of how CW and his cronies operate, e.g. charging 2%-3% a month in interest. That will probably be the premium that RFC are paying to Wavetower for their £18M loan facility at the moment, thus allowing CW to suck cash out of RFC with impunity.”
Disinformation and Deceit 1 2 18470 2 23/10/2011 22:29:0 easyJambo 2 1 “Well done RTC and Paul McC for exposing Louie for what he is …… Sam, the Accountant, Rasputin etc etc. 🙂 ”
Disinformation and Deceit 2 83 18587 33 24/10/2011 10:11:0 easyJambo 2 2 “Onandx3
I’ll repost the link to the accounts here for convenience.

I’m afraid that my background is in IT, so I’m not qualified to comment with authority as an accountant or an auditor, so any comments I make are as Joe Public.
The Auditors ‘qualified opinion’ is an interesting one and just appears symptomatic of the way opaque way in which CW conducts his business dealings as highlighted in last week’s BBC documentary.
There appears to be a clear attempt to hide the financial status of LM Logistics, in administration, with the statement under note 8 ‘Financial information for the company is therefore not available’, yet he knows that he could expect £230K as a secured creditor.
I honestly don’t know if the accounts do hide anything untoward or that they meet all the legal requirements, but with what we already know about CW’s behaviour, I would treat anything he does or says with extreme caution.”
Disinformation and Deceit 2 85 18589 35 24/10/2011 10:17:0 easyJambo 2 3 “‘curious onlooker says: 24/10/2011 at 9:50 am
PMcG talked of 27/28 October as being significant dates in all of this.
As they get closer, any ideas to what the significance is/could be ?

The dates are the last couple of days before the 60 day mark following the HMRC arrestment. Previous posts by Paulie Walnuts and Paul McConville give differing views on whether on not the 60 day mark is significant if an insolvency event was to follow. P.MacG’s view is in line with Paul McC’s in that the 60 day mark is significant.
I’l leave it to the experts and watch with interest to see if anything happens.”
Disinformation and Deceit 3 108 18618 8 24/10/2011 12:44:0 easyJambo 2 4 “I see that the SFA have anounced the appointment of Vincent Lunney as their Compliance Officer.
Perhaps it would be worth a pre emptive strike of asking about the status of ‘Newco clubs’ in an insolvency process.
Might also be worth asking the official stance of the SFA on Club Owners who don’t meet the SFA’s Fit and Proper Persons criteria, i.e. those who have been disqualified as directors within the previous 5 years.”

Disinformation and Deceit 3 150 18660 50 24/10/2011 15:35:0 easyJambo 2 5 “The owners and boards of the SPL clubs will have to be very careful how this whole issue is handled. They will undoubtedly come under strong pressure from major sharholders, the written and broadcast media and probably the SFL/SFA heirarchy to come to some accommodation for a newco RFC.
However, to ignore their customers’ wishes would be a huge mistake. The majority view that I have come across is that starting at the bottom of the pyramid would be appropriate, though I guess that Spartans or Cove Rangers may also seek to apply for a vacant league position. The danger for the clubs is if a large number of fans vote with their feet and don’t take up STs as mentioned above, because they feel that the game has lost its integrity or credibility..
Football fans are not like the customers of any other business. It is not the same as when a customer has an issue with Tesco, so decides to go to ASDA instead. A brassed off CFC fan is unlikely to start following PTFC. More often than not, a lost fan from one club is lost to the game completely. That is what clubs will risk if they vote for an ‘accommodation’.”
Disinformation and Deceit 4 155 18665 5 24/10/2011 15:57:0 easyJambo 2 6 “Auldheid @3:45 – that’s precisely why I made the remark. The game is already on a precipice and is just as likely to fall over of its own volition. without mishandling the readmission of a newco RFC.”

Disinformation and Deceit 5 236 18750 36 24/10/2011 20:9:0 easyJambo 2 7 “Paul McConville says: 24/10/2011 at 7:58 pm
Paul you’ve got until midnight on Wednesday to provide your definitive legal opinion on this issue, otherwise we are into PMacG’s 27th/28th forecast period. A late submission will not be accepted at the court of RTC. 🙂 ”
Disinformation and Deceit 6 273 18789 23 24/10/2011 22:2:0 easyJambo 2 8 “‘gunnerb says: 24/10/2011 at 9:33 pm
Reading of this blog would indicate that most fans would accept RFC2 starting in the third tier and living within their means as the appropriate punishment, I wonder if that is a true and broad consensus of all fans of the professional game?I would hope so, but it would be comforting to know for sure how fans outside of Celtic are discussing this issue. For instance, Easyjambo..do you see this as a live debate on Hearts boards/forums ? (apologies in advance if you dont frequent the boards/forums)

Gunnerb – It is a live issue on Hearts forums. On the most popular messageboard, the last thread amassed 845 replies and 36,000 views. The general consensus is as it is here that they would like to see RFC 2012 start at the bottom of the pyramid, but there is a small number of posters who stoutly believe that a deal will be done that will see RFC emerge relatively unscathed. The general level of knowledge of the case is, as you would expect, lower than it is among the devotees of RTC, but there is a growing number who have been keeping a watchful eye on this blog.”
Disinformation and Deceit 7 318 18834 18 25/10/2011 0:9:0 easyJambo 2 9 “andy Fitzpatrick says: 25/10/2011 at 12:03 am
I’m gonna say 10am Thursday rangers will go into administration,,don’t think they can pay the players on Friday.
They will have to have taken some steps before then. I would guess that the players are paid via BACS. If so, the wages file will have to be sent to BACS during the day on Wednesday at the very latest to be in the players accounts on Friday morning.”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 2 56 18905 6 25/10/2011 10:28:0 easyJambo 39 1 “Obviously I would love to see the spreadsheet with the projected cashflows. I’m sure that it was Donald McIntyre’s representative who made reference to the cashflow figures in the recent case at the Court of Session. I’m guessing that RTC has seen a copy of these figures.
The £2.3M arrestment gained by HMRC approximates to one month’s wages for all employees of RFC, based on figures from 2009/10 accounts (£28M for the year), so the loss of one month’s wages is the impact of the small bill. That said, if the small bill had been paid immediately following the takeover as planned, then we would effectively be in the same position.
What is still open to question is what bills has he been paying. Wages have not been an isuue thus far. However we don’t know what he has done with VAT, PAYE and NIC, Rates or other creditors like Joe the Plumber. The Tax experts will know the payment schedules better than I do and will know the time scales involved for HMRC to start issuing demands.
I’d guess that CW may be able to squeeze out a month or two’s cashflow through non payment of bills. That might be enough to get him through from Oct/Nov to Dec/Jan. However, we don’t know how much CW has already taken out the business in salaries, management fees and interest payments. If he has taken say £2M out, then we could be back at the Oct/Nov scenario.
I’m not sure what games that Rangers have coming up, but the number of walk up spectators must now an important revenue stream. Other SPL teams need to be wary of any delays in receiving ticket sales money from Rangers, when RFC sells tickes for away games, otherwise they could find themselves out of pocket whenever RFC lurches into insolvency.”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 2 78 18928 28 25/10/2011 11:31:0 easyJambo 39 2 “Copied from previous blog :
excilecelt says: 25/10/2011 at 10:53 am
In establishing a drop dead date for the party to end a rough look at the cash flow will give some idea. The take over date was May 6, 2011. The deal does not allow CW & Co. to borrow money on the club so all expenditure has to come from cash-in-hand (no line of credit ). Based on this the rough picture is;
Cash on hand @ 6/5/2011 ( estimate ) 5,000,000
Season Tickets 20,000,000
2 Euro Gates 2,000,000
Liverpool 500,000
Other 1,000,000
Total 28,500,000
24 week @ 1,000,000 ( operating ) 24,000,000
Liberty Capital Fee @ 450,000/month 2,700,000
Ring-Fenced Money 3,000,000
Other (legal, etc. ) 500,000
Total 30,200,000
Assumes player fees in and out as even.
Its getting to be tight collar time.
Hopefully some of the more financially expert bloggers can refine this. October 28th anyone?”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 2 84 18934 34 25/10/2011 11:46:0 easyJambo 39 3 “Exilecelt – I think that some of your figues are way out and that you are missing a few income and expenditure streams, such as sponsorship and retail activities.
Rangers turnover (all income streams) for this season will be of the order of £35M-£40M. Their outgoings will be £45M-£50M. As RTC has said, the income streams are front loaded particularly ST money which will be no more than £15M.
Regular costs of wages are in excess of £2M a month, so it should be relatively easy to work back that the £10M-£15M turnover/outgoing cashflow shortfall will manifest itself 5 to 7 months before the end of the season, i.e. from now to January..”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 2 89 18939 39 25/10/2011 11:55:0 easyJambo 39 4 “AWOTN. – RFC was paying creditors with a very creditable average of 23 days as at 30/06/2010. If they extended that to around 90 days (similar to what Hearts achieve 😦 ), then CW could obtain a one-off cashflow benefit of maybe £2M, which would represent a couple of months day to day expenditure.
Once you have reached the 90 day mark then your monthly expenditure will revert to what it previously was.”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 2 93 18943 43 25/10/2011 12:39:0 easyJambo 39 5 “Celticbhoy says: at 12:31 pm
I don’t believe that RFC have made any significant cut in their costs. Improved contracts to a few top players and new recruits will have at best, only offset the savings from losing a couple of players.
The £19M is effectively the difference between 2010/11 with participation in the CL and EL and 2011/12 with no UEFA sourced income.”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 3 110 18960 10 25/10/2011 13:22:0 easyJambo 39 6 “Wrong link Thomas”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 4 165 19016 15 25/10/2011 15:46:0 easyJambo 39 7 “Exilecelt & Mark D.
I’ll wait for RTC to publish the full details of the cashflow projections, or a redacted spreadsheet. That would give a better basis for speculation.
However simple calculation. RTC tellls us that there is a funding gap of £19M between turnover (income) and expenditure.
Expenditure is fairly evenly spread through the year (mainly wages), so lets say thay have got their expenditue down to £36M (it’s probably more than that), or £3M a month The £19M represents more that 6 months expenditure, hence the impending cashflow problem around now.”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 4 168 19019 18 25/10/2011 15:59:0 easyJambo 39 8 “jimbo milligan says: 25/10/2011 at 3:50 pm
What do we think of whytes chances with the BBC ?
You mean Billionaire Buys Celtic 🙂 ”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 4 197 19051 47 25/10/2011 17:45:0 easyJambo 39 9 “AllWhyteOnTheNight says: at 5:23 pm
Was your post meant to be a response to me? It’s just that I haven’t posted anything about HMRC blocking anything today.
However on the point you are making. From what I’ve picked up from the ‘experts’, HMRC can only place conditions on any newco that resembles the oldco, by requiring the newco to prepay or provide guarantees for VAT, PAYE etc.
I dont believe that they can stop a ‘Receiver’ setting up a newco. Similarly I don’t believe that HMRC can block an Administrator from setting up an newco/selling assets to satisfy a secured creditor. I am aware of their ability to block a CVA settlement among unsecured creditors, thus forcing liquidation.”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 5 204 19058 4 25/10/2011 18:2:0 easyJambo 39 10 “STV now reporting the two newcos set up today, but RFC deny any links.
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 5 207 19061 7 25/10/2011 18:10:0 easyJambo 39 11 “From the Saffery publication
The Saffery Champness Corporate Finance Team has recently completed due diligence on the acquisition of Glasgow Rangers Football Club on behalf of Craig Whyte, the Scottish venture capitalist and ardent Rangers supporter.
Our team, led by Charles Simpson and Niraj Patel, linked up with Craig in December of last year with the intention of assisting on the completion of a very quick deal to be done over the Christmas and New Year period. However, ultimately, and following a pretty tortuous path, it wasn’t until early May that the deal finally closed.
Craig Whyte paid £1 for an 85% stake in Glasgow Rangers, which remains a listed company on the PLUS Stock Exchange, agreeing to take on the substantial debts of the club and put money into strengthening the team.
Our experts undertook the due diligence, which involved looking at all aspects of the financial and
commercial operations of the club, both on and off the pitch, working alongside the legal team
from Collyer Bristow, which undertook the legal due diligence and worked on the completion
documentation. Our work identified a number of previously unknown areas of risk for Craig Whyte, and as a result these issues were able to be dealt with prior to completion or as part of the deal terms.
As might be expected with such a high profile transaction, there was also considerable interest in the press about the deal’s progress and naturally, with such a passionate fan base, a high level of public expectation'”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 291 19147 41 25/10/2011 21:2:0 easyJambo 39 12 “I’ve just twigged something after a tweet by RTC
‘rangerstaxcaseRangers Tax-Case
After all the talk of the big tax case, unless Whyte puts in more cash, Rangers will go insolvent before a result is obtained.’
The reason that CW will not provide working capital is that he cannot add it to the debt. It was stated under 1(d) in the circular that he would provide up to £5M in working capital. However the items that would be added to the debt were 1(b), 1(e) and 1(f)”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 2 56 19350 6 26/10/2011 10:52:0 easyJambo 31 1 “RTC – one of the ‘row’ totals in the spreadsheet is incorrect, although it doesn’t affect the cashfow or debt positions.
The ‘Player Transfer Payments (est) should total £-4,520 and not £4,920”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 2 57 19351 7 26/10/2011 10:53:0 easyJambo 31 2 “That should read
The ‘Player Transfer Payments (est)’ should total £-4,520 and not £-4,920”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 3 115 19413 15 26/10/2011 13:18:0 easyJambo 31 3 “I’ve created a spreadsheet with the figures used by RTC and posted it on Scribd. I’ve created it in Excel 97-2003 workbook format so that anyone who is familiar with spreadsheets can download it and play about with the numbers e.g. starting cash or wavetower investments
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 3 125 19425 25 26/10/2011 13:34:0 easyJambo 31 4 “RTC – I assume that you have simply taken the figures as supplied and haven’t attempted to change anything, other that the aggregations your source requested.
Am I also right to assume that the spreadsheet was either a draft or an actual submission made to the Court of Session in connection with any of the recent arrestment cases, or alternatively a cashflow projection supplied to the SFA in connection with a licensing application (less likely)
If those assumptions are correct then surely the £200K starting cash is likely to be fairly accurate.
One thing that appears to be missing is the additional cost of CW’s ownership. Savings on the servicing of Lloyds debt are recorded as are savings on the salaries of Bain and McIntyre, but there is no mention of interest, management fees or salaries in connection with the Wavetower debt or the salaries of the new directors.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 3 132 19436 32 26/10/2011 14:0:0 easyJambo 31 5 “Casual Observer says: at 1:47 pm
I agree – It’s highly likely that interest or management costs will be accrued until such time as a receiver is appointed, unless there is a requirement for CW to pay a return to any backer who may have provided him with the cash to takeover the debt from Lloyds.
On Directors salaries (emoluments) The 2010 Accounts gave the total as £832K, with the highest paid director (M Bain?) receiving £633K. That does not tie up with the projections of £60K a month for both Bain and McIntyre. I’m sure that Betts and Ellis will be taking a salary however.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 3 133 19437 33 26/10/2011 14:8:0 easyJambo 31 6 “I’ve deleted the last version of the cashflow spreadsheet and updated it with a new one with the number format corrected to remove the decmal places
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 4 161 19470 11 26/10/2011 16:27:0 easyJambo 31 7 “Guys – It’s good to have Adam back and with it some reasoned challenge of RTC’s assertions, which RTC has acknowledged and taken the time to respond.
I fully expect much cheering from the sidelines when RFC eventually accepts insolvency, but until then can you please avoid the baiting of anyone who doesn’t follow the RTC line 100%.
I’m not particularly interested in Celtic’s financial status, quality of players, gate sharing, music videos etc. Lets try to stay on topic as much as possible”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 5 241 19555 41 26/10/2011 20:2:0 easyJambo 31 8 “Some ‘cash in bank/hand’ figures at the end of the accounts period i.e. 30th June (x £000)
2007 – £11.023M
2008 – £4.590M
2009 – £594K
2010 – £348K
Interim 2010/11
31st Dec £5.22M
They may help in trying to understand the ups and downs of the cashflow.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 5 245 19559 45 26/10/2011 20:9:0 easyJambo 31 9 “A couple of observations.
The cashflow was a positive £8.57M for the first half of the financial year (Jul-Dec 2010) mainly due to CL money, but was negative £5.01M for Jan-Jun 2011.
We know from the interims that the cash in hand was £5.22M at 31st Dec 2010. Subtract the negative cashflow of £5.01M for the last six months and you end up with a starting cash balance of £210K, so the spreadsheet stands up given the interim report and the supplied monthly cashflow positions in the spreadsheet.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 5 250 19564 50 26/10/2011 20:20:0 easyJambo 31 10 “I think there is a tendency to over analyse things like the cashflow position, when a couple of stats stand out like a sore thumb.
A simple calculation would look at the net cashflow for 2010/11 as a positive £3.56M. That was achieved with income from UEFA money totalling £18.71M. Remove the UEFA money for 2011/12 and you are left with a ‘Black Hole’ of £15.15M.
That hole can only be filled with new investment, the sale of players or other assets, or exceptional commercial success on and off the field.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 6 253 19567 3 26/10/2011 20:25:0 easyJambo 31 11 “Adam @8:15
You would need a breakdown of the elements that made up the cashflow between January and July 2011. We know that football clubs should be cash positive in the first half of the season with Season Ticket and European money flowing in. They have to make it spin out to last until the end of the season and the cycle repeats itself. A good cup run would help, as would the absence of any installment payments for players.
It may have just been that Lloyds were intent on driving down the overdraft.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 6 258 19572 8 26/10/2011 20:34:0 easyJambo 31 12 “Adam – I don’t know how RFC’s ST renewals are organised, but I recall someone saying that most punters opt for an installment plan, and the peak income point was at the end of August, precicely the point at which HMRC got their arrestment.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 6 260 19574 10 26/10/2011 20:37:0 easyJambo 31 13 “Adam – May and June 11 showed a positive figure of £630K which probably reflects the fact the ST money was starting to stream in.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 7 324 19640 24 26/10/2011 23:1:0 easyJambo 31 14 “The only figure we have that CW actually claims to have put in is his £5.7M ‘net’ spend on the playing squad. You may recall the interview when he mentioned signing on fees and agents fees being part of that spend. I think that we can assume that sum now forms part of the debt to Wavetower. I am guessing that the additional amounts involved in the improved contracts given to McGregor, Whittaker, Davis and co., make a substantial portion of that sum. The reality will more likely be that he has done some creative accounting with the ST and other income streams to achieve the same result at no cost to himself.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 8 390 19715 40 27/10/2011 12:39:0 easyJambo 31 15 “Please remember that the speadsheet is a projection, probably set up to paint the blackest picture possible for RFC to aid a Court of Session arrestment. The actual picture may not be quite as black as the forecast.
Yes, there are indicators that would suggest insolvency could happen almost immediately, but even on this blog, two of our ‘experts’ Paulie Walnuts and Paul McConville have differing views on the impact of the 60 day threshold for the HMRC arrestment. RTC has aslo warned that even planned spending can be out by an month or two. The reports that salaries have been paid today would suggest that the plug won’t be pulled this week. The next key date is around 8th December, 14 weeks since the HMRC arrestment, when HMRC will receive the £2.3M balance of the ‘small tax bill’. However, CW may already have written that sum off, given that it was known about prior to the takeover.
If CW can survive to the transfer window, then there is scope to sell players and spin the end game out further into the Spring.
While I would like the end to come sooner rather than later, I am happy to wait in the knowledge that it will happen, but recognise that it will take as long as it takes.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 9 448 19776 48 27/10/2011 16:36:0 easyJambo 31 16 “‘Gwared says: 27/10/2011 at 1:09 pm
Where has RTC said he got them from the Court of Session? have I missed that, this is the point I kept trying to make yesterday Adam is supposition, RTC is a source but if as you say it’s from the COS then of course it will be heavily flavoured against RFC which then makes you wonder why they haven’t said anything about it.
I am beginning to feel yesterday’s blog is too far wide open to interpretation and if anything is muddying the water’s for mere mortals like me, how do you know the Wage’s are paid, I thought they were due tomorrow?.

RTC hasn’t said where he got it from. I am aware that a cashflow spreadsheet was one of the items that DMcI had indended presenting to the CoS Judge. That is the only cashflow document that has ever been mentioned. (it’s a bit like the Bain papers)
I put two and two together and guessed that the spreadsheet is a draft or a copy of that spreadsheet. No-one has challenged that view.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 10 458 19787 8 27/10/2011 17:5:0 easyJambo 31 17 “‘Gwared says: 27/10/2011 at 4:42 pm
Thanks EJ,
Are the Court Paper’s Public document’s?

I don’t believe so, otherwise there would be no issue with RTC identifying his source.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 13 639 19979 39 28/10/2011 1:12:0 easyJambo 31 18 “Interested Observer says: 28/10/2011 at 12:39 am
I look forward to reding such an article and how they have come up with such a punishment.
On a related point, I would like to raise as a discussion point something that has been mentioned before but not followed up. What is the role of Gordon Smith? He has admitted himself that he has not been involved in transfer dealings, so what is his value to the club going forward.
Can I suggest that he only remains at Ibrox to negotiate their footballing status post insolvency. Having been chief exec of the SFA he at least should know their machinations. I would find it incredible if RFC hadn’t already approached Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster to establish what options or opportunities would be available to RFC 2011/12.
The SPL/SFA rules do seem to have a black hole when it comes to newcos, so I believe that they could be pressured into an accommodation for a newco RFC.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 13 640 19980 40 28/10/2011 1:23:0 easyJambo 31 19 “Auldheid says: at 11:43 pm
I asked a similar question a few blogs back. Basically, I asking what is the essence of a football club.? What are the minimum assets that could be bought by a third party to keep the footballing side going (as a going concern and no penalties), while leaving the bulk of the business, e.g.Ibrox and Murray Park, the commercial side including catering, hospitaility, shops etc , with the debts and liabilities.
I don’t know if it would be possible but it is certainly thinking out the box.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 18 873 20220 23 28/10/2011 20:47:0 easyJambo 31 20 “‘steve-b says: 28/10/2011 at 8:33 pm
does anyone think hearts may follow rangers into admin if rangers are treated lightly. ie 10 points and a slap on the wrist?

In terms of indebtedness they should follow, but Hearts owners and largest creditors, by a long way, are their ‘bankers’, UBIG. Unless UBIG are prepared to take a very substantial haircut, then it won’t happen anytime soon. UBIG are however, exerting tight control on Hearts spending at the moment.
I still don’t understand why Hearts have continued paying out so much in wages for the last two or three seasons though.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 18 884 20231 34 28/10/2011 21:12:0 easyJambo 31 21 “Benji – he doesn’t own it out right but has a large shareholding.
steve-b I believe that UBIG provide Hearts with cash on a quarterly basis and its up to them to use the funds as best they can. If they can get additional income from walk up punters or hospitality etc. then so much the better. I’m guess that they have exhausted what money was available to them and only paid the lower earners this month (the higher earners should be better placed to be able to cope with a week or two delay). Hearts ST sales are down about 10% and hospitality hasn’t been selling out even against Hibs, Celtic or Rangers, so they are feeling the pinch. The only saving grace was the EL tie with Spurs.
I honestly believe that we will start seeing some SPL clubs go semi part-time in the next couple of years if things don’t pick up.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1161 20515 11 30/10/2011 9:41:0 easyJambo 31 22 “I think the Scotsman article is wrong with respect to the Board admitting a newco.
From the SPL Articles of Association
‘Definition of a ‘Reserved Matter’
Reserved Matters means, except where otherwise expressly and to the extent provided in these Articles, those matters relating to the Company’s affairs which shall not be dealt with by the Board but which shall and may only be determined upon by the Members in General Meeting as follows;
Article 38
38. A Special Qualified Resolution, (83%) shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:-
(i) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new Members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL);
(ii) any reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Premier League (other than as a result of a Member ceasing to be a Member of the Scottish Premier League in accordance with the Rules and/or these Articles or as a consequence of the expulsion of a Member); and,
(iii) the allotment and the issue of a Share.’
An 83% vote will require a 10-1 vote by the SPL members. I would like to think that any club under threat of relegation this season will not vote for a newco’s admission (John Yorkston?). They would effectively be throwing away around £720k in TV and Merit payments, i.e. much more than they would earn from 1 or 2 visits from RFC.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1165 20519 15 30/10/2011 9:56:0 easyJambo 31 23 “I don’t want to enter into a footballing debate, but both Celtic and Rangers are weaker now that they have been since 1986. No team should be scared of beating either of them, although most teams continue to give them far too much respect.
The Euro places are very important for next season as Scotland has 2 x CL qualifying places (both enter at 3rd QR), but also with a fallback to the EL Play Off round.
For Motherwell, Hearts or anyone else there is a huge carrot to be had by finishing 2nd, not least the £880K difference in prize money between finishing 2nd or 3rd.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1170 20524 20 30/10/2011 10:7:0 easyJambo 31 24 “From a financal services website
HMRC Given More Power to Target Potential PAYE Absconders
10 October 2011
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) have been given stronger powers such that, from 6th April 2012, they can ask employers to pay a security deposit where there is a risk that they won’t pay over their PAYE or Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs).
HMRC can already ask for a security for VAT, insurance premium tax (IPT) and environmental taxes”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1190 20545 40 30/10/2011 10:39:0 easyJambo 31 25 “easyJambo says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
LW @ 10:18 ‘ Extract from a Tom English Article re Craig White on 19th April
‘Whyte has deposited 28m as proof of his financial clout. He has spent a large six-figure sum on lawyers and accountants and due diligence stretching back six months. He has said publicly, more than once, that he is committed to investing 25m over five years on new players. He has stayed in the game and has worked out a ‘mechanism’ to deal with whatever HMRC may through at the club. He has stayed in the deal, also, despite the nasty little surprise of a 2.8m unpaid tax bill was discovered. He has hung around and inched things forward despite all of that and regardless of the two UEFA charges of sectarian chanting that are hanging over the club at present.
Unless he’s a complete madman ‘ spending millions on getting rid of Lloyds and Murray and then not bothering to invest in the business he has just bought ‘ then we must assume that he is going to do what he says. He has hvng his reputation on delivering what he has said. What is Johnston thinking? That Whyte will take control of the club and then go, ‘HaHa! Fooled ye all! I don’t have another bob to my name! We’re all going down in flames!”
Yes we really should listen to the MSM rather than Bloggers 🙂
….. and Tom should listen a little more to the likes of AJ”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 27 1329 20690 29 30/10/2011 21:32:0 easyJambo 31 26 “I’ve made a stab at calculating the total amount that creditors could potentially be owed at the point of Insolvency. I’m sure the accountants among us will tell me if I have included / excluded / miscalculated any items. The numbers are taken from the 2010 accounts as guideline figures or just best guesstimates on my part.
£18M ‘ Assigned debt from Lloyds
£8M ‘ Additional Wavetower debt (New investment, accrued interest and fees)
£3.8M ‘ The other loan (Lease Creditor)
£3.7M ‘ Small Tax Bill (excludes 500K already paid)
£49M ‘ Large tax Bill
£2M ‘ additional interest on the Tax bills above for the last 6 months
£3M ‘ PAYE, NIC & VAT outstanding
£10M ‘ Unused portion of Season Tickets for this season (1/3 through the season)
£7.3M ‘ Pre-paid multi-year season tickets
£7.7M ‘ Rangers Bond Holders
£12M ‘ Balance of Player Contracts
£1.3M – Total of ex directors claims
£2M ‘ Trade Creditors
£1M ‘ other creditors (e.g. joe the plumber)
I make that a total of £128.8M . It’s a frightening figure.
The secured element is probably only the first £26M, but I’d expect that in a hive down or newco scenario he would take on say 50% of the player contracts and pay off trade creditors as a goodwill gesture in order to secure SPL status.
The big imponderable for me is what happens to the ST and Bond holders. It could make a huge difference to the short, medium and long term future of the club if he shafts the supporters.”
The Devil Is In The Details 4 179 21017 29 31/10/2011 15:31:0 easyJambo 61 1 “Davie b says: 31/10/2011 at 2:46 pm
alteration to floating charge number 8 lodged at Companies House ‘ not available to view yet.
The last charge listed is No14, so working back through previous ones you are correct that No 8 would have been the one lodged on 8th March 1999, i.e. the BoS floating charge created on 24th Frebruary of that year.”
The Devil Is In The Details 4 180 21018 30 31/10/2011 15:35:0 easyJambo 61 2 “I suspect that the decision not to convert the debt to equity, as stated in the June circular, was a sop to the IBC and the 26,000 small sharholders so as not to dilute their holdings.
‘The Rangers FC Group has separately undertaken to the Club that it will waive the
debt that it has acquired and not exercise its option to convert it into equity as provided for in
the Agreement'”
The Devil Is In The Details 5 218 21057 18 31/10/2011 19:27:0 easyJambo 61 3 “droid says: 31/10/2011 at 7:18 pm
the question in my mind about the arrestment of the tainted title medals, was this done purely so Mr McIntyre could recoup his money or was it a true blue attempt to save the medals from Mr Whyte melting them down into bars?
Playing devil’s advocate here – How are last season’s title medals tainted? There is no evidence (as yet) that RFC continued to use EBTs to pay players during 2010/11. The DOS and EBT cases cover from 99/00 through to 09/10 if I’m not mistaken.”
The Devil Is In The Details 5 220 21059 20 31/10/2011 19:32:0 easyJambo 61 4 “Paulie – What’s the normal process around these things? Is it just a threat by a creditor? Will there be further discussion with RFC? Will a creditor just say in the money is not in my account in 24 hours then I will seek the apppointment of a liquidator? Is is dependent on who the creditor is, e.g. HMRC or Kirk Broadfoot’s agent?”
The Devil Is In The Details 5 223 21062 23 31/10/2011 19:35:0 easyJambo 61 5 “V – But they aren’t required to pay the big bill, yet! Maybe the MBB has a £50M cqueque in his back pocket. The non payment of small bill wasn’t an issue until after the takeover and the season had ended.”
The Devil Is In The Details 5 224 21063 24 31/10/2011 19:35:0 easyJambo 61 6 “Correction – ‘Cheque'”
The Devil Is In The Details 5 229 21068 29 31/10/2011 19:42:0 easyJambo 61 7 “Thanks Paulie”
Promises Promises 1 33 21260 33 1/11/2011 7:55:0 easyJambo 21 1 “I think that it would be much easier to defend the participation of other MIH employees and Directors in the EBT, as it would be simpler to disguise bonus payments deposited in the trust as ‘discretionary payments'”
Promises Promises 6 298 21540 48 2/11/2011 1:34:0 easyJambo 21 2 “My reading is that Close have been given a Fixed Chage in preference to the Floating Charge.”
Promises Promises 8 375 21628 25 2/11/2011 13:28:0 easyJambo 21 3 “I think that the latest document needs to be read in conjunction with the security that Close obtained in August.

It may be that either CW has sought to extend borrowing from Close in return for their existing security being given preference over the Floating Charge or that new borrrowing has been secured with a new fixed charge.
Alternatively Close may just have been getting twitchy and have simply sought additional guarantees with regard to their existing security. They may have been threatening to pull the plug and to seek a winding up order.”
Borrow Borrow 3 113 21758 13 2/11/2011 17:27:0 easyJambo 49 1 “RTC – I don’t see any strong evidence of additional sums having been borrowed.
I will stick to my theory that Close may not have received a scheduled payment on time and were getting twitchy about the sound of impending doom around Ibrox. They would have been aware that their security obtained in late August could have been gazumped by CW’s Floating Charge, therefore have acted to have their security given a preference over the Floating Charge, perhaps with the threat of a winding up order for the late payment.
For all we know, this could have been the £100K+ that Paulie mentioned at the end of last week. The dates certainly fit.”
Borrow Borrow 3 114 21759 14 2/11/2011 17:31:0 easyJambo 49 2 “the Don Dionisio says: 02/11/2011 at 5:23 pm
Stop taking the words out my mouth particularly when’ I’m trying to type. 🙂 ”
Borrow Borrow 3 118 21763 18 2/11/2011 17:35:0 easyJambo 49 3 “New tweet – pretty well confims Paul McC’s earlier post
AllanGPriceAllan Price by mrdavidcurrie
Capita lawyer tells BBC: an alleged unpaid bill for ‘straightforward commercial debt for advisory services rendered’ #rangers #gers”
Borrow Borrow 3 147 21793 47 2/11/2011 19:43:0 easyJambo 49 4 “johnty says: 02/11/2011 at 7:31 pm
Agreed. All outstanding tax bills will have to be paid by December 31st 2011 to meet requirements for UEFA licensing for season 2012..
I don’t think that is the correct interpretation. The SFA’s licensing process starts on 31st March, at which point there should be no payments outstanding that date back to before 31st December of the previous year. If it was as you described and you were presented with a large tax bill on 30th December but didn’t pay it until 5th January, you wouldn’t be granted a license which is patently incorrect and unreasonable.
There is a second opportunity to trap overdue payments later in the year up to 30th June preceding the start on the new season.”
Borrow Borrow 4 168 21815 18 2/11/2011 21:11:0 easyJambo 49 5 “TBK – i think that it is more likely that CW borrowed around £2M to fund the promised upgrade of Catering facilities (£1.7M in the circular). In return Close took a security over future catering income. Hence the MG01S at the beginning of September.
Lets say RFC were due to pay off the debt at £50K a month over five years, but missed the first couple of payments. Close start making noises and the debt is paid off along with a change to the priority of the security..”
Borrow Borrow 4 180 21827 30 2/11/2011 21:38:0 easyJambo 49 6 “TBK – the Don explained that in his post at 9.24”
Borrow Borrow 5 203 21850 3 2/11/2011 22:25:0 easyJambo 49 7 “Paul McC – I just go for a bath and come back to find out that my club is facing being wound up (again). 😦
Seriously though, there is nothing showing on the Companies House website as yet, so I have no idea who is chasing this up. The writing has been on the wall since the latest wages issue lasted more than a couple of days, so I do fear this one could go the distance.
If the worst does happen, and Romanov pulls the plug, iIt may be better that the club is ‘right sized’ to match it’s income (and not before time). Hearts have been as guilty of financial doping as anyone. Romanov has already written off £32M in the last seven years. (£30M in the last three years alone)
However, on the bright side, we have a youth set up and talent coming through that is as good as any in the SPL so I don’t think it would take too long to get back on track.”
Borrow Borrow 5 212 21859 12 2/11/2011 22:36:0 easyJambo 49 8 “It could be that Saturday’s clash between Hearts U19s v Rangers U19s could be a preview of next season’s first team match in the 3rd Dvision 🙂 ”
Borrow Borrow 5 216 21863 16 2/11/2011 22:42:0 easyJambo 49 9 “EJ – Thanks for the concerns guys.
I may have had a season ticket for the last 26 years, but I’m a realist and a pragmatist.
It’s been on the cards that a big club would go out of business for the last few years. Whether it is Hearts, Rangers or some other team isn’t the point. Scottish football has been living beyond its means for a number of years and it doesn’t concern me unduly if there are casualties and the game has to fall further before it hits a stable foundation on which it can be rebuilt.”
Borrow Borrow 5 222 21869 22 2/11/2011 22:49:0 rangerstaxcase 5 19 “Sorry EasyJambo, but I have not wanted to break it to you. I have been hearing noises that Hearts will ultimately be in more trouble than Rangers.
What this means about tomorrow I don’t know, but I expect this to be the second in several steps that only end in insolvency as well.
It is probably good news for Hearts and rangers that both are in trouble at the same time. It is hard to imagine a hardline when so many are in trouble. However, Hearts and Rangers are in by far the most trouble.
Look back on my thoughts on Campbell Ogilvie. It was not a speculative posting.”
Borrow Borrow 5 234 21881 34 2/11/2011 23:2:0 easyJambo 49 10 “RTC – I was aware of your early blog on CO, but any liability associated with that would be small beer compared to the £30M or so debt that we are current carrying.
HMRC has petitioned at least twice before and the bill has been paid, Will it be 3rd time unlucky, I don’t know. The bottom line is that the debt we have is unsustainable. The only sensible solution, as I think Mark Dickson stated previously, is for Vlad to take ownership of the ground through an Administration process, and to make all the high earners redundant. It’s a cheaper and quicker way to get the finances on an even keel. A CVA shouln’t be too dificult to arrange given that Vlad’s companies hold virtually all the debt, so Administration and a 10 point penalty should be as far as it goes. A relegation fight against Hibs would be an interesting one though.
A land swap deal between Vlad and the council with a new community stadium on the west side of the city would be a reasonable outcome for the club.
Other clubs with similar difficulties are Kilmarnock, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and Dunfermline. Hibs are heading that way too.”
Borrow Borrow 5 241 21889 41 2/11/2011 23:10:0 easyJambo 49 11 “Anyway, my local is open until 12, so I’m off down the road for a couple of pints.
Hopefully, by the time I come back it will all be sorted out and the undoubted mistake in the CoS listings will be corrected to read RFC v Paul Johnston 🙂 ”
Borrow Borrow 6 293 21947 43 3/11/2011 1:1:0 easyJambo 49 12 “‘MDCCCLXXXVIII says: 03/11/2011 at 12:25 am
Phil Mac’s latest offering…

Source material.

As discussed earlier in this blog, I think that Phil has misinterpreted the Companies House documents.”
Borrow Borrow 8 384 22046 34 3/11/2011 12:32:0 easyJambo 49 13 “Chalmers & Mark – I was probably at that Cowdenbeath v Motherwell game too. It would have been in the one season in my lifetime that Cowdenbeath had in the old 1st division, 70/71 I think. I was at all Cowdenbeath’s home games that season. Can’t recall that game specifically though.
I went to school in Cowdenbeath and was a contemporary of Jim Leishman, Dick and Ian Campbell and Doug Rougvie as well as British Lion, Ian Paxton.”
Borrow Borrow 10 465 22128 15 3/11/2011 15:56:0 easyJambo 49 14 “Just in case anyone is unaware of what has been going on at Tynecastle today, it appears that a bill of approx £500K has been paid. Also the media ban appears to be over given the appearance of a satellite van and several journos I saw outside Tynecastle earlier taking to Hearts’ communications director.”
Borrow Borrow 13 630 22311 30 4/11/2011 21:12:0 easyJambo 49 15 “RTC – Are you in a position to confirm that date when the FTT will actaully resume. I seem to recall it being stated that there could be as little as a day’s evidence to hear. Will there be any recap of previous submissions, or final submissions to be heard from both sides that could delay the conclusion further?”
Confidence Trick 1 17 22415 17 5/11/2011 9:2:0 easyJambo 10 1 “I’ll add to the question re the date. The Counsel’s Opinion was in February, yet the document references the resumption of the tribunal in November. We know that the tribunal sat in late April and early May and only then did it become clear that a further session would be required. It therefore seems odd that the Opinion being relied upon predates the last tribunal session.”
Confidence Trick 3 140 22543 40 5/11/2011 16:40:0 easyJambo 10 2 “I jokingly said that today’s U19s game between Hearts and Rangers might be a preview of next season’s Division 3 clash between the sides. If that is the entertainment that in on show, then’s I’m looking forward to it. (Hearts won 4-3 with a 95th minute winner 🙂 ). . I was also at the Celtic v Aberdeen U19 game yesterday that Celtic won 4-2. The U19 league is certainly better quality than the snorefests on display in the SPL.
The Hearts debt that was paid off last week was £247K and not the £500K reported in the media, (source David Southern, Managing Director). I think I may also have started a few hares running with an enquiry to another senior Hearts employee.”

Confidence Trick 6 283 22693 33 6/11/2011 9:54:0 easyJambo 10 3 “‘curious onlooker says: 06/11/2011 at 8:58 am
Scenario of RangersNewCo seeking immediate re-entry into SPL.
Vote for:-
It´ll come down to Hearts and Celtic

Hearts will vote in favour of RFC as things stand because their own issues with the taxman may result in them having to rely on a similar vote in the future.”
Confidence Trick 6 286 22696 36 6/11/2011 10:11:0 easyJambo 10 4 “Stunney/Adam – SDM still controls 70% of MIH. Lloyds hold just over 23%.
I posted this on an earlier blog but I will repeat it here. The info put out on Celtic minded messageboards re Lloyds ownership of MIH was wrong. They do not own ‘Convertible Preference Shares’, but do own ‘Cumulative Preference Shares’, that they obtained in a £150M debt for equity swap. These shares provide Lloyds with a guaranteed dividend.
Lloyds will still exert some control over the company because of their debt position, but they don’t have a controlling interest in the shares of the company.”
Confidence Trick 7 312 22723 12 6/11/2011 11:47:0 easyJambo 10 5 “V – There are three scenarios where I believe Vlad may invoke administration.
1) If he wants out. He could take ownership of the Tynecastle as per his floating charge and write off the rest, letting the administrator find a new buyer.
2) If he wants to retain ownership but run the club on an even keel, administration could see him take ownership of the stadium, write off the rest of the debt, buy back the club from the administrator and see the high earners made redundant.
2) If HMRC come up with a ‘big’ tax case he can go into admin take ownership of the stadium as above, Buy back the club for a £1, but see high earners made redundant and the HMRC debt disappear in a CVA.
Any of the options will mean that UBIG will have to take a haircut on what they are owed,”
Confidence Trick 7 344 22757 44 6/11/2011 14:53:0 easyJambo 10 6 “Casual Observer – thanks for the additional analysis on MIH.
MIH accounts for 2010 for anyone who is interested

Confidence Trick 8 354 22768 4 6/11/2011 16:40:0 easyJambo 10 7 “duggie72 – I seem to recall that in an old version of Word, if you typed in the name ‘Duncan Ferguson’ the spelling correction feature would offer an alternative of ‘Drunken Freemason’
😉 ”
Confidence Trick 13 608 23032 8 7/11/2011 15:2:0 easyJambo 10 8 “Some interesting points raised in the last couple of hours.
I agree with Auldheid that the silence from the SFA/SPL is deafening. They should at least put out a statement that any insolvency event for any club will be dealt with under their respective articles of association.
If that means that all they state is that there will be a 10pt penalty for entering administration or receivership and that any other action is at the discretion of the respective boards or members then so be it. At least, that would be enough to stop Traynor and co. peddling the likelihood of an additional 15pt penalty as fact rather than a myth.
Good to hear that the FTT has resumed and will end before the end of next week if RTC is correct.
Paulie’s gossip re the possibilty of the JJB money having been arrested is an intriguing one. Any updates re the court action with Capita?”
Confidence Trick 13 626 23050 26 7/11/2011 16:58:0 easyJambo 10 9 “STV reporting the resumption of the FTT today – 5 days allocated, 4 this week and 1 next week.
Confidence Trick 13 632 23056 32 7/11/2011 17:12:0 easyJambo 10 10 “RTC – What do you mean ‘you stopped reading it’? I thought you had written it. 🙂 ”
Confidence Trick 13 638 23062 38 7/11/2011 17:25:0 easyJambo 10 11 “Auldheid @ 5:12pm
3.3 Licence
3.3.1 Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another. Meeting the domestic requirements
A Licence may be awarded unconditionally or on a qualified basis. An unconditional licence is granted to clubs that meet the SPL criteria in full. A qualified licence award is granted to clubs that fail to meet all aspects of the criteria but meet the minimum mandatory requirements. A qualified award may be accompanied by timescales for clubs to address variances.
For a club to be awarded a qualified licence it must meet the minimum mandatory requirements of the system. These are specified in ‘Section 10 ‘ Scottish FA Mandatory Criteria’. Unless special dispensation is granted by the Licensing Committee, any failure to meet any of these criteria will result in the refusal of a Club Licence. Furthermore any failure to meet the conditions attached to a qualified award may result in the withdrawal of the qualified award and this will be determined by the Licensing Committee.
There is too much detail to list but Section 10 details mainly with ground requirements in terms of safety, the pitch and floodlights, together with a number of people issues, such as coaching, medical staff, youth provision including disclosure. The only Finance criteria listed is the requirement for provision of Audited accounts in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 and accepted accounting practices..”

Confidence Trick 16 763 23191 13 8/11/2011 0:23:0 easyJambo 10 12 “I would suspect that any increase in wages would have reflected bonuses payable for CL participation. I’m sure that the MB papers indicated a £75K bonus for CL qualification and £25K for EL participation. Lets say 16 players or staff qualified for that bonus, then we are talking about £1.2M
Oh wait a minute, MB didn’t get his bonus, did he? 🙂
Do you have the turnover figure RTC? It should be quite healthy with £18M or so from UEFA.”

Confidence Trick 16 769 23197 19 8/11/2011 0:34:0 easyJambo 10 13 “paulmac says: 08/11/2011 at 12:28 am
Depending on the mechanism used…if cash was provided before the 30th it would be considerd a debt as per the circular and should be reflected as such in any figures..
According to the circular, the £5M ‘Working Capital’ was not an element that would be added to the debt, although the £5M investment in the playing squad would be added to the debt in the event of an insolvency event.”
Confidence Trick 16 772 23200 22 8/11/2011 0:42:0 easyJambo 10 14 “OnandOnandOnand says: 08/11/2011 at 12:39 am
According to the circular, he would pay the small tax debt
But your honour, I did pay a small tax debt, £500k of it. I just forgot to pay the rest. 😉 ”
Confidence Trick 17 847 23276 47 8/11/2011 10:29:0 easyJambo 10 15 “jusodae says: at 10:21 am
The EBT was originally a Murray Group trust for senior executives within MIH. RFC subsequently contributed to the Trust in respect of their own employees.
I guess that there is something in it for SDM to ensure that his participation in the trust (assuming he was part of it) comes down in his favour.”

Confidence Trick 20 963 23397 13 8/11/2011 16:56:0 easyJambo 10 16 “Mark Dickson says: 08/11/2011 at 4:23 pm
The problem with the SPL/SFA artcles is that the handling of a liquidatiuon / newco scenario mid season has not been documented or considered previously. You will recall all the effort that was put into enabling Gretna to complete their fixtures when they went out of business. We are going into uncharted territory and looking to dicretionary decision making in the sports governing bodies to come up with something that is fair to everyone.
I think Pal McC looked at this in one of his previous blogs where he stated that the SFA has a crucial role as a licensor and has to be seen to be acting in the interests of all its members. Otherwise it will leave its decision open to judicial review should any club feel that the SFA has acted outside its mandate.
It’s worth considering the sanction of Spartans being thrown out the cup for fielding a player whose contract had not been dated correctly.
Typo on an contract v £49m tax bill. Summarily thrown out a competition v 10pt penalty.
Hmmmm 😦 ”
Confidence Trick 20 966 23400 16 8/11/2011 17:0:0 easyJambo 10 17 “That will be Paul McC, not Pal McC ……pal!”
Confidence Trick 22 1092 23530 42 8/11/2011 21:36:0 easyJambo 10 18 “‘ Paul McConville says: at 9:15 pm
As far as the comments have been made about Mr Whyte not being a ‘fit and proper person’ to be a director, the only arguable ground, at least at face value, is that of having been disqualified as a company director in the last five years. However that means that the decision to disqualify took place in that five years, not that he was serving his ban during it.’
Paul – if that is the legal interpretation of the SFA’s articles ‘he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years;’, then the law is an ass, and I can see where Joe Public has issues with lawyers.
Taking that interpretation at face value, then someone who was guilty of serious offences in 2005 and was banned from being a director for 15 years, would pass the SFA’s fit and proper persons test today (albeit he would legally not be permitted to be a director in any event).
It is clear to me that on 6th May 2006 (5 years prior to the takeover), Craig Whyte was disqualified from being a director, therefore should not have passed the fit and proper person test. I can only assume that he concealed that fact when he sought clearance from the SFA, or that the SFA chose to ignore their own rules. Either possibility is perfectly plausible.”
Confidence Trick 23 1118 23556 18 8/11/2011 22:16:0 easyJambo 10 19 “‘Paul McConville says: 9:51 pm
If it was intended that having been serving a ban at any time in the last five years was the trigger, it would say that clearly. Don’t blame the lawyers fo drafting what the client wanted!
Mr Whyte had ‘served his time’ by four years when he took over. Potentially there might be issues with football preventing someone in those circumstances becoming a director, where he could be a director of almost any other sort of company.
Football is not known for havng a higher standard of probity than general business!

It was you yourself that used the word ‘Decision’ in the original post. There is no mention of the word ‘Decision’ in the SFA Articles. The quote I used was taken directly from the Articles.
Craig Whyte may well have served his time when he took over, but I’m certain that the intention of the articles was to exclude those with a history of impropriety, i.e. by insisting on five clear years before consideration as a fit and proper person in a football context.
I agree with your last comment though 🙂 ”
Taking One For The Team 3 128 23777 28 9/11/2011 12:52:0 easyJambo 50 1 “I see that ‘The Rangers Foolball Group’ have now submitted their Annual Return (AR01) to Companies House with a statement of capital amounting to a whole £1.”
Taking One For The Team 3 135 23786 35 9/11/2011 13:25:0 easyJambo 50 2 “‘Daft Laddie says: 09/11/2011 at 1:01 pm
Just living up to my name: Does the £1.00 ‘Rangers Football Group’ have shares and, if so, is it public knowledge how many shares there are and is there a publicly available shareholder list (showing who has how many of such shares)?

Yes – there is a single share which is owned by Liberty Capital. There are three directors of TRFCG Ltd. They are Betts, Ellis and Whyte.”
Taking One For The Team 3 138 23789 38 9/11/2011 13:30:0 easyJambo 50 3 “Link to the ‘Group’ AR01 for anyone interested.
Taking One For The Team 4 196 23852 46 9/11/2011 16:19:0 easyJambo 50 4 “‘Paul Mac says: 09/11/2011 at 3:24 pm
What is the sigificance that the document was authorised by a charity commission receiver? and is this normal for what appears a fairly simple and straightforward document!

It wasn’t – the reference at the end of the document just lists who may authorise it, i.e. a director, secretary, person authorised, charity commission receiver etc.”
Taking One For The Team 5 231 23898 31 9/11/2011 19:44:0 easyJambo 50 5 “RTC – can I go back a blog and ask about one of the figures from the draft Accounts. Please keep in mind that I’m not an accountant.
Under – ‘CREDITORS – Amounts falling due within one year’ there should be an item ‘Accruals and other deferred income’. In 2010 it showed a figue of £16.833M.
I think that is where Season Ticket income for the next season would normally sit, as ST holders funds are treated as a liability with the funds drip fed and the liability reduced with each home match.
Taken in conjunction with the mid-May memorandum to use ST money for day to day running of the club. it might give an indication on how much of the ST money was used prior to the end of June or whether any additional investment before the year end had been lodged under that heading.”
Taking One For The Team 5 238 23908 38 9/11/2011 20:13:0 easyJambo 50 6 “RTC – Ok I’ll go and sit back in the corner with my ‘D’ hat on. 😦
I actually thought about that aspect of it after I hit enter on my previous post.”
Taking One For The Team 6 258 23931 8 9/11/2011 21:4:0 easyJambo 50 7 “‘rab says: 09/11/2011 at 8:53 pm
Whats the betting that cw has offered a lower settlement figure to hmrc than the previous, without prejudice, 10mil offer.’
IF he gets as far as the FTT decsion, I’d still expect CW to make a token final offer to HMRC to avoid liquidation. I don’t think for a moment that it would be accepted, nor will CW expect it to be accepted, but it would allow him to say to the fans that he did everything he could to keep the club afloat..”
Taking One For The Team 6 263 23937 13 9/11/2011 21:27:0 easyJambo 50 8 “Hugh – He can simply say that he will offer HMRC £10M in return for agreeing to a CVA, or alternatively tell them that the company will be wound up and perhaps they will get maybe £2M.
HMRC will still have their precedent from the FTT plus £8M more than they might get through a liquidation.”
Taking One For The Team 6 267 23941 17 9/11/2011 21:37:0 easyJambo 50 9 “Hugh – I agree, but it will help his final exit strategy if he is seen to have made an offer, however unacceptable it would be to HMRC.”

Taking One For The Team 6 270 23944 20 9/11/2011 21:52:0 easyJambo 50 10 “‘rab says: 09/11/2011 at 9:14 pm
perry whyte & ej
i was being sarcastic, as its the lowest form of wit i will forgive you for misunderstanding my intention. 🙂 ‘
I recognised your intent from the Goodwillie comment, but as they say ‘many a true word is said in jest’. I do believe that CW will do exactly that, even with an adverse decision from the FTT.”
Taking One For The Team 8 352 24031 2 10/11/2011 11:9:0 easyJambo 50 11 “Adam – there are a few good debating points in your main post this morning. Certainly, I believe that the old board would like to get into the ‘I told you so’ position before the FTT decision. However there is no getting away from what has happened since the takeover with regard to non-payment of the small tax bill, Levy & McCrae, suspending directors, resignations etc.
You said ‘Its ludicrous to suggest that all of these people were paid on time in the past.’ According to the previous accounts the average time that creditors waited for payments over the previous three years were 28 days, 22 days and 23 days. That sounds like a good company to do business with.
RTC may have the number for the year to June 2011 in the draft accounts, but if the memorandum from mid-May is to believed then there was a deliberate attempt to ‘stretch creditors’ including HMRC in the final weeks of 2010-11. That doesn’t sound like a good company to do business with any more.”
Taking One For The Team 8 358 24037 8 10/11/2011 11:19:0 easyJambo 50 12 “Paulie – Anyone who benefitted from the EBT may find in difficult to participate in any post insolvency RFC. We can at least speculate that MB could have been a participant.
I suspect that RTC will already have the names of at least some of the people who participated in the scheme, but has held back from revealing this while the FTT continues.”
Taking One For The Team 8 359 24038 9 10/11/2011 11:24:0 easyJambo 50 13 “TBK – A vote to admit a team to the SPL (other than through promotion from SFL Div 1) requires an 83% vote in favour, so you can work out all the combinations of for / against / abstention.”
Taking One For The Team 8 362 24041 12 10/11/2011 11:38:0 easyJambo 50 14 “timtim – the Articles say the following:
Special Qualified Resolution means, in relation to those Reserved Matters referred to in Article 38, a resolution of the Company which requires the support of not less than 83% of the Members entitled to attend and vote at a General Meeting, whether all the Members of the Company actually attend and vote or not, of which notice has been duly given in accordance with these Articles, to be passed;”

Taking One For The Team 8 364 24043 14 10/11/2011 11:43:0 easyJambo 50 15 “My reading of the above means that it would take 10 teams to vote in ‘yes’ to pass such a resolution, since 11 teams would be entitled to vote. i.e. an ‘abstention’ is equivalent to a ‘no’ vote.”
Taking One For The Team 8 380 24062 30 10/11/2011 12:34:0 easyJambo 50 16 “It see that it has now been confirmed that Spartans have been throun out of the cup because a player’s contract was dated only once instead of twice.
What incredible powers the SFA has to sanction member clubs and, of course, they have to be seen to be exercising those powers for the good and the integrity of the game.
Club goes into liquidation, with debts including up to £53M inTax bills. SPL says, of course, we want to welcome back a club that looks like, tases like and smells like its predecessor. 10 point penalty ok with you?”
Taking One For The Team 8 381 24063 31 10/11/2011 12:36:0 easyJambo 50 17 “Adam
The admission of a new member to the SPL comes under Article 38
38. A Special Qualified Resolution, (83%) shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:-
(i) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new Members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL);”
Taking One For The Team 11 506 24195 6 10/11/2011 21:50:0 easyJambo 50 18 “RTC – How does Darrell King’s claim re twin contracts and the content of the side letters sit with your own knowledge of how the players contracts and the EBT were administered?”
Taking One For The Team 11 515 24204 15 10/11/2011 22:19:0 easyJambo 50 19 “RTC – you answered as I thought you would with your usual restraint. 😉
One of these days in the not too distant future, I’m looking forward to a blog where there only comments are ‘Wow!'”
Taking One For The Team 12 573 24263 23 11/11/2011 10:5:0 easyJambo 50 20 “I liked the suggestion on a Hearts messageboard that if a newco RFC is admitted direct to the SPL with minimal sanctions then disgruntled supporters should post their scarves to Neil Doncaster with a simple cover note of ‘I won’t be needing this anymore’
It’s a very simple message but very poignant.”
The Case: Q & A 1 8 24543 8 11/11/2011 21:24:0 easyJambo 8 1 “‘We will later see how this policy will likely have artificially boosted Rangers’ cash and reported Net Debt in their 2011 Annual Report.’
RTC – Do you intend publishing your full copy of the draft accounts in a blog for discussion, or do you intend waiting until the final version is published to Shareholders? (Nov 28th according to an earlier post).
‘Joe 77 says: 11/11/2011 at 8:21 am
Rangers AGm pencelled in for dec 19th at the royal concert hall….According to the Red Top this morning. Shareholders must receive Audited Accounts three weeks prior to the meeting, ie November 28th. I take it these will shed a little light on what Mr Shyte is up to? Or is it possible to do a Smoke & Mirrors job with them?

The Case: Q & A 7 338 24909 38 13/11/2011 18:26:0 easyJambo 8 2 “I’m somewhat fed up with all the endless circular arguments about financial doping, higher wages, tainted titles, restrospective punishments etc. It ain’t going to happen folks, so you are wasting you time arguing the point again and again.
Clubs that have faced administration in the past have been hit by points penalties only in the season that that their debts became unserviceable. No team has suffered a retrospective footballing penalty sense from their overspending in the years prior to Administration.
Similarly, clubs that have gone to the wall because of their financial difficulties have ceased to exist simply due to their inability to manage their finances effectively. Again no retropective penalties have been applied.
Rangers financial impropriety will probably result in their liquidation at some point in the next few months. The only real question to be answered is how the footballing authorities choose to deal with a newco.
(to paraphrase from the Dead Parrot sketch) The oldco will have passed on, is no more, has ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, a stiff, bereft of life, rests in peace, pushing up the daisies, its metabolic processes are now history, kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir, invisibile. This is an ex-RFC, dead, deceased, caput, no longer with us.”
The Case: Q & A 11 547 25123 47 14/11/2011 13:23:0 easyJambo 8 3 “Captain Bob @ 12:43
I don’t think Vlad needed any prompting or advice from Campbell Ogilvie when preparing any of his rants. Vlad has been very consistent, with some justification, in his his repeated criticisms of the footballing authorities and a complicit MSM. I’m sure that the repeated references to monkeys in the media is a literal translation from a derogatory Russian phrase about journalists, although it does have parallels with monkeys dancing to the tune of the organ grinder. SDM, Lawwell, Regan or Donacaster would seem to be well suited to the role of the organ grinder.”
The Case: Q & A 11 549 25125 49 14/11/2011 13:25:0 easyJambo 8 4 “Dave @ 12:43
From Wiki
John McDowall (1882’1928)
George Graham (1928’1957)
Willie Allan (1957’1977)
Ernie Walker (1977’1990)
Jim Farry (1990’1999)
David Taylor (1999’2007)
Gordon Smith (2007’2010)
Stewart Regan (2010’present)”
The Case: Q & A 12 560 25136 10 14/11/2011 13:45:0 easyJambo 8 5 “My last list was Chief Execs.
Presidents have included
Willie Harkness
Tommy Younger 1983
David Will 1984-1989
Bill Dickie
Jack McGinn 1997-2003
John McBeth 2003-2007
George Peat 2007”
The Case: Q & A 12 567 25144 17 14/11/2011 13:51:0 easyJambo 8 6 “Captain Bob @ 1:34pm
I honestly believe that Vlad has not taken extrnal advice about any of his rants. Previous ones have resulted in fines, which arguably would have been avoided if he had taken advice from CO on how the SFA would react to such criticisms.”
The Case: Q & A 13 617 25198 17 14/11/2011 17:30:0 easyJambo 8 7 “Hugh
New rules on PAYE and NIC become effective 6th April 2012 according this this website
The Case: Q & A 14 659 25240 9 14/11/2011 20:54:0 easyJambo 8 8 “Auldheid
Re the small tax bill – I can’t remember if it was Paulie or RTC who suggested that, as part of the SPA. CW was required to show proof that he had the money available to pay the small bill immediately after the takeover. That suggests to me that a payment date/schedule had been agreed with HMRC which was on or after 6th May. Thus there was no breach of the licensing rules with regard to earlier 31st March cut-off.
I think that we can also assume that a payment of £500K towards the small bill was made on or after 6th May. Any deviation from the licensing rules would therefore have to have occurred between then and the end of June. The Sheriffs Officers didn’t appear until August, by which point it is fairly clear that RFC were overdue in their payments, but we don’t know what the agreed schedule was and therefore the exact date when the payment became overdue.
The question I would have is what information did (or didn’t) RFC provide to the SFA between 6th May and the end of June?”
The Case: Q & A 18 880 25471 30 15/11/2011 12:53:0 easyJambo 8 9 “‘cuchulainn says: 15/11/2011 at 12:35 pm
can someone clear something up for me.
From reading on here i have become confused over the arrestment of the 2.3m for the small tax bill. Now as i remember the judge granted the arrestment to hmrc due to there being a risk of insolvency. I’m reading on here that if rangers become insolvent before the 14 weeks are up then this money goes into the creditors pot and not directly to hmrc. Now, if this was granted on the basis that insolvency was a real possibility, and insolvency happens and they don’t automatically get the money, can someone please explain to me what was the point of getting the arrestment in the first place? If the money goes back into the creditors pot was this not a waste of time by hmrc going to the court in the first place. Surely the point of getting it arrested was so that if rangers went bust they’d get their money.

This has ben discussed previously. HMRC will now have a preference over other creditors should RFC go into Administration or Liquidation, although their is still some debate if that would apply with Receivership. The arrestment also stops CW from using the funds in the meantime and actually forces the handover of the money after 14 weeks.
I’m not sure how HMRC could get their money otherwise, short of forcing the issue through a petition for administration or winding up.”

The Case: Q & A 20 993 25589 43 15/11/2011 16:33:0 easyJambo 8 10 “‘Mark says: 15/11/2011 at 1:57 pm
with regards the arguments about overspending this and our game is ruined because of Murray, which has raised some mad arguments.
Let’s put it into persepctive EJ and fellow HEarst lads sit back….
If Romanov was /had done what we think Murray has, how would this question be answered, let’s say rangers had been denied 6 championships and numerous CL qualifications due to Romanovs mad and unsustainable if not cheating to gain reward, what would the average bear think?
I suggest the same as most right thinking Celtic fans think right now.
But it wasn’t so who cares right?

It doesn’t look like you have anyone biting on that one Mark.
Just to make my own position clear. Personally speaking, the opportunity to celebrate possible titles, Cups, European campaigns from previous seasons has gone and I don’t feel the need to get uptight about it now. All I want is for RFC to be brought to book for any financial impropriety. If that means that they go bust then so be it.
I’m not one who thinks that a newco should be punished. They haven’t done anything wrong. They should simply be treated as a prospective new entrant to the Scottish leagues and apply for any vacancy along with Spartans, Gala Fairydean or whoever. Sure the may have a strong bid, but just allow them to start at the bottom and work their way up as Meadowbank, ICT, Ross County, Gretna and Annan had to do.
With regard to Hearts finances, I welcomed Vlad’s takover of the club in season 2004/05 as new investment was coming to the club and the proposed sale of Tynecastle by Chris Robinson was stopped in its tracks. As we have subsequently seen, Vlad has overspent year on year and is therefore as guilty of financial doping in search of throphies as SDM or a few other club owners I could name. For the good of the game it has to stop across the board.
It finally appears that Vlad is getting the message. Whether it is coming from HMRC or other shareholders in UBIG is immaterial. The only saving grace for Vlad, is that it appears to only be his own money he has spent to date (£32M and counting in DfE swaps and debt forgiveness), notwithstanding any future tax bills that may come Hearts way.
If the worst comes and Hearts are liquidated then, I’m sure that most Hearts fans would accept that a newco Hearts would have to start in SFL Div 3. (unless of course a newco RFC are given preferential treatment)”
The Case: Q & A 21 1014 25613 14 15/11/2011 17:58:0 easyJambo 8 11 “Gwared – re your ‘Firesale or Fold’ comment
I’m sure that CW believes he playing a head to head game of poker against HMRC. He thinks his ‘full house’ is a guaranteed winner, but doesn’t seem to realise that HMRC are sitting with an equally good hand. CW is refusing to fold because of his stubborn belief that he is a better poker player and is raising the stakes little by little. However, CW’s problem is that he is already ‘all-in’ and is borrowing or cashing in what assets he has to keep the hand going until HMRC finally crack.
Unfortunately for CW (and HMRC) there is a 3rd player in the hand in the FTT judge. He has a limitless pot, is covering all bets and will continue to do so. However it’s not clear as yet whether or not he has a Royal Flush, or a busted flush.
CW will eventually have to call and reveal his hand, but even if he wins it is looking increasingly likely that he will still be out of pocket after paying back his lenders. If the FTT judge wins then HMRC will walk away with nothing but will live to fight another day with the added satisfaction that CW has lost the lot.”
The Case: Q & A 21 1019 25619 19 15/11/2011 18:12:0 easyJambo 8 12 “Have you ever seen a Judge play poker? 🙂
Impartial or not he will be the last one to lay his hand down.”

The Case: Q & A 26 1257 25863 7 16/11/2011 10:4:0 easyJambo 8 13 “Adam
Here is Companies House Form 466 from 2nd Nov that gave Close a preference over CW’s floating charge.

and the original Close Security from September
The Case: Q & A 26 1259 25865 9 16/11/2011 10:10:0 easyJambo 8 14 “The theories for the preference being given to Close were:
1. CW had borrowed more money from Close
2. RFC may have missed payments due to Close in September and/or October and Close threatened to petition for administration or winding up.
3. Close were just getting twitchy with all the uncertainty around that time and sought assurances that they would get their money back.”
The Case: Q & A 26 1265 25871 15 16/11/2011 10:20:0 easyJambo 8 15 “Adam & Onandx3 – I agree that it still only references the Catering contracts. However, we don’t know the detail of the contract between RFC and Close that may state that there is some financial penalty that would become payable should the contract be broken by RFC or in an insolvency event.”
The Case: Q & A 27 1310 25918 10 16/11/2011 12:24:0 easyJambo 8 16 “I see that Clydesdale Bank are ending their sponsorship of the SPL after next season.
Has their decision been influenced by uncertaintain of where RFC 2012 may be? Or do they just believe that SPL football is shit?”

The Case: Q & A 27 1312 25920 12 16/11/2011 12:25:0 easyJambo 8 17 “oops ‘uncertainty'”

The Case: Q & A 28 1361 25978 11 16/11/2011 16:45:0 easyJambo 8 18 “It’s not a good day for the SPL ……… Who or what will be next? 😦
Hearts salaries not paid
Hearts pay a tax bill in excess of £1M
Clydesdale Bank to end their sponsorship
Dunfermline Athletc close their North Stand to save money on policing/stewarding.”
The Case: Q & A 28 1368 25985 18 16/11/2011 16:53:0 easyJambo 8 19 “duggie – yes ………. but only if they are now up to date with all their bills, investigations or tribunals.
The fact that it has been paid means that there is no imminent danger of the club going under, however, like RFC, I’d expect to see a few departures in January.”
The Case: Q & A 28 1372 25989 22 16/11/2011 17:6:0 easyJambo 8 20 “Duggie – if it means a couple of seasons in the bottom six to clear out the wage thieves and develop some of our talented youngsters coming through then I can live with that.”
The Case: Q & A 28 1375 25992 25 16/11/2011 17:15:0 easyJambo 8 21 “Some light reading with the publication yesterday of Lord Woolman’s Opinion on Hamilton’s John ‘Cowboy’ McCormack’s unfair dismissal case
I’m now looking forward to the Bain and McIntyre ‘Opinions’ if we ever get that far.”

The Case: Q & A 34 1671 26302 21 17/11/2011 19:22:0 easyJambo 8 22 “Any possibility that SDM might buy Hearts? He still owns land around Hermiston where he has been looking to build a stadium in the past. Vlad might be willing to accept an offer of £1. 🙂 ”
The Case: Q & A 35 1721 26353 21 18/11/2011 1:12:0 easyJambo 8 23 “I’m sorry but I don’t get all the furore over the timing of the ‘small bill’ becoming known to the Board. Was it in Dec 2010 or Jan 2010? Was it in Mar 2011 or Apr 2011? I know that there are UEFA licensing issues related to the specific date that it became overdue, but ………………..!
The DOS operated from 1999-2003. If I were a businessman who either knowingly or unknowingly avoided tax between those years, I certainly wouldn’t be looking back any records of tax paid or unpaid seven or more years previously.
The suggestion is that it was uncovered in CW’s due diligence. If that is the case, then well done to the folk that CW employed for identifying it. If it wasn’t CW, then it had to be HMRC through their investigations into the EBT scheme.
Either way if I was running RFC when this bill became apparent, I would be looking at every avenue possible to avoid, delay or reduce any liability. I would expect that on a case relating back at least seven years, that such a challenge could easily take six months or more to come to a final position.
Based on the agreement between MIH and Wavetower, RFC and HMRC appear to have had an agreement that payment would be made after the takeover. Any discussions should therefore relate to what happened (or didn’t happen) post takeover.”
The Case: Q & A 36 1774 26408 24 18/11/2011 10:54:0 easyJambo 8 24 “MDCCCLXXXVIII and BustedBalls
Hearts and Vlad are in deep shit. The only assets they have are the stadium and adjacent land. The scope for building on the site has diminished because of council restrictions due to COMAH regulations related to the nearby distillery. The value was £22M if sold to Cala homes in 2004 (just before Vlad took over). I’d guess that the value has dropped by 50% or more. The main stand needs replaced, now. Indeed a ball that hit the roof in a game last month actually put a hole in it.
There is little sell on value in the current playing squad. Up to 30 players are expected to be released by the end of the season. If a further tax bill hits then I can see Vlad pulling the plug. There is virtually no prospect of a new investor coming in to bale Vlad out with the current debt and future liabilities as they are.
I am on record on here of stating my position should Hearts go under. I would accept starting again in SFL Div 3. (assuming preferntial treatment is not given to RFC 2012.)
The wages problem is just a symptom of an ongoing cashflow issue. The situation with the higher earners may well be an encouragement for some to leave in January given the chance. However, the affected players are between a rock and a hard place. Lets say a senior player is on £5K a week. If he walks away now, who is going to give him a similar deal?”

The Case: Q & A 37 1822 26458 22 18/11/2011 16:27:0 easyJambo 8 25 “tonybananas says: 18/11/2011 at 1:39 pm
I don’t know when the following was incorporated into the SPL rule book, but if that is what existed prior to the 2002/03 then it’s a non issue
A6.4 If two or more Clubs have the same goal difference and have scored the same number of goals in the relevant Season and their positions in the League have a bearing on deciding which Club is the Champion Club or the relegation of any Club or qualification (or consideration for qualification) for any other competitions including UEFA Competitions, then the Clubs concerned shall play-off a deciding League Match on a date and at a neutral ground as determined by the Board in each case.”

The Case: Q & A 39 1941 26598 41 19/11/2011 18:19:0 easyJambo 8 26 “Barcabhoy says: 19/11/2011 at 5:25 pm
Sorry BB, I can’t agree with your summary. Scottish fooball is already on its knees and dying as we speak. It will be the death knell for the game if an accommodation is reached for a newco to join the SPL. Many fans of all clubs will not renew season tickets should that occur. It would be against any sense of fair play, morally wrong and an injustice for those few clubs who have scripmed, saved and avoided debt year on year.
It would also leave the SPL and SFA open to a judicial review should whatever club is in line to be relegated choose to challenge a decision to admit the newco at their expense. What if that club took out an injunction or interim interdict (I’m unsure of the correct terminology in Scotland) to stop the newco playing any games?
Scottish Football needs to rebase itself on firm financial foundations (including TV money) before it can be rebuilt. If that means that half the SPL are part-time clubs then so be it. If Celtic feel they are above participating in such a set up, then tough. Geographically they are part of Scotland. If they can get themselves admitted to another league, then adios.
Why should a newco be handicapped. They haven’t done anything wrong, or are you wanting to see them punished them just because they want to play at Ibrox and in blue? What if the new owners have nothing whatsoever to do with the old guard or the current board? What do you say to them. Yes – you can operate your new business here, but because of your predecessors being such bad boys we are going to implement a unique punishment for you that will last for the next three years. As Calimero might have said ‘It’s an injustice, it is’
I agree with you about a ban on Murray though 🙂 ”
The Case: Q & A 42 2069 26746 19 20/11/2011 20:46:0 easyJambo 8 27 “Just to give a non Celtic or Rangers slant on refereeing decisions, here are some stats from this season that were posted on a Hearts messageboard two weeks ago
1 – Celtic – 13.00 fouls per booking
2 – Dundee Utd – 7.94 fouls per booking
3 – Rangers – 7.28 fouls per booking
4 – Aberdeen – 6.54 fouls per booking
5 – Motherwell – 6.44 fouls per booking
6 – Inverness CT – 6.21 fouls per booking
7 – Dunfermline – 6.05 fouls per booking
8 – Kilmarnock – 5.95 fouls per booking
9 – Hibs – 5.86 fouls per booking
10 – Hearts – 5.70 fouls per booking
11 – St Mirren – 5.29 fouls per booking
12 – St Johnstone – 5.17 fouls per booking
It seems as though the officials at Ibrox on Saturday wanted to continue that trend.
Rangers 16 fouls – 2 yellow cards
St Johnstone 6 fouls – 3 yellow cards
The message from the other teams in the league. We understand that dodgy decisions even themselves up over the season. e.g. if a team playing Celtic gets a soft red card against them one week, then whatever team is playing Rangers next week is highly likely to suffer a similar fate.”
The Case: Q & A 42 2076 26753 26 20/11/2011 21:55:0 easyJambo 8 28 “Dave B says: 20/11/2011 at 9:39 pm
easyJambo says: 20/11/2011 at 8:46 pm
How far from Rangers Tax Case can we go?
Dave – I had just spent 10 mins catching up on the blog. The majority of the posts were about McDonald / Craven / Dallas / Refereeing bias et al.”

The Case: Q & A 44 2190 26875 40 21/11/2011 15:29:0 easyJambo 8 29 “Tweet from the BBC
Sportsound on BBC Radio Scotland
Tonight on Sportsound: The SPL confirm they’ve agreed a new TV deal…….
There are no details as yet on who or how much, nor is there anything on the SPL website as yet. I wonder if the TV co.(s) have been given assurances as to RFC’s continued presence in the SPL, or if there is a get out clause should RFC cease to be a member of the SPL.”
The Case: Q & A 45 2240 26926 40 21/11/2011 18:42:0 easyJambo 8 30 “‘curious onlooker says: 21/11/2011 at 4:27 pm
rab says: 21/11/2011 at 4:10 pm
i gave my reasons for the drop in attendance, you are atributing it to one single factor. I also admitted the football product was not good enough but i can see other reasons for the success of rangers. You obviously only see what you want in my posts. I did also say that we we would agree to disagree but like a bad sportsman ( broadfoot ) you tried a wee sneaky effort while my back was turned.
If you´d read other posts you´d see that I said I didn´t think it to be the only factor.
Poor football, economic reasons etc were obviously factors.
I see it logical that such a drop in attendances (approx.20%) would have a huge bearing on how the club would formulate a plan to get the support onside and take the club forward.
The 2 main parts of that plan was a change in (on-field) management and confontation with the SFA.
Perhaps a neutral such as easyjambo could comment ! ‘
I think that ST sales are more important for business planning that actual attendances which will fluctuate with league position, weather and other imponderables.
STs – Rangers – Celtic – YonY Change
2005/06 – 41,801 – 53,602
2006/07 – 43,187 – 53,040 +3.32% -1.05%
2007/08 – 42,556 – 53,517 -1.46% +0.90%
2008/09 – 43,107 – 54,252 +1.29% +1.37%
2009/10 – 40,306 – 50,826 -6.50% -6.31%
2010/11 – 38,331* – 44,734 -4.90% -11.99%
*estimated from 4.9% reduction stated in interim report.
The recent drop in ST sales for both sides has to be down to economic factors, quality of product and in Celtic’s case lack of league success in recent seasons. That said, walk up attendances seem to be maintained as long as there is still hope of winning the league.
The spat with the SFA, I believe, was a lingering and festering sore on Celtic’s part and the Dougie McDonald incident was simply a catalyst for it to to surface. It did however galvanise the Celtic support while deflecting focus away from sub-standard on-field performances.
I’ll now revert to on topic posts”
The Case: Q & A 46 2262 26948 12 21/11/2011 21:29:0 easyJambo 8 31 “liveinhope says: 21/11/2011 at 8:51 pm
BBC told the alleged Rangers FC Group debt being chased by Fife Ireland is £1,260
That must be about the standard fee for a lawyer’s letter, is it not 🙂 ”
The Case: Q & A 46 2264 26950 14 21/11/2011 21:44:0 easyJambo 8 32 “jean says: 21/11/2011 at 9:39 pm
The smiley is the giveaway Jean. 😉 ”
The Case: Q & A 57 2845 27579 45 24/11/2011 13:9:0 easyJambo 8 33 “CO
The £10M black hole doesn’t appear in any accounts as CW hasn’t published any as yet.
I’m sure the quote came in one of CW’s ‘interviews’ with selected media groups. It can only be the difference in projected income against planned expenditure.
Further questions are required to establish if the £10M, includes the £7M overspend on wages, or whether it is net of the additional funds the CW has allegedly put into the club for player transfers, working capital, tax payments, catering and stadium refurbishment.
I would read it as the expected operating loss come the end of the season.”
The Case: Q & A 58 2852 27586 2 24/11/2011 13:29:0 easyJambo 8 34 “CO
The interim figures to 31/12/10 showed a profit of £9M with further profit expected to bring the main elements of the debt down to £18M (Lloyds) and £3.8M (Lease creditor) by the end of the financial year.
So basically, RFC was running profitably with the CL money in 2010/11. Therefore, without CL money this season, a £10M loss is not unreasonable or unexpected, without any major cut in expenditure (e.g. wages).”

The Case: Q & A 61 3028 27769 28 24/11/2011 22:38:0 easyJambo 8 35 “I understand the points that both Adam and Paul McC are making about unused ST books / debt. One thing that I would add is that in an Administration process, should a CVA be sought, then the ST holders as unsecured creditors would have a vote on whether or not to accept it. Would ST holders vote to put their club out of business though?
ST holders who paid by credit card may be entitled to a refund from the credit card company, should the service purchased not be provided.”
The Case: Q & A 61 3033 27774 33 24/11/2011 22:49:0 easyJambo 8 36 “Paul McConville says: 24/11/2011 at 9:46 pm
I’m surprised that more people haven’t picked up on your blog post. The £500K will not affect the cashflow situation, but it is £500K less available for CW to realise as an asset.”
Making a bad situation worse 2 56 28039 6 26/11/2011 10:16:0 easyJambo 33 1 “Based on published wages information, I’d estimate that Rangers PAYE/NIC bill is at least £1M per month, maybe a little more. If as RTC states the arrears are around the £2M mark, then is suggests that CW has successfully extended the period of settlement with creditors from around one month to three months.
Once the one-off benefit to his cashflow of £2M has been achieved then CW will have to revert to the previous levels of outgoings (albeit an extra two months arrears). The £2M will however, buy him another month’s trading, before he needs to pull the plug.”
Making a bad situation worse 4 161 28158 11 26/11/2011 17:33:0 easyJambo 33 2 “TBK (figures in £Ks)
2001 1010
2002 5176
2003 6791
2004 7,252
2005 7,241
2006 9,192
2007 4,988
2008 2,291
2009 2,360
2010 1,358
2011 150
Total 47,809”
Making a bad situation worse 4 171 28170 21 26/11/2011 18:18:0 easyJambo 33 3 “>blockquote>rangerstaxcase says: 26/11/2011 at 5:59 pm
Now how did easyJambo know that Rangers FC contributed £150k to the EBT in 2011? 😉
Do you have access to some documents which you shouldn’t? 😀
I’ve obviously just got a better memory of what you have posted previously than some others 🙂
I also have a passing interest in SPL finances generally, so I do retain copies of recent accounts from most clubs whenever they become available.”

Making a bad situation worse 4 186 28186 36 26/11/2011 19:39:0 easyJambo 33 4 “RTC – your memory must be slipping.
Refer back to your Confidence Trick blog (page 15 of the comments)
‘rangerstaxcase says: 07/11/2011 at 11:19 pm
As a teaser (bearing in mind I have not subjected these numbers to any testing yet).
Despite all of the bemoaning of bank restrictions, Rangers’ Staff Costs rose from £28.133m to £29.666m.
Of course, with the winding down of the EBT (£1.358m in 2010 and only £150k in 2011), Social Security costs and Wages & Salaries will have jumped even if high paid players were shipped out.
Making a bad situation worse 10 491 28496 41 28/11/2011 12:45:0 easyJambo 33 5 “Tweet from PMac
PmacgiollabhainPhil MacGiollaBhain
http://www.bkf.co.uk/ these fine chaps are instructing a QC on behalf of a suave billionaire. Game on with the Beeb! Developing.
Is CW actually going to take the BBC to court?”

Making a bad situation worse 16 772 28781 22 29/11/2011 10:16:0 easyJambo 33 6 “Just a reminder for those who have exhaled a lot of hot air debating the level of Rangers players’ wages. Earlier in this blog RTC posted the current monthly salary bill, which equates to an annual total of £20.7M + bonuses. I don’t imagine that that figure is significantly up or down from recent years.
‘rangerstaxcase says: 26/11/2011 at 10:17 am
For those who asked, Rangers’ player salary bill per month (before bonuses) is £1.725m.
That would place the PAYE & NIC bill at about £863k per month. That would imply that Rangers are at least 2 months behind in their tax affairs (ignoring VAT). My source did not want to give me the exact amount as too few people are aware of this figure, but the £2m figure is likely to be conservative.
Making a bad situation worse 16 781 28790 31 29/11/2011 10:33:0 easyJambo 33 7 “Annual total salary bill (incl. non playing staff and employment costs) Figs in £Ks
2004/05 – 27,303
2005/06 – 27,989
2006/07 – 24,258
2007/08 – 34,339 (increase claimed to be down to bonuses for reaching Euro final)
2008/09 – 30,662
2009/10 – 28,133
2010/11 – 29,666”

Making a bad situation worse 17 829 28838 29 29/11/2011 16:10:0 easyJambo 33 8 “Something that may be of interest to the followers of the blog who are desperate for RTC to reveal more information and his sources.
I watched a bit of the Leveson Inquiry this morning and a piece of evidence given by Guardian writer, Nick Davies, immediately had me thinking about RTC’s position vis a vis this blog. Nick talked about his main sources of information. He gave his two primary sources as official records (e.g. Companies House) and face to face discusioons with people in the know (they usually seek anonimity). He also cited a secondary source as being legal actions where other documents may be disclosed. (the Bain case springs to mind)
The specific section is the 5 minutes between 102:30 and 107:30.”
Making a bad situation worse 22 1089 29103 39 30/11/2011 18:37:0 easyJambo 33 9 “These figures really should be as good as it gets for RFC as they were in receipt of around £19M from their participation in teh CL / EL last season. That income stream has been wiped out for the current season.
My first comment would be the contrast between stated profit in the Interims to 31/12/10 and the full year to 30/06/11
The retained profit at 31/12/10 was £9.024M and at 31/06/11 was just £76K I assume that the £9M was primarily used to reduce the debt to Lloyds down to the £18 supposedly cleared by CW”
Making a bad situation worse 22 1092 29106 42 30/11/2011 18:52:0 easyJambo 33 10 “The charge for the DOS was stated as £1.87M in the interims with a further £0.9M included in the general ‘interest payable’ charge.
In the final figures the charge for the DOS is given as £3.27M. The general ‘interest payable’ charge of £2.102M £707K higher than in 2010. I think we can therefore assume that the £0.9M is still included within that figure.
The increase in the DOS charge is therefore £1.4M which ties in with the reported £1.4M penalty applied so I would take that as confirmation of the penalty and, the fact that it has been recorded in the accounts, the likelihood of RFC having to pay it.”
Making a bad situation worse 22 1098 29112 48 30/11/2011 19:4:0 easyJambo 33 11 “Creditors (within one year) increasing by approx £21.5M is mostly offset by a reduction in the Creditors (more than one year) of £17.57M
That would appear to reflect the fact that the debt due to Lloyds (more than one year) has been paid off and replaced with Wavetower/Group debt that is most likely payable on demand (within one year)”
Making a bad situation worse 23 1133 29147 33 30/11/2011 20:26:0 easyJambo 33 12 “‘Adam says: 30/11/2011 at 7:09 pm
Had time now to try and work my way back to the figures revealed. Obviously these are guesstimates based on a) What we know from the Circular and b) Past performance/movements in Rangers accounts.
15. CREDITORS ‘ Amounts falling due within one year ‘ (,000)
Other loans ‘ 600
Trade creditors ‘ 1,500
Rangers Group original loan ‘ 18,000
Rangers Group Material Term 1b ‘ 5,000
Rangers Group Material Term 1f ‘ 1,700
Social security and other taxes ‘ 5,000
Deferred income: Capital Grants (see Note 19) ‘ 222
Accruals and other deferred income ‘ 16,833
Lease creditor – 150
Total ‘ 49.0m

The picture you have painted is a CW best case scenario. The circular also suggested that the tax bill would have been paid, which we know it hasn’t. The Close security didn’t appear until August, so if, for example, the £1.7M was actually procured from Close, then it wouldn’t appear in the figures as at the end of June.
There is therefore no guarantee that the £5M working capital and £1.7M kitchen and PA facilities upgrades were actually provided, or at least prior to the end of accounting period in June.
If those funds were not forthcoming, then the trade creditors figure could well be as high as £8.2M assuming that your other figures are in the ball park.”
Making a bad situation worse 24 1152 29166 2 30/11/2011 20:53:0 easyJambo 33 13 “‘paul says: 30/11/2011 at 8:45 pm
I would think unaudited accounts for a new owner 6 months after purchase is perfectly normal, they are after all interim and not finals.

They are ‘Finals'”
Making a bad situation worse 24 1160 29174 10 30/11/2011 21:5:0 easyJambo 33 14 “Paul – My definition of interim or final relates to the accounting period, not unaudited or draft etc.”
Making a bad situation worse 24 1169 29183 19 30/11/2011 21:22:0 easyJambo 33 15 “The accounts were released to the market as ‘Final Results’.
OK, I’m being a pedant 😦 ”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 1 46 29293 46 1/12/2011 9:57:0 easyJambo 19 1 “The consolidated figure that RTC had for Creditors (within one year) is £47.665M. The published figure was £49.065M. The difference is £1.4M, probably the ‘penalty’ charge on the wee tax bill as I pointed out in the last blog.
RTC’s Social Securityand taxes figure of £5.752M may therefore only contain the original £1.87M bill for the DOS, with the £0.9M interest accounted for elsewhere.”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 2 51 29298 1 1/12/2011 10:11:0 easyJambo 19 2 “Adam – I’m not an accountant therefore I am relying on the likes of yourself and RTC to guide me on where specific items should be recorded.
The published accounts appear to have included the £0.9M interest as an exceptional item on the P&L Account, as I stated last night and that you picked up this morning on your response to Barcabhoy.
I accept what you say that the most sensible place to include it is within the Social Security and Taxes element of the Creditors within one year.”

Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 2 56 29303 6 1/12/2011 10:20:0 easyJambo 19 3 “‘timtim says: 01/12/2011 at 9:59 am
re the SFA
would and should will no doubt have different answers
Im still of the opinion the 5yr notice starts after the end of the 7 yrs
therefore Whyte should NOT be allowed to be a director of an SPL club
until 2012’
I agree 100% Timtim. The ‘disqualification within the last 5 years’ rule has to be interpreted as a desire to ensure that anyone previously disqualified has proved themselves to be honest and law abiding for five years before becoming director of a football club.
I know that Paul McConville took a legal standpoint that the rule could be interpreted as being from the date of disqualification, but I think he was wrong to do so.
Would you employ someone as a director of a company you own on the first day he was free from disqualification, or would you want him to prove himself for a period?”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 2 59 29308 9 1/12/2011 10:41:0 easyJambo 19 4 “RTC – Based on what Adam and I have sort of agreed on, your meaningful debt figure of £22.7M probably does not include the £1.4M penalty charge on the wee bill, therefore the overall debt figure my well be £24.1M.”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 2 63 29312 13 1/12/2011 10:46:0 easyJambo 19 5 “Adam it is in the SFA Articles of Association (point 7)
‘The Board must be satisfied that any such person is fit and proper to hold such position within Association Football. The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts, which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is
acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive:-
(1) he is bankrupt or has made any arrangement or composition with his creditors generally;
(2) he is of unsound mind and has been or is to be admitted to hospital as suffering from a mental disorder following an application for admission for treatment under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1984 or Mental Health Act 1983 or a Court having jurisdiction in the United Kingdom or elsewhere has ordered in matters relating to mental disorder his detention or the appointment of a curator bonis or any other person to exercise power with regard to his property or affairs;
(3) he is under or is pending suspension imposed or confirmed by the Association;
(4) he is listed in the Official Return of another club in full or associate membership;
(5) he is currently participating as a player of another member club or referee in Association Football;
(6) he is the subject of an endorsed Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland;
(7) he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years;
(8) he has been convicted of (a) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over, (b) corruption or (c) fraud within the last 10 years;
(9) he has been suspended or expelled by a National Association from involvement in the administration of a club;
(10) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association which has undergone an insolvency event within the five year period preceding the said
insolvency event.'”

Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 2 70 29320 20 1/12/2011 11:4:0 easyJambo 19 6 “‘BustedBallsan’a’that says: 01/12/2011 at 10:39 am
Re the disqualification. Stewart Regan should now issue a statement, if not in light of the BBC documentary, surely an admission from the source merits it?

More than that. He should be fined an appropriate sum, say £100K, and the club should be required to deposit a bond with the SFA for a couple of years to cover debts to other football clubs. e.g. installments on transfer fees still to be paid. The installments could be paid from the bond as they fall due, thus would not jeopardise the club significantly.”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 3 149 29401 49 1/12/2011 16:29:0 easyJambo 19 7 “A couple more observations from comparisons between RTC’s and the published figures.
The final Cashflow figures have an extra £935K written down in amortisation of player contracts, while intangible assets (player registrations) also fall by a corresponding £935K in the final figures. I wonder if that reflects the departure of James Beattie or someone else.
Accruals and other deferred income (in less than a year) fell by £1.223M to £15.61M. This most likely represents a drop in ST income of a similar amount. (a fall of 7.23%).
The black hole is getting bigger if ST sales continued to fall this season.”


Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 4 158 29410 8 1/12/2011 16:59:0 easyJambo 19 8 “I’ve uploaded a revised version of RTC’s Cashflow projection for 2011/12 using the starting cash figure from the accounts of £8.893M.

It shows that without any additional investment they will run out of money in Feb 2012. That date would be extended if CW was to invest funds directly (the promised £5M?), or procure further funds from 3rd parties (Close?), or if other income streams (Friendlies?) were to be utilised.
Delayed or non payment of day to day creditors (including HMRC) could also buy him another month or so.
Allied to the above, I don’t think that it would take too much more in net player sales in January to see him through to the end of the season.”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 5 209 29462 9 1/12/2011 18:58:0 easyJambo 19 9 “AWOTN & Hugh – I haven’t changed any of the figures that RTC originally posted other than the opening cash balance. Obviiously some of the figures could be updated or corrected, e.g. the McIntyre salary saving is inflated. There is also income from the Hamburg friendly to add. We don’t know if anything or how much was raised from Close.
The £710K uplift in Feb 2012, may just be the balancing effect of a one off outgoing the previous year. i.e. they don’t have that expenditure this season so comparing last season with this season may show an uplift this time round.”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 5 224 29477 24 1/12/2011 19:51:0 easyJambo 19 10 “Paul McC – Sorry I can’t agree with your interpretation re the date of the conviction.
The purpose of the five years since being disqualified is to ensure that the person is a reformed character and has proved himself to be law abiding in the interim.There is nothing in the SFA articles that mentions the date of disqualification.
If I was to take your alternative interpretation, lets say we have two Craig Whytes (perish the thought 😦 ). One has been disqualified for 2 years for a minor transgression and the other for five years for a more serious offence. The first CW would have to wait 3 years after his ban before he could be accepted by the SFA, while the second would be accepted the day following the expiry of his ban, despite have been guilty of the more serious offence.That is a nonsense argument.
I have said this before, but the law is an ass if a judge would find in favour of your interpretation.
However, I can see that RFC will make their case on the basis of your interpretation, and therefore there was no need to make any disclosure.”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 5 249 29502 49 1/12/2011 20:39:0 easyJambo 19 11 “Simple question – What is the purpose of mentioning ‘within the previous five years’?
Paul McC’s & Adam’s argument, basically negates the need for the time qualification. Wouldn’t it be simpler just to ask – Are you currently disqualified?”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 7 302 29555 2 1/12/2011 21:44:0 easyJambo 19 12 “One for you legal beagles. Is there a public record of the judgement that disqualified CW as a Director in 2000? Can we get access to it?”
Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 9 422 29678 22 2/12/2011 12:55:0 easyJambo 19 13 “I just checked the English FA’s ‘Fit and Proper Persons’ rules to see how they handle disqualifications. It appears that they only require that you are not disqualified at the time of the declaration you make as meeting the criteria as a ‘Fit and Proper Person’. i.e. there is no time constrained rule.”

Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you 9 426 29682 26 2/12/2011 13:23:0 easyJambo 19 14 “TBK I would expect that it would be something similar
UEFA License: Rangers to appeal ‘wee bill’ 1 24 29752 24 2/12/2011 18:33:0 easyJambo 18 1 “I can’t see any reason why an appeal at this juncture would be allowed.
If as RTC says the normal period for appeals to be lodged is limited to 30 days, then the 30 days must have eleapsed by 5th June at the very latest (30 days after the takeover).
Part of the bill (£500K) has been paid.
Sheriff’s Officers paid RFC a visit in August.
An arrestment was made at the beginning of September. No appeal against that arrestment was made.
The only reason for an appeal at this stage is to delay the automatic handover of the £2.3M. Surely any judge hearing such a request would reject it out of hand.”

UEFA License: Rangers to appeal ‘wee bill’ 1 29 29757 29 2/12/2011 18:44:0 easyJambo 18 2 “Bracabhoy – Surely the danger of setting out the full details of the appeal will also allow HMRC to provide a timetable of events, the result of which could be to expose RFC’s duplicity with the SFA regarding the timing of the bill and the licensing question.
If RFC are subsequently found to have lied to the SFA, then all bets would be off about escaping without sanction or being sued by Celtic or others for lost income.”
UEFA License: Rangers to appeal ‘wee bill’ 1 37 29766 37 2/12/2011 19:4:0 easyJambo 18 3 “‘Barcabhoy says: 02/12/2011 at 6:50 pm
I see on another forum, they are posting details of a written commitment by RFC Group to provide funds to pay for this appeal, which they accept was owed.
I suspect that might cause some problems for Whyte in relation to his latest action

Paulie Walnuts confirmed the existence of such a documented commitment some weeks ago.”
UEFA License: Rangers to appeal ‘wee bill’ 2 91 29829 41 2/12/2011 21:18:0 easyJambo 18 4 “‘rangerstaxcase says: 02/12/2011 at 9:06 pm
There are a lot of things I cannot share, but trust me when I try to direct the conversation in a particular way. There will always be logic and some substance to it.

Now I’m confused. If the purpose is to ensure that the bill is not deemed as overdue on 31/12/11, then the simple way of ensuring that outcome is to allow the arrestment to follow it’s course and see the money handed over at the end of next week. No more bill. Can’t be overdue.
CW must still have a belief that he can wrest the funds out of the reach of HMRC, by whatever means, that would benefit him in the timing or execution of an insolvency event.
I’m increasingly of the belief that CW is a little smarter than your average bear. What do you think Boo Boo? 🙂 ”
UEFA License: Rangers to appeal ‘wee bill’ 3 104 29842 4 2/12/2011 21:46:0 easyJambo 18 5 “‘ thedogbarks… says: 02/12/2011 at 9:30 pm
That would only protect him against ongoing sanctions by SFA/UEFA etc.
If he paid the bill he might still be liable for retrospective sanctions or action by Celtic/Hearts/UEFA etc. for qualification for 2011/12.

The retrospective element will always be there based on whether or not RFC told porkies to the SFA when they made their submission(s) confirming they had no overdue payments to perevent them being granted a licence for 2011/12. The licence was granted, rightly or wrongly. An appeal launched in December would have no bearing on the status of the bill on the key licensing dates of 31/03/11 or 30/06/11.”
UEFA License: Rangers to appeal ‘wee bill’ 3 113 29851 13 2/12/2011 22:3:0 easyJambo 18 6 “‘Lord Wobbly says: 02/12/2011 at 9:58 pm
off topic for a moment, but I am I the only one who immediately thinks ‘far east betting’?

The ‘far east’ of Liverpool perhaps? Steve Jennings and friends?”
UEFA License: Rangers to appeal ‘wee bill’ 3 137 29878 37 2/12/2011 23:2:0 easyJambo 18 7 “Paul McC – Interesting read
Can a test a scenario with you or any other qualified ‘expert’?
Let’s say that CW gets a stay of execution over the £2.3M and carries on into the January sales and he raises another £5M in transfers. HMRC say damn it – we will go for a winding up order over unpaid PAYE & NIC. CW uses that as a trigger event for Receivership. The Receiver seeks to progress the hive down of assets to a newco.
What scope does HMRC then have to dispute certain bills, including the £2.3M, with the Receiver?
Can HMRC stop the Receiver using those funds to satisfy the floating charge while they petition to the courts?
Can HMRC stall the pre-pack process?
Would the Receiver seek to defend such a challenge in court, given that there would be legal costs to be borne (from the remaining assets)?
Are there sufficient precedents, that would make it inevitable that HMRC would lose such a petition?
Would such a case extend the insolvency period significantly that could impact on the club being able to fulfil its fixtures either as the oldco or newco?”
‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 6 276 30323 26 3/12/2011 22:31:0 easyJambo 62 1 “I’ve been out all day so I’ve just been catching up with the the lastest installment in this saga.
Just one more comment on the timing of the small bill. It doesn’t matter if it existed before 31/03/11, or any other date for that matter. It is only an issue if its payment was ‘overdue’. Given that takeover discussions were quite advanced by that time it is not unreasonable to assume that CW had reached an agreement with HMRC that it would be dealt with immediately after the takeover. The snippets from RTC’s internal memo and Paulie Walnuts information of the finer details within the Share Purchase Agreement would suggest that was the case.
On a separate point, I listened to the Sportsound interview between Richard Gordon and Douglas Fraser re RFC’s accounts this afternoon. I’m astounded that a so called BBC Business expert could interpret that the increase in RFC’s current liabilities was down to the big tax case. Numpties, one and all.”
‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 6 277 30324 27 3/12/2011 22:33:0 easyJambo 62 2 “Oops, I don’t think it will be the ‘lastest’, ‘latest’ is more appropriate at this point.”
‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 6 291 30338 41 3/12/2011 22:57:0 easyJambo 62 3 “RTC – I’ve not had any formal training either, unless you count my ‘O’ Grade ‘Principles of Accounts’ circa 1971. 🙂 ”

‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 8 356 30423 6 4/12/2011 14:3:0 easyJambo 62 4 “I see that Graham Spiers is tweeting that he is leaving The Times. It may avoid him having to stick the knife in further to his boyhood team. I actually don’t mind Spiers. He is one of the more intelligent journos.
GrahamSpiersGraham Spiers
Breaking news: I’m taking a pretty generous redundancy deal from The Times. Next up for me: 6 weeks’ holiday and then back into action…”

‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 8 357 30424 7 4/12/2011 14:15:0 easyJambo 62 5 “Tom English also getting ripped into Paul Murray’s late bid to but RFC in today’s Scotland on Sunday.
‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 9 447 30516 47 4/12/2011 21:54:0 easyJambo 62 6 “Adam – you are correct that a positive cashflow of £13M was reported in the accounts. Taking away the CL/EL income of £19M leaves a deficit of around £6M. Additional cashflow considerations for this season will include a further fall in ST sales, the loss of matchday income for the Euro ties and the various arrestments and tax penalties. I’d guess that without further intervention the defecit could be doubled to around £12M, but will in actuality be reduced somewhat by delayed payment of bills. CW forecast a shortfall of around £10M. I don’t think that would be too far off the mark, before any cash is raised in the January transfer window.”

‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 14 684 30782 34 6/12/2011 10:39:0 easyJambo 62 7 “Adam & Paulie – I now believe that only the loss of the big tax case will force an insolvency event this season. CW will pull the trigger at a time of his choosing when he decides not to pay a particular bill, wages, or has garnered sufficient cash to maximise his return. As Paulie said earlier, it will be CW who appoints a receiver.
His clearly still has a degree of control of his cashflow position. If he’s not supported by a mystery backer, then he can replenish that in January.”
‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 20 986 31096 36 7/12/2011 16:27:0 easyJambo 62 8 “RFC’s Articles of Association are available online but I can’t see that they clarify when an AGM will be called. The Articles make reference to Section 311 of the Companies Act 2006, but that in turn simply states that there has to be shareholder communication about the date and tiome of the meeting.

‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 20 992 31102 42 7/12/2011 16:54:0 easyJambo 62 9 “Thanks Corsica – I’m learning all the time. It’s one of the great features of the blog.”
‘Sources close to Whyte’ in economical with truth shocker! 23 1120 31233 20 8/12/2011 1:10:0 easyJambo 62 10 “FWIW I value Corsica’s contributions, and didn’t see anything untoward with his posts.
A neutral observer”
The Sensational Sun 6 300 31566 50 8/12/2011 21:56:0 easyJambo 87 1 “‘selboy01 says: 08/12/2011 at 8:44 pm
We have to many supporters pinning our hope on Rangers getting hammered . I just read and take in what both sides say . you know scottish law nothing is never certain in any case . we live in a country where a fan can come out from a stand in front of 20,000 people and get cought live on TV hitting the celtic manager and getting away with not proven . I’m not holding my breath on the outcome .

Off topic – but I totally agree with your concerns about Scots law. John Wilson got away with one with regard to the not proven verdict ‘sectarian’ element of the assault, although he did get jailed for 8 months for a ‘Breach of the Peace’ and a lifetime ban from Tynecastle.
The other odd sentence was a £1,000 fine for assault, after punching a steward at the same game, and no footballing ban.”
The Sensational Sun 7 301 31567 1 8/12/2011 21:58:0 easyJambo 87 2 “I forgot to add the link

The Sensational Sun 9 434 31713 34 9/12/2011 13:11:0 easyJambo 87 3 “‘Bartin Main says: 09/12/2011 at 12:55 pm
Can anyone kindly cut and paste Paul’s blog, and post it, as I do not have access at work?

It’s just a summary of the STV article and Paul promises ‘more later'”
The Sensational Sun 9 437 31716 37 9/12/2011 13:16:0 easyJambo 87 4 “I can only guess that CW had concerns about the information that would be revealed by McIntyre, e.g. about backers or promises of funding that has not been forthcoming. I’m certain that McIntyre will be subject to a confidentiality clause, preventing him talking about anything in relation to the club or the settlement.
Finding the money isn’t really the issue on this occasion as the funds had already been arrested, but it does remove those funds from the pot of cash that would ultimately be available to CW in an insolvency event this side of whenever the case would otherwise have been heard.”
The Sensational Sun 9 446 31725 46 9/12/2011 13:34:0 easyJambo 87 5 “TBK – the last version of the Cashflow projection already included the ‘arrested’ amounts re HMRC, Bain and McIntyre. The Celtic ticket situation can also be discounted as it represents circa £300K coming in, but also £300K going out within the same month assuming that RFC are still abiding with the normal ticketing arrangements among SPL clubs. (I think we would already have heard about this if RFC had been withholding payments to other SPL clubs)
The projection still has RFC running out of cash in February.”

The Sensational Sun 9 450 31729 50 9/12/2011 13:38:0 easyJambo 87 6 “TBK – I think that Fraser Wishart doesn’t fully understand the rules. Any money owed at the end of December must be paid by the end of March. It’s the same situation as RFC face with their taxes, whether it is the small bill, PAYE or VAT.”
The Sensational Sun 10 461 31740 11 9/12/2011 13:59:0 easyJambo 87 7 “Onand*3 – You are right. It has never been confirmed that McIntyre had actually managed to arrest the funds.
I must stop believing what I read in the MSM ……. repeat 100 times 😦 ”

The Sensational Sun 18 853 32145 3 11/12/2011 23:9:0 easyJambo 87 8 “OOO & Johnboy – Other that the MCR Support Services and Snowcast links to MRH and Liberty, the only link I can find is to Custom Cleaning Services which was renamed to CCS (1996) Ltd.
CCS (1996) Ltd should not be confused with CSS (1996) Ltd, formerly Cathedral Security Services (northern) Ltd of which Craig Whyte was also a director.
I think it is a specialist subject of the MBB to confuse or obfuscate any potential researchers. It’s just as well that we have so many researchers on this blog.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 2 64 32314 14 12/12/2011 22:2:0 easyJambo 39 1 “‘BillyBhoy68 says:
12/12/2011 at 9:29 pm
WIth MBB being disqualified, I had a look at the Tixway Limited, not to be confused with Tixway UK Ltd, which appears to cover the period of disqualification.
I’ve uploaded a few docs relating to Tixway Limited, On Document TixWay7, is that a signature from MBB for Custom International Ltd at Tortola, BVI ?

I think the signature is almost certainly that of the MBB
I noticed the company stamp of Flower Ellison Ltd on the Tixway7. That is a company that has Sherri Ellison as one of the Directors. It changed its name to FE Corporate Services and has links with Craig Whyte re the Strident and James Holmes re Merchant Corporate Services.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 3 101 32351 1 12/12/2011 23:44:0 easyJambo 39 2 “Insomniac – Azure are also used by Hearts ….. and Mr Russell was also there.
No obvious issue with that if he was using his contacts and experience to get the best deal for the club………. unless of course he was getting a kickback with each deal, but there is no evidence of that. (unless the blog’s research team can show otherwise) 🙂 ”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 3 105 32355 5 12/12/2011 23:52:0 easyJambo 39 3 “Onandx3 – I checked Tixway Ltd’s. last set of accounts on the Duedil website to 31/12/2008 which as you say indicates that they have an exemption. The accounts were signed off on 24/03/2009 Their net assets are shown as being cash in hand of just £200, unchganged from 2007, with their share capital being probably the same £200, made up of 200 shares of £1 each.”

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 3 108 32358 8 13/12/2011 0:7:0 easyJambo 39 4 “Onand*3 – Duedil shows the company as having been dormant since 2001, with the same £200 assets throughout.”

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 3 112 32362 12 13/12/2011 0:12:0 Insomniac 49 3 “easyJambo says:
12/12/2011 at 11:44 pm
It was not my intention to infer any dodgy dealings, easyjambo. I hope that’s clear. I posted my findings without comment and having re-read them I believe I have played ‘with a straight bat.’
I posted the additional info because I had it to hand and it was relevant to the question.
OnandOnandOnand says:
12/12/2011 at 11:46 pm
The link I included makes it clear. The recent renewal of the catering was also accompanied by a new cleaning contract. Here’s another link :
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 3 114 32364 14 13/12/2011 0:19:0 easyJambo 39 5 “Onand*3 – Nothing interesting about Pelham Holdings, but there is a Pelham Property Management Ltd., which looks like it was set up by Tess Flower (of Flower Ellison) and also shows FE Nominee Directors Ltd as a former Company Director.
It’s appears an incesteous worldwide web of small companies that’s being revealed.”

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 3 121 32371 21 13/12/2011 0:32:0 easyJambo 39 6 “TBK – Strident shows on Duedil.com as having been dormant since 1999 with £50,000 in shareholder funds / net assets throughout. Last accounts were to 31/01/2010 and approved on 12/07/2010. 12th July ??? 🙂 ”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 4 171 32423 21 13/12/2011 10:10:0 easyJambo 39 7 “There are five Craig Whytes born between 1969 and 1971 in Scotland according to the Scotlandspeople website
1 1969 WHYTE CRAIG M PERTH/PERTH 387/00 0998
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 4 175 32427 25 13/12/2011 10:28:0 easyJambo 39 8 “,blockquote>campsiejoe says: 13/12/2011 at 10:15 am
It would be interesting to see how many Craig Whites were born in the same period
Five Craig Whites too
2 1971 WHITE CRAIG ALLEN M AYR/AYR 578/00 0192
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 4 178 32430 28 13/12/2011 10:37:0 easyJambo 39 9 “Hugh McEwan – I did a check on Marktvisual for Craig Whyte. I found one scary coincidence in a Senior Manager called Craig Whyte working for Grant Thornton (but in the US)”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 5 219 32480 19 13/12/2011 14:33:0 easyJambo 39 10 “RTC – As you say, there are no deaths for a Craig Whyte born a year or two either side of 1970.
There is, however, a 1994 marriage record of a Craig Whyte to a Fiona Lisa Norwell, in Perth, that may well be the 1969 born CW. (there are no other CW marriages recorded in the Perth area) I can’t confirm the identity or any occupational details without purchasing a copy of the marriage register entry or going into Register House in person.
I am looking to go into Register House at some point to do some work on my family tree, but it will have to wait until I’ve sorted out my ‘to-do list’ for that visit.”

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 5 237 32499 37 13/12/2011 16:0:0 easyJambo 39 11 “Jean and Foolmarks – as RTC has pointed out, these are public records. That’s basically what we have been pouring over with regard to CW and all his business contacts for the past few days. If the CW from Perth is an innocent party in this then there is no damage to be done. If he turns out to be the victim of identity fraud then I’m sure that he, as well as the authorities, would be interested in who did it and why.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 6 285 32552 35 13/12/2011 19:23:0 easyJambo 39 12 “‘evens says: 13/12/2011 at 6:12 pm
Dontcha wish you had started a blog called heartsfinanicalproblems.com ?
By now you woulda had every you ever wanted to know about Mr R’s business activities, thanks to the creme de la creme of Scottish amateur sluethery.

Don’t need one. BBC programme, Frontline Scotland did a documentary about Vlad’s business interests back in Nov 2005 (he took over in Feb 2005).
Unlike CW, there’s no secret past to Vlad. Hearts troubles to date are late payment of taxes and overspending on wages, both of which have been subsidised by Vlad’s other companies. Now that source of funds has dried up Hearts will be forced to live within their means. (notwithstanding a further tax case to come).
I have contacts with senior employees at the club so I can still ask questions.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 7 303 32570 3 13/12/2011 20:41:0 easyJambo 39 13 “abrahamtoast says: 13/12/2011 at 8:27 pm
They may well be involved in tax avoidance, but the income tax figure you quoted, in isolation, is misleading. Individually, the ‘billionaires’ may only take a few million in salary or dividends from whatever companies they are involved with. Their status as billionaires will come from the investments in companies that they either own or have an interest. The companies in turn should pay corporation tax.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 7 314 32581 14 13/12/2011 21:7:0 easyJambo 39 14 “Jonny – There is one Craig Whyte birth in 1972. It was registered in Lochore, Fife. That’s was originally my neck of the woods. He doesn’t sound like anyone from around there. ‘Ya hoor sor’ 🙂 ”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 11 518 32790 18 14/12/2011 18:48:0 easyJambo 39 15 “I found a couple of Youtube videos on Castle Grant – I think that the person featured in the videos is a former owner of the castle Ian Bailey Scudamore. Both are 10 minutes long.
There’s nothing much of note in the first one. In the 2nd video between 7′ 25′ to 8′ 30′ there are comments on renovations to be done, but there’s a reference to the previous but one owner (by the name of Paul Dobson) who obtained grants from Historic Scotland but siphoned off the cash for other purposes and was subsequently jailed. Now who would do something like that? 🙂

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 11 533 32806 33 14/12/2011 19:36:0 easyJambo 39 16 “Colm – According to Duedil.com, the Kim Whyte connected with the Amadeus Centre is a musician aged 53.”

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 11 548 32821 48 14/12/2011 19:59:0 easyJambo 39 17 “Colm – I guess it’s a limitation of the search on the website you are using. It doesn’t seem to differentiate between people with the same name. Duedil lists two people with the name Kim Whyte, one aged 53 and one 42.”

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 12 567 32842 17 14/12/2011 21:26:0 easyJambo 39 18 “eddie rice says: 14/12/2011 at 9:10 pm
NSI: 108,791,499 Is the number of shares issued. That figure is indeed the total number of shares of RFC.
I don’t know any of the technicalities, but I’d interpret it as a note of interest, firstly by Andrew Ellis, then by Craig Whyte. As in a house purchase, you would then be kept abreast of any developments, other offers etc.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 12 572 32849 22 14/12/2011 22:29:0 easyJambo 39 19 “TBK – The Annual Return for ‘Group’ submitted to Companies House shows Liberty Capital as the sole shareholder
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 12 576 32854 26 14/12/2011 22:52:0 easyJambo 39 20 “Jockrock – I think I can explain your dilema. Tixway UK Ltd is linked to CW’s company Liberty Capital Ltd. I think that Duedil has incorrectly linked Tixway UK Ltd to Liberty Capital PLC which is a totally separate company with no current or historical connection to CW or his cronies.
It suits CWs MO to allow such disinformation to continue.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 12 577 32855 27 14/12/2011 22:55:0 easyJambo 39 21 “………. Liberty Capital PLC is however linked to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC, but neither company has any connection to CW’s Liberty Capital Ltd”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 12 578 32857 28 14/12/2011 23:4:0 easyJambo 39 22 “You are a little out with the size of Capital SCG PLC. It’s net assets figure in 2010 was £2.27 billion.
Maybe that is where the MBB’s status in the MSM came from. 🙂 ”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 12 579 32858 29 14/12/2011 23:14:0 easyJambo 39 23 “There is further confusion on Duedil in that UK company Liberty Capital Ltd was actually dissolved in 2000, although it still shows holdings in Merchant Strategic renewal, Merchant Turnaround and The RFC Group. CW’s Liberty Capital Ltd is based in the BVI”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 13 604 32887 4 15/12/2011 0:58:0 easyJambo 39 24 “Link to the floating charge doc that Billybhoy posted previously
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 13 605 32888 5 15/12/2011 1:4:0 easyJambo 39 25 “Note that in the Snowcast floating charge document, CW signed it on 24/04/08 as the ‘chargee’, i.e. on behalf of Liberty Corporate Ltd”

Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 13 625 32909 25 15/12/2011 10:17:0 easyJambo 39 26 “Hugh – Your reading of the one-off nature of the cashflow benfit is correct.
RTC has said previously with some confidence that the players wage bill is £1.725M per month excluding bonuses.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 17 818 33119 18 17/12/2011 13:5:0 easyJambo 39 27 “altim – The £90K dispute has nothing to do with RFC.
V – any transfer installments due to RFC would be an asset that the administrator / receiver could use to satisfy an outstanding debt to CW or anyone else as appropriate. The adminsistrator would, of course, have to wait until the previously agreed dates before the funds would be received and then forwarded to the debt holder (less a suitable administration fee).”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 17 819 33120 19 17/12/2011 13:36:0 easyJambo 39 28 “The ‘up front’ element of transfer fees is only important if CW does have a cashflow problem that he can’t satisfy by other means.
e.g. A £6M deal paid in three £2M installments over a year could be more attractive to CW than £3M up front for Jelavic if he doesn’t need the cash immediately.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 24 1174 33509 24 20/12/2011 13:21:0 easyJambo 39 29 “To all of you who have involved yourselves in recent circular arguments and whataboutery.

I’ll return to the blog when there is some decent on-topic debate or new information is posted.”
Rangers’ Working Capital Facility Letter Disclosed 26 1297 33643 47 20/12/2011 20:37:0 easyJambo 39 30 “Selling cut price tops is standard practice among clubs who are expected to bring out a new strip in the summer. e.g. RFC 2012 😉 ”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 4 178 33893 28 21/12/2011 22:10:0 easyJambo 84 1 “‘StevieBC says: 21/12/2011 at 9:45 pm
rangerstaxcase says: 21/12/2011 at 8:41 pm
… (or will need his own funds for other matters)…
Can you elaborate RTC ?’
I’d suggest that RTC was referring to the requirement to retain some funds to run a newco until the end of the season should the need arise.”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 5 203 33920 3 21/12/2011 23:15:0 easyJambo 84 2 “rangerstaxcase says:
21/12/2011 at 11:03 pm
EasyJambo- that is not what I had in mind. Yes- I am being annoyingly vague.
I was just reflecting something you had said a month or two back, but we are all eyes and ears waiting for the next tit bit.”

Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 7 306 34034 6 22/12/2011 19:14:0 easyJambo 84 3 “H – I understand where you are coming from, but it is hardly normal that a previous owner can exert so much influence over the actions of the new owner, without retaining some position or shareholding within the club.”

Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 11 545 34282 45 23/12/2011 14:34:0 easyJambo 84 4 “It could be that some refurbishment costs will come from Glasgow 2014 as Ibrox is due to host the Rugby 7s competition.”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 14 695 34442 45 25/12/2011 1:52:0 easyJambo 84 5 “Best wishes from the capital to all the regular posters. (that’s not venture capital btw) 🙂 ”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 15 709 34456 9 25/12/2011 12:54:0 easyJambo 84 6 “Back on topic. RTC – can you confirm whether or not there was a Sanity Clause in the Share Purchase Agreement? I couldn’t bear to see CW cry if he discovers that there ain’t no Sanity Clause.
(c) Marx Brothers – A Night at the Opera, 1935 🙂 ”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 16 762 34511 12 26/12/2011 12:54:0 easyJambo 84 7 “Bblockquote>curious onlooker says: 26/12/2011 at 11:15 am
There are times when the on-field events become very relevent to on-going decisions with regard to the business, especially so when the mid-season transfer window looms preceded by
the single most important 90 minutes of the domestic season so far.
Wednesday’s game has nothing to do with the tax case, nor will infulence the transfer window, nor is it the most important 90 minutes of the season so far. It might be in your mind, perhaps, but please spare us the Celtic v Rangers v Celtic footballing rivalry on the blog for the next week or so.”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 22 1090 34846 40 27/12/2011 22:3:0 easyJambo 84 8 “My understanding of the significance or otherwise of the 28th October date was as follows:
It was to be a historic date for RFC. The implication being that RFC would go into receivership or administration around that date. (Phil never denied that to anyone who replied to his tweets about his statements).
Why would they enter an insolvency process at that point?
• There was an assumption (incorrect) that RFC only had £200K in the bank.
• October salaries were due.
• It was around 60 days since the HMRC arrestment for the wee tax bill, at which point there was a possibility (disputed on here) that HMRC would have been given preferred creditor status for that sum.
• The end of October was therefore perceived to be a good date for CW to pull the plug in his own personal interests.
With reference to the ‘Close’ security: RFC exited the CL on 3rd August. The security (in return for a loan?) was assigned to Close on 9th August. My interpretation is that, following the defeat to Malmo, CW immediately sought additional funding to cover the black hole created by the absence of Euromillions.
The reason for the ranking of the security ahead of the floating charge isn’t clear to me. Would it not have been simpler to specifically exclude the catering income from the floating charge rather than give it a higher ranking? It could be that RFC was late with its first loan instalment to Close. I don’t know how these things work, but I would assume that in the event of RFC becoming insolvent, then the total sum advanced by Close (plus interest / penalties) would immediately become repayable. Could the full sum have a ranking above the floating charge if specified in the details of a loan agreement or is Close’s security limited only to the cash coming in from catering sources? Incidentally, RFC reported that they received £4.2M in hospitality income for season 2009/10, not an insignificant sum.”

Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 23 1104 34860 4 27/12/2011 22:20:0 easyJambo 84 9 “‘Hellbhoy says: 27/12/2011 at 9:45 pm
Is it not possible that certain staunch RFC men walked away after a certain ‘crisis meeting’?
Perhaps they walked away because something trivial happened eh Adam?

I think that if you look back at some of Paulie Walnuts posts prior to that date he alluded to staunch RFC men seeking legal advice about their status and options.
Based on what has been revealed to date, I’d generally trust Paulie’s sources before Phil’s. That’s not to say that Phil doesn’t get some things right. He does, but he also gets some things wrong.”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 26 1256 35013 6 28/12/2011 12:36:0 easyJambo 84 10 “‘andy Fitzpatrick says: 28/12/2011 at 11:04 am
See,, you can be funny when you try ,, I see STV and rangers are in bed together in a deal,, no conflict of interest there then… Here is the STV news at six,, nothing bad happened at rangers today.’
Conspiracy theories starting already. 😦
Funny how there were no such theories when SMG (the then owners of STV and the Herald) invested £8M in Hearts in 2000, or Granada taking a stake in Liverpool or BskyB in Leeds.
Andy – Take the the green tinted specs off for a while and see the world in full technicolor. It’s much more interesting than your monochrome world. 🙂 ”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 27 1345 35107 45 28/12/2011 21:56:0 easyJambo 84 11 “RTC tweeting once more about the £6.7M investment
rangerstaxcaseRangers Tax-Case
One more time: Have Rangers FC received all of the £6.7m promised by Craig Whyte in the purchase contract?
Now why would RTC keep on asking the question? Does he already have the information? Is he looking for the the MSM to ask the question?”
Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 29 1448 35218 48 29/12/2011 18:21:0 easyJambo 84 12 “‘Captain Bob says: 29/12/2011 at 1:59 pm
Page 17 on this document is interesting

Equally interesting is the submission by Grant Thornton (RFC’s Auditors), in particular the section on Finance at pages 35-39.”

Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 31 1510 35280 10 29/12/2011 22:14:0 easyJambo 84 13 “If indeed ‘signed off’ accounts are submitted tomorrow, is there also a legal requirement for RFC to disclose significant post balance sheet events, such as any additional borrowings from Close or the Arrestments by HMRC and Bain?”

Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There 31 1516 35286 16 29/12/2011 22:26:0 easyJambo 84 14 “Thanks Adam. – I hope your source is right and that everyone can obtain a bit more clarity about how the finances are being managed from the ‘Notes to the Financial Statements’ and any statement by the Auditors.”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 5 244 35609 44 30/12/2011 22:41:0 easyJambo 63 1 “From a historical perspective, the big jump in the asset values came with the revaluation carried out by by DM Hall in 2003 of ‘freehold heritable properties’. The revaluation was done on a ‘depreciated replacement cost basis’, when a surplus of £39M was added to reserves.
The next valuation took place in 2008, where no increase or decrease in value was recorded.
Murray Park’s construction costs were estimated at £12M in 2000. I can’t find anything in the accounts that suggest that Murray Park was leased.”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 6 300 35665 50 31/12/2011 9:41:0 easyJambo 63 2 “Here is the security for Murray Park in favour of two Kelvinside Academy trusts

Its not clear what the obligation is from RFC other that the security covers two pieces of land.”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 16 769 36152 19 2/1/2012 19:4:0 easyJambo 63 3 “Barcabhoy says: 02/01/2012 at 6:18 pm
I appreciate that you are hypothesising, but the CW Circular stated that he was the sole owner of Liberty.
The Rangers FC Group is wholly owned by Liberty Capital Limited (‘Liberty’), a company
incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Liberty is wholly owned by me.
There were certainly no ‘notes to the financial statements’ issued with the published accounts and I don’t recall RTC having made reference to them for the advance draft of the accounts that he received.”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 17 828 36216 28 2/1/2012 22:19:0 easyJambo 63 4 “Phil Mac now blogging that the wee tax bill has been paid (well trasferred to HMRC)
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 19 941 36334 41 3/1/2012 11:31:0 easyJambo 63 5 “Seems like Murray Park is falling down.
‘A bit of storm damage at http://twitter.com/search?q=%23Rangers Murray Park http://t.co/UlogSdNx&mdash; Radio Clyde News (@RadioClydeNews) http://twitter.com/#!/RadioClydeNews/status/154160839887306753&#8217;
Surely it’s not an inside insurance job 🙂 ”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 24 1188 36595 38 3/1/2012 21:19:0 easyJambo 63 6 “There must be a chapter called ‘The Silence of the Succulent Lambs'”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 28 1391 36820 41 4/1/2012 16:3:0 easyJambo 63 7 “I’ve just spent much of today at Register House doing some research on my family tree, so I took the opportunity to check on our Craig Whyte(s).
The Motherwell born Craig Thomas Whyte came into this world on 18th January 1971, to mother Edna (Gavin) and father Thomas Whyte ‘ General Manager (Plant Hire Company)
The link to other 1969 born Craig Whyte looks like a red herring. His was born in Perth on 20th November 1969. I also checked his marriage register entry from 1994 which describes him as a ‘Textile Company’s Storeperson’. I think we can now dispense with any links to this person.
A little further research established that CW has a sister, Adelle, who was born on 16th November 1972. Nothing untoward in that either.
I found a marriage register entry for her on 17th June 1999, where she was described as a ‘Plant Hire Company Controller’. She married a Derek Miller who was employed as a ‘Fireplace Installer’. They were married in Gretna (how romantic 🙂 ). By that time her father was described as a ‘Company Director’ and her mother as a ‘Social Worker’. Not a lot to see here I thought, but there was a little nugget at the end. One of the witnesses was a certain ‘Kim Martin’ and the little bonus was her address:-
9A Patio Palace, 43 Av Hector Otto, ML 98000, Monaco
Corsica et al ‘ can you do your location / residency / business checks on the Monaco address and the possibility of Adelle Whyte (Miller) being involved with any of the Whyte companies?”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 29 1415 36846 15 4/1/2012 16:44:0 easyJambo 63 8 “TBK – I just checked Adelle Miller on Duedil.com.
She has two inactive directorships, one for ‘Chantinghall Fires Ltd’ which looks like a failed business with her self employed hubby, which was run from their home address.The other for ‘EMF Management’ has all the hallmarks of a Whyte startup company. It’s location is the well used Viking House, Daneholes Roundabout in Grays in Essex. The ex-directors include her dad Thomas and FE Nominees and FE Corporate Services. The last two companines link to Tess Flower and Sherri Ellison who have been involved in several Whyte company start ups.
It doesn’t look as if Adelle have been overly involved in the company businesses though.”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 29 1420 36851 20 4/1/2012 16:54:0 easyJambo 63 9 “TBK – the reference in the Caman Island doc is as follows:
(The ‘Company’)
(In Voluntary Winding Up)
The Companies Law (2003 Revision)
Section 135
TAKE NOTICE that the following resolutions were passed by the sole shareholder of the above-mentioned Company at an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders held on 25th June 2004:-
1. AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION THAT the Company be placed in voluntary winding up.
2. THAT Timm-Arno Bergold be appointed as liquidator of the Company.
Date: 25th June 2004.
Voluntary Liquidator
The address of the liquidator is:
c/o Taurus Invest SAM
Le Patio Palace, 41/45 Avenue Hector Otto
MC 98000 Monaco”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 29 1423 36854 23 4/1/2012 17:3:0 easyJambo 63 10 “The Patio Palace location seems to be a mix of apartments and office accomodation.
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 32 1552 37000 2 5/1/2012 0:59:0 easyJambo 63 11 “Par Annoyed says: 05/01/2012 at 12:41 am
Adelle and her hubby actually lived in Chantinghall Road at the time of their marriage, so it wasn’t a huge leap to create a business name related to where they lived.”

Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 38 1864 37320 14 5/1/2012 20:55:0 easyJambo 63 12 “‘billy mccafferty says: 05/01/2012 at 8:17 pm’
I had to count to ten before I respoded, but since I’m a polite individual I won’t say what I really think of your unfounded accusation, save to say, I have no connection with any other poster on this site and RTC knows it.”
Concern About Rangers As A Going-Concern? 38 1882 37338 32 5/1/2012 21:23:0 easyJambo 63 13 “‘TheBlackKnight says:
05/01/2012 at 9:10 pm
Sincere apologies. I thought in your original post you referred to EJ.
EJ, apologies also.’
Likewise – No need to apologise to me TBK”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 5 218 37725 18 6/1/2012 16:39:0 easyJambo 76 2 “‘Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says: 06/01/2012 at 3:48 pm
2nd stage’ apply to join one of the leagues:
Now to be clear, it appears that an application to the SPL would be considered by the SPL board and not the remaining clubs in general meeting. Apparently, that board can make a decision without first consulting with the member clubs AND it is possible that they make a decision which is based on the best interests of football or indeed the best interests of the league going forward.’
BRTH ‘ I think that interpretation of the SPL Articles is incorrect, as I believe that Article 38 would apply.
The following extracts would seem to apply to a Newco
Definition of a Reserved Matter
Reserved Matters means, except where otherwise expressly and to the extent provided in these Articles, those matters relating to the Company’s affairs which shall not be dealt with by the Board but which shall and may only be determined upon by the Members in General Meeting as follows;
Special Qualified Resolutions (83%)
(e) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL);
Article 38
38. A Special Qualified Resolution, (83%) shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:-
(i) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new Members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL);
There is also an odd entry in the SPL Rules that suggests that a club being admitted to the SPL would automatically have SFA registration given to them
Membership of League confers Membership of SFA
H13 In accordance with the SFA Articles and to the extent that it is not already a full or associate member of SFA, membership of the League confers registered membership of the SFA.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 5 244 37752 44 6/1/2012 18:21:0 easyJambo 76 3 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says: 06/01/2012 at 6:01 pm
The moral argument and the integrity of the league should clearly result in a no vote, but we know that we are dealing with a number of chairmen that only deal in ‘£’ signs and have limited morals or integrity.
Surely, any club under threat of relegation (already relegated) would be inclined to vote against, simply in the interests of self preservation, and would have around £750K reasons for doing so.
However, I’m certain that there will be a lot of arm twisting carried out by Neil Doncaster and certain chairmen on behalf of the TV companies to ensure that an accommodation is reached.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 6 253 37761 3 6/1/2012 19:16:0 easyJambo 76 4 “‘TheBlackKnight says: 06/01/2012 at 6:31 pm
easyJambo on 06/01/2012 at 6:21 pm
EJ, (you are particularly good at such hence the question, if you permit )
Is there a simple way to break down the pro’s and con’s to the scenario.
Loss of potential income (TV etc) Versus League position / loss of fan base (backlash etc)
To my mind (without the figures) I still can’t see how the ‘turkeys’ would vote for Christmas.’
It is difficult to provide a definitive best interest argument as each team will have their own individual financial needs and business risks. However, I’ll list a few of the issues as I see them.
Against a Newco
The one simple argument is that of the relegated club. There is provision in the SPL rules for the relegated side to avoid that fate is a club goes out of business.
Club ceasing to play and be a member of the League
H5 If any Club in the League ceases to operate or to be member of the League for any reason, its playing record in the League may be expunged and the number of relegation places from the League shall be reduced accordingly.
12th place in the SPL earns a club approx £750K, so that is a rather large carrot to vote against a Newco. A relegated team however receives parachute payments of approx £250K in year 1 and £125K in year 2. That has to be set against reduced income at the gate and season tickets for a relegated club the next season, so to my mind it is a no brainer.
Assuming that there is no RFC, each club would effectively move up one place in the league. That is worth £80K per place up to 4th, £160K for the team finishing third and a whopping £880K to the team that finishes 2nd.
In the event of a club voting to accommodate a newco, then there is a risk that a significant number of ST holders would not renew or that walk up fans just wouldn’t. The loss of 1,000 fans would equate to a loss of around £380,000 over a league season. (at £20 per game). To my mind this is the biggest risk that clubs face if they vote for the newco. This could be a very large figure for Celtic if say up to 10,000 fans stopped attending.
Pro a Newco
The downside is the loss of around 3000 visiting RFC fans once or twice a season. At an average £25 a head that is worth £75K per game. Obviously the loss to Celtic would be greater.
There are unquantifiable risks regarding the impact on the TV deal if SKY/ESPN have a get out clause if there is no RFC in the league. If such a clause was put into effect, then the £750K guaranteed minimum would be in jeopardy, subsequently some clubs could go out of business.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 6 294 37804 44 6/1/2012 21:13:0 easyJambo 76 5 “TKB – Just one query/correction re your point on visiting fans
• reduced income at the gate from visiting support (circa 3000 fans 3 times a season at £25 = £75k / 4 times a season at £25 = £100k)
RFC only visit individual gounds once or twice a season depending on the fixture sequencing and the split, so the loss to clubs is limited to one or two games per season. I’m guessing that the increase in attendance beyond the normal is around 3,000 for most clubs other than Celtic. It therefore works out at £75K or £150K at £25 a head (typical for OF away fans?).
That loss would be offset to some extent by the visiting fans from the new 12th club in the league which may bring up to 500 fans, e.g. Falkirk or Dundee. That would be worth £10K or £20K at £20 a head (typical for non OF away fans?)
Another consideration about reduced income from TV is that less live TV coverage may actually encourage more fans to turn up to games. Certainly clubs don’t sell out their home games any more when Rangers or Celtic are in town, 1) because of unhelpful kick-off times and 2) because increased nos of Celtic and Rangers fans have decided they’d rather stay at home or watch the game in the pub.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 6 295 37805 45 6/1/2012 21:17:0 easyJambo 76 6 “TKB =TBK oops! 🙂 ”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 7 310 37820 10 6/1/2012 21:52:0 easyJambo 76 7 “TBK’s numbers revised
‘I have rationalised/ amended/ added (hope you don’t mind) happy to have points added/omitted /challenged but it does seem less cut and dried as some make out.
I have also ‘averaged’ the ticket sales to £25 per game. Not certain there would be much move in Corporate/ Debenture revenue.
Against a NewCo direct entry to SPL
•There are unquantifiable future risks regarding the impact on the TV deal and advertising.
* best guess ‘worst case’ scenario is to at least half the TV revenue and advertising. However that will be for the future years, not this year.
•Provision in the SPL rules (H5) for the 12th place side to avoid that fate if another member club in that league goes out of business. (so no 12th place)
•11th place in the SPL earns a club approx £830K (and presumably slightly more with the redistribution of the £750k for the redundant 12th place)
• reduced income at the gate from visiting support (circa 3000 fans once or twice a season, depending on the split at £25 = £75k (one game) or £150 (two games)
*So this is offset from the monies gained from climbing 1 place.
• there is added incentive for those finishing 3rd to 1st. (with an additional £160K for the team finishing third, £880K to the team that finishes 2nd and £320K for 1st (assuming that RFC were expected to finish 1st)
* note this figure would increase too with the redistribution of the 12th place money.
*** all of the above accounts for this years money. Not future years and therefore includes any TV money/ Sponsorship.
• European place ‘up for grabs’ meaning potential increased revenue for at least 1 team (say conservatively £500k)
• SFL teams – additional income at the gate from newco RFC visiting support (circa 1500 fans twice a season at £15 = £45k) (£15 per head and smaller travelling support of 1500 used for lower leagues ‘ some grounds only have capacities of 2,000-4,000)
Pro NewCo direct entry to SPL
•There are quantifiable amounts regarding the impact on the TV deal and advertising ( TV = £18M per year for 5 years)
•guaranteed income of visiting fans apx £75K or £150K per season (considerably more for the top 2 or 3 clubs)
• risk that a significant number of ST holders would not renew. The loss of 1,000 fans would equate to a loss of around £25,000 per game (at £25 per game).
(19 home games = £475K) This could be a very large figure for Celtic if say up to 10,000 fans stopped attending. (£4.75M)
Personally, I don’t see the problem outside of a maximum (unknown) 50% drop in TV revenue.
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 7 328 37838 28 6/1/2012 22:28:0 easyJambo 76 8 “‘Auldheid says: 06/01/2012 at 9:57 pm
The terms of the deal, whether the SPL fronts it or not, should be dictated by Celtic as the healthiest member of what is left of the sick SPL and the club most financially wronged by Rangers’s behaviour. ‘
Sorry Auldheid but you have undermined any validity in the subsequent points you make by that statement.”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 9 414 37928 14 7/1/2012 9:49:0 easyJambo 76 9 “TBK – Re league position and payments
The SPL pool is distributed on the basis of 48% (4% per club) shared equally and 52% distributed on league position. The total distribution of a £20M pool, including the increase from the recent TV deal, would be as follows:
SPL – 12 team pool £20,000,000
1 17.00% £3,400,000
2 15.00% £3,000,000
3 9.50% £1,900,000
4 8.50% £1,700,000
5 8.00% £1,600,000
6 7.50% £1,500,000
7 7.00% £1,400,000
8 6.50% £1,300,000
9 6.00% £1,200,000
10 5.50% £1,100,000
11 5.00% £1,000,000
12 4.50% £900,000
You will see that the biggest jump is from 3rd to 2nd. That is where a lot of the animosity comes from the ‘provincial’ clubs as it helps perpetuate the status quo of two clubs being able to use their financial clout to dominate the rest of the league.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 9 416 37932 16 7/1/2012 10:19:0 easyJambo 76 10 “‘Auldheid says: 06/01/2012 at 11:46 pm
easyJambo says:
06/01/2012 at 10:28 pm
I knew that bit would not get approval from supporters of other clubs but Hearts are hardly in a position to dictate terms given how they run their club.
As the biggest and healthiest club in the SPL that has tried to run itself on sustainable grounds at a cost to themselves, I think Celtic have every right to say enough is enough.
If you can look past who dictates the terms what exactly in the terms do you object to? There is nothing in there that would disadvantage Hearts. Au contraire if your owner’s rants have any substance.
I appreciate you do not like Celtic taking the lead but lack of leadership (and statesmanship) is what has allowed this condition to arise and then fester.
At the third Open Meeting that produced the vote of no confidence in the SFA backed by a boycott threat another attendee and I, on hearing Celtic’s weak stance at that point in time (March 2010) grunted to each other ‘Celtic need to grow a set’.
They did and SFA reform came about (with more to be done), We are not seeking advantagein dictating, just fair play that ALL teams will benefit from.
Sorry mate but when the going gets tough…. ‘
The last I checked there were 12 clubs each with an equal share in the SPL. While that remains the case then ALL clubs have a voice. I have no problem with Celtic leading from the front, making proposals to take the game forward and seeking support from the other clubs. Dictating what should happen is wholly unacceptable.
There are some who say that Celtic and Rangers account for around 70% of the Scottish game (they ceratinly do in terms of turnover) therefore should be allowed to exercise influence to that extent (others may argue that the two clubs already do 🙂 ). However, I would argue that you must therefore also accept that the two clubs are responsible for the 70% of the ills of the modern game.
You have every right to say that Celtic should come out and say enough is enough. However maybe you should be asking the Celtic Board why they still seem restrained in their criticism of their Glasgow neighbour’s behaviour over the last 1/5/10/20/50/100 years .
I’m afraid that Celtic will get little sympathy from the fans of other clubs while their stated belief is that they have outgrown the Scottish game and need to seek fresh challenges in another league.
Celtic don’t have Scottish football’s interests at heart. They have Celtic F.C.’s interests at heart.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 11 507 38028 7 7/1/2012 19:24:0 easyJambo 76 11 “rangerstaxcase says: 07/01/2012 at 6:59 pm
It’s probably one for those better qualified to weigh up the options of Receivership v Administration, but I would have thought that if RFC can limp through to mid March, then they would be in a position to see out their fixtures, either on a no pay basis or utilising their youth squad. By that time they wouldn’t be in any danger of dropping out the top six, indeed may not even drop out the top two.
That at least would buy them time to talk to the footballing authorities to establish what options are available for the following season.
Note that the next SPL season doesn’t start until 4th August.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 13 613 38141 13 8/1/2012 1:11:0 easyJambo 76 12 “Barcabhoy says: 07/01/2012 at 10:44 pm
I agree with you 100%. If the Hearts Board support the direct admission of a newco RFC to the SPL, then I won’t be renewing my ST (which I have held for more than 25 years). The SPL will have lost any credibility or integrity it may have possessed.
If Hearts go under because of current or future financial problems (as opposed to going into and out of administration), then I will support them being resurrected in SFL Div 3.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 13 614 38142 14 8/1/2012 1:22:0 Barcabhoy 108 4 “Auldheid says:
08/01/2012 at 12:01 am
A poll of season ticket holders at all SPL clubs in the event of a Rangers Newco attempting to gain direct entry into the SPL would be an excellent idea. Is there an association of football supporters who could organize and lobby for this.
I can only take the board members I have spoken to at face value. I happen to believe them. They are firm in their statements about Rangers. I do know they have reservations about the resolve or position other clubs will take. They recognize the right of every club to make its own decision, however I believe they have had comment from other clubs who are similarly disgusted about the way Rangers have run their business, and the damaging effect it has had on Scottish Football as a whole
I would ask the question of any SPL or SFL fan, Lets say a Morton fan, How would you feel if St Mirren had borrowed £10 million, with no ability or intention to repay. lets say they topped that up with a tax scam which meant that Morton had to pay £100 in wages for every £50 St Mirren paid
When the inevitable happened, and years after all the best local kids in Renfrewshire and beyond ignored Morton, and went to St Mirren. When reality kicked in and St Mirren held up their hands and said, oops…..sorry about that, anyway, we have just shafted all the creditors, including the local builders, electricians, security company. All of the staff, and the Tax man the banks and the council for Rates and services.
Despite all of that , we suggest you just forget about all of that and let us start again. No relegation, no points deduction, and we get to keep all those Renfrewshire Cups and SPL memories.
And whilst we are at it, we expect you to keep on paying the taxman, your Rates, all suppliers and staff and best of luck in your annual meeting with the bank.
Hands up who see that as fair or just or reasonable
Then change Morton for any other Scottish club and see how keen fans would be to support the chicanery that has happened under Murray, and the shameless restructuring that Whyte has planned
Any SPL Club that votes for a Rangers Newco direct entry, without the most severe penalties should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 17 821 38372 21 9/1/2012 11:28:0 easyJambo 76 13 “Looking for a new job RTC?
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 17 842 38393 42 9/1/2012 12:39:0 easyJambo 76 14 “Rule 51
An issuer must publish annual audited accounts within the time frame required by the jurisdiction to which it is primarily subject or its applicable accounting standards or, if no such time frame is decreed, within a timetable which the issuer must agree in advance with PLUS.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 17 843 38394 43 9/1/2012 12:40:0 easyJambo 76 15 “Stevie – you were too quick for me 🙂 ”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 18 852 38403 2 9/1/2012 12:49:0 easyJambo 76 16 “The full notice http://www.plus-sx.com/noticeItem.html?noticeId=1457607&#8221;
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 19 905 38457 5 9/1/2012 14:53:0 easyJambo 76 17 “Notwithstanding the FTTresult, any RFC shareholders reading the blog should be aware of the implications of de-listing from the PLUS market. What little transparency you have at the moment will be lost.
Hearts have had the same issue since Vlad de-listed them. If you are lucky, you get one chance a year with the publishing of the annual accounts and the AGM find out what is happening. Usually that is way after the event in any case. e.g. Hearts last published accounts were to 31/07/10. The figures came out on 31/03/11, eight months later, and the AGM was held on 03/06/11, more than 10 months later.
I’l bet that very few people know that Vlad has sold off or transferred 15% of Hearts to a Swiss Company, Quantum Holding SA, in the last few months. Nor do very many Hearts fans or shareholders. That’s what happens when you de-list.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 20 985 38538 35 9/1/2012 17:21:0 easyJambo 76 18 “William1968
As ‘V’ has already pointed out:
Extract from SFA Club Licensing documents:
3.3 Licence
3.3.1 Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 25 1207 38765 7 10/1/2012 11:44:0 easyJambo 76 19 “BRTH and others – I’m certain that Article 14 was written to cover the situation where a club does go out of business, then the SPL (following a vote by all the member clubs) can tell the liquidator who the share should be transferred to. e.g. the 2nd team in the SFL, the relegated team from the SPL who would otherwise have given up their share, or a newco.
A thought on the interpretation of ‘expansion’. The article makes reperence to ‘addition or admission of new members’. ‘Addition’ can clearly be interpreted as an expansion of the league, say from 12 to 14. However, ‘admission’ does not suggest expansion to me. If the article was designed only to handle an increase in the number of the teams in the league, then there would be no need to differentiate between the terms addition or admission. It may well be that the article is badly written (sic) and the intention was to cater for both league expansion and replacement, even a ‘comma’ before ‘or admission of new members’ might have helped that interpretation.”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 26 1284 38844 34 10/1/2012 16:20:0 easyJambo 76 20 “Corsica – I had a look at some old Hearts documents from 2004 when Chris Robinson sought to sell Tynecastle to pay off the bulk of Hearts debts and for the club to play out of Murrayfield.
The Murrayfield rental costs, agreed with the SRU, started at £550,000 per annum for 2005/06 increasing by £25K in the next two seasons, then subject to negotiation between the two parties thereafter.”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 26 1293 38854 43 10/1/2012 17:9:0 easyJambo 76 21 “Barcabhoy says: 10/01/2012 at 4:57 pm
I don’t know the exact amount, but my understanding was that they received an advance on the balance of the TV/merit money that they would have been due at the end of the season. It was enought for them to see out their fixtures and to avoid any issues arising from the voiding of their results.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 27 1308 38869 8 10/1/2012 18:44:0 easyJambo 76 22 “Paul McC – Do you think Kim is looking for half of Craig’s assets? i.e. including half of RFC, or will it be Craig be looking to offload half the club and half the tax liability? 🙂 ”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 27 1321 38882 21 10/1/2012 19:1:0 easyJambo 76 23 “A little off topic but an indicator of how badly Scottish football is faring at the moment is Dundee Utd’s announcement of their figures for 2010/11. A loss of £523K. Turnover down 14%. Season Tickets sales down by 18%. Not good news for anyone.
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 28 1379 38946 29 10/1/2012 21:26:0 easyJambo 76 24 “I see that Phil Mac has identified a well kent face who is the chairman of BTO, the solicitors representing Kim Whyte. 🙂
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 37 1836 39420 36 12/1/2012 1:28:0 easyJambo 76 25 “casper says: 12/01/2012 at 12:08 am
You are a bit early with your names. Laudrup was long gone before the EBTs started although De Boer and Numan were there in the early years of the EBTs. However, other players who could have been involved based on the time scales would by Ricksen, Prso, Mols, Klos, Flo, Averladze, Ferguson, Arteta, Lovenkrands, Weir, Boyd, Hutton, Novo, Cousin and loads more”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 41 2049 39644 49 12/1/2012 20:10:0 easyJambo 76 26 “Auldheid.
I’m sorry but I can’t agree in principle with a newco, either paying back taxes due by its predecessor, or having to accept any sort of reparation or conditions on entry to the league.
Take a hypothetical situation of a retail wine and spirits business that has racked up a mountain of secured debt to banks and significant other unsecured debt to HMRC and others. The company goes into administration, but the administrator is offered a pre-pack deal whereby an unconnected potential buyer comes along offering to pay an amount equivalent to the secured debt for the retail units, the stock and an assurance to retain the jobs of all the 500 employees across 100 shops for at least 12 months, allowing the business to continue to function uninterrupted.
The administrator thinks this is the best deal he can get and accepts the offer. However the government steps in and says that unless the newco pays off the debts of the oldco, then it won’t be given a licence to sell wines and spirits.
That is effectively what you are proposing for a newco RFC even if it has no connection with any previous regime. The SFA/SPL are the government in a footballing sense. All that is required is that they abide by the rules and the new business can flourish, even from a lowly starting position.
In general, I consider sanctions on a newco as being anti competitive and a vindictive act. The liquidation of the oldco should be the ultimate act for a company that has mismanaged its affairs, together with subsequent criminal or civil proceedings as appropriate.
That said, I have no issue whatsoever with fans lobbying their respective boards to ensure that any decisions that they make with regard to a newco stand up to moral, integrity and financial scrutiny.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 42 2065 39661 15 12/1/2012 20:46:0 easyJambo 76 27 “Eire bhoy says: 12/01/2012 at 8:29 pm
The assignation of the floating charge to ‘Group’ was confirmed in a Form 466 submitted to companies house at the beginning of November.
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 42 2066 39662 16 12/1/2012 20:52:0 easyJambo 76 28 “Barcabhoy says: 12/01/2012 at 8:44 pm
I was at Register House doing some work on my family tree just over a week and while I was there I checked the Birth Register entry for CW.
He was born at the ‘Maternity Hospital, Motherwell’ on ’18th January 1971 at 19:35′.
The Iconix CW is unconnected as was the CW born in Perth in 1969.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 42 2070 39666 20 12/1/2012 20:58:0 easyJambo 76 29 “JD says: 12/01/2012 at 8:53 pm
Grant Thornton issue a going concern qualification, if they haven’t already done so.
If there are no backers, then receivership/administration becomes ineviable”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 42 2083 39681 33 12/1/2012 21:23:0 easyJambo 76 30 “Barcabhoy says:
12/01/2012 at 9:03 pm
Easy Jambo
Who do we think this guy is…. 16 times the wrong date of birth is entered at Companies House, multiplied by however many annual returns these companies filed.
I think that it his M.O. to do what he can to obfuscate, mislead or whatever. The first incorrect DoB may have been an honest mistake, but given his business record he never sought to put the record right and continued to do business with two DoBs. Even the ‘Billionaire’ tag came from him being linked with Liberty Capital PLC whose parent company is Capital Shopping Centres Group Plc.
CW’s company is Liberty Capital Ltd. Note that CW never seeks to correct any of there misconceptions.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 42 2086 39684 36 12/1/2012 21:24:0 easyJambo 76 31 “…….. should be ‘these misconceptions'”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 43 2106 39705 6 12/1/2012 21:58:0 easyJambo 76 32 “Paul Mac says:
12/01/2012 at 9:36 pm
The word we are looking for is FRAUD..and yes that is the same person….if it can be proved that it is the same person who currently owns an SPL club…then i’m afraid the game is a bogey for him..
I would agree with you on the Fraud issue if, for example, he had used the exact date of birth of the CW born in Perth in 1969 where it could be construed as identity theft. The use of 18/1/71 and 18/1/69 does sound more like an administrative error. I don’t know how Companies House works, but if you use a Company ID No or a Director’s ID No as a template or as a means of data entry, then an incorrect value could easily be replicated.
I’m not discounting deliberate disinformation, or indeed fraud, but I think you would have a difficult job to prove a criminal offence based on the information in the public domain.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 44 2173 39777 23 13/1/2012 1:7:0 easyJambo 76 33 “Fan Club says: 12/01/2012 at 11:30 pm
Paulmac ‘ are Dave king’s shares
Not in his mums name though?
I’m pretty certain that they are held under the name of Metlika Trading Ltd, who hold 5.33% of the shares”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 44 2174 39778 24 13/1/2012 1:14:0 easyJambo 76 34 “Daily Ranger story about Dave King’s mum
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 46 2260 39865 10 13/1/2012 13:24:0 easyJambo 76 35 “Justinian and tigertim – According to Companies House documents, RFC lodged a security in favour of Premier Property Group Ltd, dated 1st May 2006. If it does refer to the Albion St car park, thaen it looks like RFC may have leased it back from PPG Ltd. The Security makes reference to an entry in the land register, GLA68492, if anyone has the ability and desire to check it out.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 48 2386 39995 36 13/1/2012 21:38:0 easyJambo 76 36 “Sporting Intelligence article on HMRC getting tough with Clubs and Footballers
One entry from the questionnaire sent to clubs 🙂
•4.14 Are any payments made into trusts or sub-trusts, whether in the UK or abroad, for which employees or family members are, or are potentially, the beneficiaries?”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 51 2529 40146 29 14/1/2012 11:25:0 easyJambo 76 37 “I’m not sure if Auldheid has covered this in his Licensing posts so apologies if I’m repeating anything, but I had a look through the latest publications on the SFA site as some of the updates were done as recently as Monday.
In addition to the audited accounts that are required UEFA Licensing by for 31st March, I see that in Articles 47 and 48 there is an earlier requirement on RFC to:
‘By 31 January 2012, each licence applicant is required to provide a self-declaration form confirming whether the Indicators apply.
Also, because RFC’s financial year ended on 30th June 2010, there is a requirement in Article 48 that interim accounts must be provided to cover a period to within 6 months of the licensing date which is 31st May. i.e. they must supply interim accounts at least up to 1st Dec 2011 which have been reviewed by an auditor.
Where applicable, additional financial statements covering the interim period must be prepared and submitted. These must cover the interim period, starting the day immediately after the statutory closing date (30 June 2011 in principle) up to 1 December 2011 as a minimum and must be reviewed (as defined by UEFA) by an independent auditor.
The auditor’s review report must be conducted in terms of International Standard on Review Engagements (ISRE) 2410, ‘Review of Interim Financial Information Performed by the Independent Auditor of the Entity’. A specimen auditor’s report is shown in Template Letter A 48 in Annex 03 § 03.2 of Part 4.
That interim account information would provide a much better indicator of CW’s actions than the full year accounts that are pending the auditors sign off.”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 56 2762 40388 12 15/1/2012 14:43:0 easyJambo 76 38 “Chalmers says: 15/01/2012 at 2:29 pm
I note that each of the annual MIH figures is greater than that for the most closely corresponding RFC numbers. Do you know if the EBT figures for MIH are for the ‘Group’ which includes RFC? If that is the case then the expopsure of SDM to the EBT will be a fraction of that of RFC.”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 56 2764 40390 14 15/1/2012 14:44:0 easyJambo 76 39 “Tyke Bhoy says: 15/01/2012 at 2:42 pm
Snap! – I must be getting slower in my old age 🙂 .”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 56 2771 40397 21 15/1/2012 15:19:0 easyJambo 76 40 “TBK – Rangers EBT contributions had started falling before the police raid in July 2007. The raid may have been a consideration, but I think that it was more to do with a growing unease about the schemes including the Arsenal settlement with HMRC in Oct 2005 and other HMRC actions and statements around that period.
It looks as if a number of EBT based contracts have been allowed to run down over the last 5 years with no new ones being entered into.
The 2011 figure was just £150K”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 56 2772 40398 22 15/1/2012 15:26:0 easyJambo 76 41 “STV still seem to believe that the FTT will resume tomorrow 🙂
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 56 2791 40417 41 15/1/2012 17:9:0 easyJambo 76 42 “John You’re Immortal says: 15/01/2012 at 4:42 pm
It seems that HMRC investigations can be triggered by all sorts of events. I think that the HMRC action against RFC may well have originated from what was found in the police raid in 2007, but I think that RFC had already started to run the scheme down in the previous year. £9.19M was the peak in the year to Jun 2006, followed by £4.99 in the year to Jun 2007
It is reported that the investigation into Arsenal came from a divorce case involving Ray Parlour when he was required to reveal his earnings. It showed he earned £1,557,267 for the 2001-2 season on which he paid £350,000 tax, a rate of just 22%.
I believe that a long running tax investigation into Hearts kicked off with a mortgage application made by a player whose payslip showed him to have a very low wage, but he claimed to actually earn lots more.”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 57 2812 40438 12 15/1/2012 18:52:0 easyJambo 76 44 “Auldheid – I agree with all your other proposals but reparation on a newco doesn’t stand scrutiny.
A 10 point penalty for a club going into administration is considered appropriate when the same entity emerges from the insolvency event.
The penalty for a club that goes bust, is simply that. The club is no more. Its shareholders are left with nothing. The history dies with the club. The club that cheated the taxman and is competitors would cease to exist, except in the history books.
Your issue seems to be more about a newco looking like Rangers, sounding like Rangers, smelling like Rangers and its fanbase acting as if it is Rangers, therefore it musn’t be allowed to flourish.
If the rules are applied in the way that I’m certain they were designed to be, then the newco will be allowed to apply for a vacancy in SFL Div 3 along with any other club that wishes to apply.
If a newco is readmitted to the SPL, then it is the integrity of the other 11 clubs that should be challenged, along with that of any newco, as the SPL is a membership of the clubs themselves.”

Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 58 2875 40503 25 15/1/2012 21:44:0 easyJambo 76 45 “Auldheid – Thanks for your clarifications.
I couldn’t care less what happens to previous titles or other trophies. If you want them wiped from the records and if that makes you feel better then who am I to deny you that pleasure. For me those days have gone and there is no way of recreating any joy I may have felt having won something or having missed out on some European trip. If the club goes bust that is enough for me.
The three year rule, as I understand it, prevents a newco obtaining a full License from the SFA or, consequently from UEFA. (I haven’t re-read that rule recently)
With regard to your views about discouraging them from repeating their misdemeanours of the past (my words) then I think the lesson learned by the club going out of business and the loss of their history will be sufficient to prevent recurrence.
Let’s hope that at the end of this saga, that we are both happy in that any newco will start in SFL Div 3 assuming that they win any vote for re-admittance.
Contrary to many on this blog, I think that there will be a noticeable change in the nature of the ‘former’ RFC support should a newco be formed. I think they will lose a significant proportion even of their core support if they start in the lower leagues and are starved of success for any period. Supporters of all teams that stop attending matches tend not to come back in the same numbers, even when a measure of success returns.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 60 2970 40599 20 16/1/2012 1:20:0 easyJambo 76 46 “RTC – I’ve already had a debate with Auldheid about penalising a newco. I see you are suggesting that the ‘entry fee’ to the SPL should be a points deduction or some payment to invest in something such as youth football for several years. I think that is a vindictive and anti competitive position to take. What is the opposite of financial doping? Because that is what you are suggesting by taking points or money away from the newco. Let’s be clear. The SPL would have lost its integrity if 1) if it admits a newco directly simply for financial or other status or historic reasons or 2) places sanctions on a newco just because it replaces a club with a dubious past.
If the ownership of the newco is such that there is no connection with the oldco, then why should they have to pay any entry fee. What would be the attraction to a potential new owner if they were going to be subject to a handicap for a few seasons. Such sanctions would inhibit the earning potential of what is a new business. Is that legal? Is it ethical? You can’t hold a new company to ransom for the mis-deeds of its predecessor.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 61 3006 40638 6 16/1/2012 10:52:0 easyJambo 76 47 “‘MERIDIAN says: 16/01/2012 at 8:58 am
easyjambo ‘ if you take that view is it correct then that the revenue will be applying these ‘ penalties ??? ( securitys and bonds ) ‘ in the near future ‘ apparently already the case for VAT .
This surely must place any new company subject to this at a trading disadvantage ‘ legal ? ethical ? thoughts please

HMRC already have the powers to place conditions regarding the collection of VAT for what they see as a phoenix company. On April 6th those powers are extended to include PAYE and NICs. If HMRC go down that route then it is most definitely legal and ethical. The judgement on what is a phoenix company would no doubt be influenced by the status of a newco RFC, still with Rangers in their name, playing in blue, at Ibrox and being in the SPL.
The question is one for the SPL (i.e. the other clubs), whether or not they tag on an ‘entry fee’ for a newco RFC’s participation.
Actually, I think that it would be good practice for all football clubs to lodge a ‘good behavior bond’ with the SFA/SPL as a price of membership to the league, equivalent say to 50% of their annual turnover. The bond could then be used to help clubs in difficulty or pay off creditors in exceptional situations, any monies released from the bond would of course have to be secured against some other asset.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 61 3017 40649 17 16/1/2012 11:13:0 easyJambo 76 48 “Hugh – It’s too late now for anything like that to happen and no club can afford it. Its just a bit of blue sky thinking that could be considered if a new league was being established. I would view it as something akin to an ABTA or ATOL bond. e.g. if a club went under mid season, then its Season Ticket holders could be compensated for their loss.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 64 3195 40837 45 16/1/2012 21:43:0 easyJambo 76 49 “Paul McConville says: 16/01/2012 at 8:32 pm
StevieBC says: 16/01/2012 at 8:50 pm
In the scenario you describe I can’t see that the footballing authorities would do anything unless there is clear evidence of RFC having lied on their required submissions, e.g. pertaining to UEFA Licensing. All tax due will have been paid following due process, appeals included.
Even if previous directors are found guilty of criminal tax or fraud offences, then I still think there would be no action taken against the club. There have been a number of players who have been found guilty of criminal acts off the park, yet I can’t recall any suspensions or other sanctions taken against them, even for bringing the game into disrepute.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 65 3249 40894 49 17/1/2012 0:45:0 easyJambo 76 50 “Ian Ferguson says: 17/01/2012 at 12:11 am
What do THESE overdue Accounts have to do with the FTT? & what difference can the FTT make to them, they are for a past trading period?
The auditors are required to look forward over the next 12 months to confirm or otherwise that the company will be solvent for that period. The outcome of FTT has to be a consideration for the auditors as has the cashflow projection and funding sources.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 68 3359 41012 9 17/1/2012 14:46:0 easyJambo 76 51 “Seems like RFC have taken steps to cut the wage bill
Weir has played his last game.
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 68 3365 41018 15 17/1/2012 14:55:0 easyJambo 76 52 “corsica says: 17/01/2012 at 2:40 pm
If the accounting reference date has been brought forward to 30 April 2011 then surely they will miss out the purchase of RFC (6 May off top of my head)? Would this not mean even less transparency?
If the company was just a shell and it was pre-RFC purchase then would they not just have to post a nil return or as near as damn it?
Even if they needed an audit opinion, could it not just note (in post-year transactions) that the company secured sufficient finance to purchase an 85% controlling stake in RFC?
If your interpretation is correct, then I think that it shows that CW and his co directors are still able to exert a degree of control of events relating to RFC and its news management. It goes against those who suggest that he is out his depth, lurching from crisis to crisis and doesn’t know what he is doing.
It appears to be quite a sensible step to take, if his aim is to avoid disclosure of certain information that he would rather not have in the public domain.”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 69 3435 41092 35 17/1/2012 20:27:0 easyJambo 76 53 “A3.1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.
Now I wonder how many clubs could say that they could never have been accused of violating SPL Rule A3.1”
Tax Deal ‘Rumour’: What was the point? 69 3438 41095 38 17/1/2012 20:37:0 easyJambo 76 54 “SPL Rule G1.1 The Board and, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, shall have the power of inquiry into all financial, contractual and other arrangements within, between and/or amongst Clubs and Players and all matters concerning compliance with the Financial Disclosure Requirements and into all matters constituting or pertaining to any suspected or alleged breach of or failure to fulfill the Rules by any Club, Club Official and/or Player or any matter considered by the Board or, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, to be relevant to an Adjudication or an Appeal and every Club and Club Official and Player shall be liable to and shall afford every assistance to the Board or, as the case may be
Now which club(s) could fall into this category?”
Rangers Face Their Fate 3 125 41353 25 18/1/2012 14:34:0 easyJambo 78 1 “My main issue is not so much with the MSM at the moment, but the SPL and SFA’s lack of governance of the game. We have just seen that the SPL have powers to sanction clubs as they see fit using their ‘good faith’ catch-all.
One wonders why it has not been used before to take action on allegations of tapping up, criticism of other clubs or their players, clubs not trying is crucial games, clubs refusing to allow opposition teams to sell tickets, inaction on offensive chanting despite UEFA taking action, public statements that certain clubs have outgrown the SPL and want to move to a bigger league etc.
Yet the SPL possess even greater powers of investigation particularly into financial matters, and could easily invoke a commission to look at the affairs of Rangers, Hearts and probably some other teams. Why have these powers not been used?
‘F1 Every Club shall keep detailed financial records and the Company shall be entitled to inspect such records and to require Clubs to provide copies of any financial or other records which the Company may reasonably require in order to enable the Company to investigate whether the Club has complied and is complying with these Rules, the Articles of Association, the SFA Articles, the UEFA Statutes and the FIFA Statutes and to ensure compliance by the Club with the same.
G1.1 The Board and, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, shall have the power of inquiry into all financial, contractual and other arrangements within, between and/or amongst Clubs and Players and all matters concerning compliance with the Financial Disclosure Requirements and into all matters constituting or pertaining to any suspected or alleged breach of or failure to fulfill the Rules by any Club, Club Official and/or Player or any matter considered by the Board or, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, to be relevant to an Adjudication or an Appeal and every Club and Club Official and Player shall be liable to and shall afford every assistance to the Board or, as the case may be Commission, as may be requested or required of it or him.

Now let’s say an SPL club goes out of business and the SPL has failed to take any action to establish the nature of the problem affecting one of its members or the risks to the other clubs from that failure. What does that say about the quality of its management and governance? Should a club go under without the SPL taking action then it should be disbanded.
One last point. The SPL is not some superior entity. The SPL is made up of its 12 member clubs, i.e. the clubs are the SPL.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 5 230 41472 30 18/1/2012 20:25:0 easyJambo 78 2 “Slightly off topic – I’ve been thinking about tainted trophies (hypothetically) – RTC has indicated that Hearts still have a ticking tax time-bomb. Let’s say they go under. Their most recent trophy was the 2006 Scottish Cup. Perhaps we should give it to the runners-up.
Oops! That was Gretna. Can’t give it to them as they were living beyond their means and went under. Oh well let’s try the semi finalists. Gretna beat Dundee.
Oh dear! Dundee subsequently went into administration for a second time after living beyond their means. They can’t get it either.
Hearts beat Hibs 4-0 in the other semi-final. Hibs winning the Scottish Cup? Now that really is a ridiculous thought. 🙂 ”
Rangers Face Their Fate 5 247 41489 47 18/1/2012 20:59:0 easyJambo 78 3 “Thanks RTC, PMcC & Thomas.
I also been thinking that half the MSM will have to look at providing a couple of pages coverage of SFL Div 3 each day. I’m sure that they could talk up the newco’s next big derby match at Hampden against Queens Park.
If they got promoted, obviously the extended coverage would switch to SFL Div 2. It might even get Paul McC interested with the level of coverage on Albion Rovers that would follow 🙂

Rangers Face Their Fate 7 343 41600 43 19/1/2012 10:32:0 easyJambo 78 4 “longtimelurker says: 19/01/2012 at 9:10 am
This one’s for EJ
I don’t know if it’s because Hearts feel that they will be lucky to see any further installments from RFC before they go belly up, or whether it is down to Hearts being cash strapped. I suspect that it is a bit of both.
My gut feel is that they need around another £1M in cashflow to see out the season ok. They could try to sell Templeton, Zaliukas or Kello, but buyers with cash are in short supply. If they have indeed spoken to RFC on this basis then it is likely that they will also have spoken to Sunderland. Hearts are due another £1M on the Craig Gordon deal once he has played 100 games. I think that he is around 6 games short because of his recent injuries. I know Mo’N rates Gordon so I’d hope that he would make up those games before the end of the season.
I’d also expect that a condition of newco RFC being admitted to the SPL would be a commitment to pay the football creditors of the former club.
With regard to insuring yourself against such events, I know it was poo-poo’d when I suggested a bond for all SPL clubs previously but that would be a sensible way us using such funds, as it would be to soften the blow of a shortfall in a TV deal. But that’s blue sky thinking for you, or perhaps it should be a maroon sky. 🙂 ”

Rangers Face Their Fate 10 478 41744 28 19/1/2012 19:19:0 easyJambo 78 5 “I listened to Sportsound on Radio Scotland tonight. Apparently Chick Dung has heard that the SPL are considering an 8 point penalty for Hearts not acting in the ‘utmost good faith’. Traynor said he had heard the same, albeit he was against such a sanction.
If there is any truth in such penalties being considered (I know it’s a big if) it’s great to see that the SPL are sharpening their knives in readiness for the real deal in a few months time. 🙂
I sense another Vlad rant coming on with yet another fine to follow. Monkeys indeed! 😦 ”

Rangers Face Their Fate 10 492 41759 42 19/1/2012 19:51:0 easyJambo 78 6 “easyJambo says: 19/01/2012 at 7:19 pm
Re my last post. I don’t actually believe anything that Chick says about Hearts. However, given that the review panel hasn’t even been selected as yet, then any SPL source that is feeding Young or Traynor clearly can’t be working with the ‘utmost good faith’ themselves. I will wait with bated breath for that leak being investigated. 🙂 ”
Rangers Face Their Fate 11 520 41787 20 19/1/2012 21:20:0 easyJambo 78 7 “Paul McConville says:
19/01/2012 at 8:26 pm
Here is an excellent, thorough and detailed look at receivership/administration/liquidation and written by a Rangers fan with a sense of humour.
Almost as long as one of my blog posts!
Paul – Have you just outed one of the regular and well respected posters on this blog?
On the first screen it makes a reference of Celtic fans with the following words:
ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND or is it an ‘onand’ too far? 🙂 ”
Rangers Face Their Fate 11 529 41796 29 19/1/2012 21:36:0 easyJambo 78 8 “OnandOnandOnand says: 19/01/2012 at 9:34 pm
No probs 🙂 ”
Rangers Face Their Fate 13 608 42142 8 20/1/2012 14:36:0 easyJambo 78 9 “easyJambo says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 20/01/2012 at 2:09 pm
I seem to have been caught in RTC’s clampdown so I will repost.
With the likelihood that the FTT has now completed its evidence gathering, there appears little that HMRC or RFC can do but wait on the verdict, or does it actually trigger some other activities?
RTC has suggested that RFC are in arrears with their PAYE, NIC and VAT returns. Will HMRC start petitioning for administration or winding up orders for these arrears? If they time such demands correctly then there will probably be some money in the pot around the end of January with the close of the transfer window. If HMRC take a view that they are unlikely to see any of the tax due from the big tax case, then is it worth their while to see if they can flush some funds out of RFC (and their backers) in the short term?
If CW and his backers believe that it in RFC 2012’s (a newco’s) best interests for RFC to get through as close as possible to the end of the season, so as not to disrupt the integrity of the SPL this season, then I think that there may be an opportunity for HMRC to get their hands on £2M or £3M around the end of the month. i.e. before CW is ready to pull the plug.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 13 626 42164 26 20/1/2012 14:53:0 easyJambo 78 10 “Stephen says: 20/01/2012 at 2:42 pm
Interesting points. There may be some cash in the coffers after the next round of the Scottish Cup.
In Hearts’ case was there an identifiable trigger for the winding-up orders? If HMRC had run out of patience, roughly how long had Hearts kept them waiting for payment?
I don’t know how long Hearts were in arrears, but I was told (from somone who had spoken to Hearts MD, David Southern) that the first sum paid was for £247K and not the £500K reported in the media. The 2nd sum paid was said to be in excess if £1M.
Hearts wage bill is currently estimated around £600K a month, of which half would go to the authorities. It wouldn’t take long for a bill of £1M to accrue.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 14 692 42234 42 20/1/2012 16:51:0 easyJambo 78 11 “A recent Tweet
AlisonRobbieAlison Robbie
GAIS due around £250,000 train compensation for Celik. #Rangers must pay that within 30 days.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 15 709 42254 9 20/1/2012 17:53:0 easyJambo 78 12 “Ok – why the director change now?
Has Betts achieved what he set out to do on the RFC board and is moving on?
Has Betts got something else on his plate?
Has there been a breakdown in communications between CW and PB?
Is it an agreed change on a certain date?”
Rangers Face Their Fate 27 1347 42941 47 22/1/2012 1:31:0 easyJambo 78 13 “I’d like add my tuppenceworth to the overdue bill timeline.
The bill existed prior to 31st March, but was not overdue on that date. The accounts only stated that RFC had made a provision of the £2.8M which was made up of the bill plus interest.
I belive that an agreement was reached with HMRC regarding payment of the bill plus interest on completion of the takeover, i.e. shortly after 6th May. (I’m sure Paulie Walnuts was first to suggest this)
CW made a down payment of £500K at some point in May
At the end of June or early July Rangers provided assurances to the SFA that they have no overdue tax bills in the period from March to June.
Sherrifs Officers paid a visit to RFC in August at which point the bill was clearly overdue.
My take on it is that there was an agreement with HMRC that RFC would pay the full £2.8M shortly after the takeover. That did not happen. Therefore it is likely that RFC lied by saying they had no overdue taxes at 30th June.
RFC have subsequently sought to cover their backside with the late appeal, saying that they always intended to appeal the bill.
Stewart Regan, I believe is comfortable with the documentation provided as at 31st March, but has only RFC’s assurances / statement to say that all was ok as as 30th June. The SFA are in the clear to the extent that they relied on the ‘utmost good faith’ of RFC in the June statement. If that is suspected to be a sham, then 1) the SFA need to establish the facts, and 2) if RFC are shown to have lied, then they should have the book thrown at them.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 31 1503 43104 3 22/1/2012 17:49:0 easyJambo 78 14 “‘Lord Wobbly says: 22/01/2012 at 5:05 pm
This is a joke…right? EJ? Mark Dickson?

That story first surfaced a couple of months ago. I didn’t pay any attention to it then and won’t pay attention to it now.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 31 1550 43153 50 22/1/2012 19:7:0 easyJambo 78 15 “Adam says:
22/01/2012 at 6:35 pm
Oh and Wullie McKay is Ross McCormacks agent.
Adam – My source has McCormack and Smith with Soccermanagement GB (Rab Douglas)
The same source has Dorrans agent as Stellar Football Limited as you said previously.
The site is also a useful source for players contract dates.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 32 1575 43179 25 22/1/2012 21:7:0 easyJambo 78 16 “Auldheid says: 22/01/2012 at 7:49 pm
Paraphrasing what I said last, I think that the balance of probability is the CW renaged on an agreement with HMRC to pay the £2.8M shortly after the takeover and possibly restarted dialogue with HMRC over the repayment schedule. RFC subsequently provided a statement to the SFA saying that they had no overdues as at 30th June.
It is clear that HMRC would not entertain any further delays in the timescales you referenced in Phil’s blog and after warnings to RFC, eventually sent in the sherrif’s officers in early August.
In my view RFC were wrong to say that they had no overdue tax as at June 30th, despite any ongoing discussions or communications with HMRC. I believe that the penalty element may have originated from the failure to make a full and prompt payment in early May.
The recent belated appeal is most likely an attempt to escape SFA sanctions for providing them with incorrect information in their submission at the end of June. More recent statements attributed to CW that ‘We always intended to appeal’ only highlights that RFC feel under pressure regading the granting of the Licence.
The SFA are in the clear, if, and only if, they publish details of all their communications with RFC, then initiate an investigation, with appropriate sanctions if RFC are found to have lied in order to obtain a licence. I’d suggest that an appropriate sanction for that type of offence would be relegation (not that I think that will happen).
It is also in Stewart Regan’s interest to come clean on this, otherwise he may find himself in a Jim Farry position in the not too distant future, as I’m sure that there will eventually be a leak from the SFA.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 32 1578 43182 28 22/1/2012 21:19:0 easyJambo 78 17 “Is there anyone on here who would admit to reading the Sunday Post? I only ask because the following posts (about Rangers) were made on a Hearts messageboard earlier today. The thread originally was about SPL charging Hearts for not acting with ‘Utmost Good Faith’.
‘Just read a bit in the Sunday post about how the SPL are planning a soft bed approach if worse comes to pass and Rangers go into liquidation , They are looking to the Parma Example ,where Parma were allowed to stay in the Seire A and transfer all there players to the new form of the club .
So basically if this happened Rangers would get 10 pt punishment to start next season and a short term euro ban under Uefa rules (which the SPL cant do anything about ),then back to normal . And the chairmen/owners would accept this because the fear of losing TV money .
Rangers would get away scot free even though they would have been found guillty of robbing the Tax man while we may get punished for not respecting the SPL .’
‘Just read the SP article. For me the astonishing thing was not that the SPL are busy preparing a soft landing for Rangers if the ‘worst happens’ (all in the braoder interests of the Scottish game of course) but some quotes from Doncaster.
Remember his pious statement at the beginning of their intervention on the wages dispute, along the lines ‘we are aware this has been an issue in other countries, but our standards here are different and we are proud of our record etc’.
Here is Doncaster on the Rangers situation (with the flimsiest denial that he is talking about a specific case):
‘ … I think it is important that at the League also have half an eye at what has happened around the world and the policies those Leagues adopted in dealing with the issues. It makes sense to try and learn from what other countries are doing, and try to bring the best practice’.
His first example is that of Parma. Because of the renowned integrity and incorruptibility of Italian football perhaps? No, we read on and learn that Parma went into administration for three years and escaped any fine or points deduction or any other punishment and that in fact the Italian League president actually ordered ‘old Parma’ to transfer all its players and assets to ‘new Parma’. That’s a good precedent Neil, well found.
Surely something on the lines ‘we are aware tax evasion is endemic elsewhere but here we have higher standards ‘ would have demonstrated consistency?
And some deluded souls still have faith we have been and will be treated fairly.

The SP doesn’t do an online edition, so I’m asking if there are any other gems in the article?”

Rangers Face Their Fate 32 1591 43195 41 22/1/2012 21:57:0 easyJambo 78 18 “Thanks Johnboy”
Rangers Face Their Fate 32 1596 43200 46 22/1/2012 22:23:0 easyJambo 78 19 “‘JJ says: 22/01/2012 at 10:12 pm
Re the Sunday Post fantasy, there is no way clubs like, say, Killie would agree to a ‘fix’ whereby Rangers 2012 are in the SPL, penalty and debt free, whilst their own club remained in debt (to the tune of £10 million in their case).
I agree with your sentiments, but I’m concerned that these are direct quotes from Neil Doncaster referencing Parma and Leeds. Perhaps he should also consider Gretna, Livingston, Chester City, Darlington and Portsmouth, as more pertinent examples'”

Rangers Face Their Fate 37 1830 43450 30 23/1/2012 15:15:0 easyJambo 78 20 “Slightly off topic, but the Harry Rednapp tax evasion trial got underway today. If you are a Twitter user then follow https://twitter.com/#!/Pearcesport or @Pearcesport for updates direct from the court.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 38 1887 43517 37 23/1/2012 17:36:0 easyJambo 78 21 “‘Jason says: 23/01/2012 at 5:24 pm (edit)
I think Celtic season tickets would suffer big time if there was no competition.’
I think Celtic season tickets would suffer big time if a newco RFC was admitted to the SPL, as would season ticket sales for other SPL clubs.
Either way Scottish football is set to continue on a downward path because of RFC’s financial indiscretions, at least in the short term. The best outcome for the game will be for a newco RFC to apply to join SFL3 along with Spartans, Gala Fairydean and Cove Rangers and for Spartans to succeed. 😉 ”
Rangers Face Their Fate 43 2137 43786 37 24/1/2012 10:18:0 easyJambo 78 22 “Auldheid – are you looking for a job? 🙂
StewartReganStewart M. Regan
Interviews start today for a new Director of Football Governance & Regulation. Final piece of the jigsaw in my new senior mgt team. #li”

Rangers Face Their Fate 43 2142 43791 42 24/1/2012 10:29:0 easyJambo 78 23 “corsica says: 24/01/2012 at 12:05 am
What I do not make allowance for is any TV income but if memory serves me right this is pretty much negligible for teams outwith the top two?
I think you need to rework your model. SPL TV/Prize money may be around 5% of Celtic’s turnover in a good year, but for the lesser lights it’s an essential income stream. e.g. Motherwell, St Mirren and ICT’s turnover was in the range of £3.5M to £4.4M in their last accounts. TV/Prize money will be in excess of £1M for teams that finish 10th or above, assuming TV income of £18M a season.
You can also make the assumption the every team will finish one place higher in the league, which would earn them around £90K.”

Rangers Face Their Fate 43 2148 43797 48 24/1/2012 10:38:0 easyJambo 78 24 “MDCCCLXXXVIII says: 24/01/2012 at 10:09 am
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:24/01/2012 at 9:18 am
Off topic but the U19 league is being replaced by an U20 league next season, with 2 x overage outfield players and an overage keeeper allowed. It’s part of the Mark Wotte plans for improving standards.
It means that these ‘development’ squads should be stronger and more capable of beating 2nd or 3rd division sides, should some sort of reconstruction finally get the go-ahead.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 45 2230 43884 30 24/1/2012 14:17:0 easyJambo 78 25 “I see the the Betts resignations have reached the ‘free’ part of the Companies House website. (cheapskate 🙂 ). The filing date for the ‘Group’ resignation is down at 20th Jan while the PLC is 23rd Jan. Is there any significance of having possibly resigned from Group first and then volunteering or being forced to resign from the PLC?
I realise that the notice to the PLUS market on 20th Jan was in respect of the PLC (Group isn’t listed).”
Rangers Face Their Fate 45 2232 43886 32 24/1/2012 14:20:0 easyJambo 78 26 “Corsica –
Here is the breakdown of TV/Merit payments based a pot of £18M
SPL – 12 team – Pot – £18,000,000
1 17.00% £3,060,000
2 15.00% £2,700,000
3 9.50% £1,710,000
4 8.50% £1,530,000
5 8.00% £1,440,000
6 7.50% £1,350,000
7 7.00% £1,260,000
8 6.50% £1,170,000
9 6.00% £1,080,000
10 5.50% £990,000
11 5.00% £900,000
12 4.50% £810,000”

Rangers Face Their Fate 46 2262 43918 12 24/1/2012 15:17:0 easyJambo 78 27 “Adam says: 24/01/2012 at 2:39 pm
…… just as a devils advocate point …….
What happens when they do cover that type of game and the attendance drops from 3378 when there is no live coverage to 1594 when there is live coverage as witnessed last week. ?
Just the same as happens at the moment. Teams no longer sell out their grounds when they host Rangers or Celtic. That is partly due to Live TV, early kick-offs, ticket costs and a desire to avoid the bile that follows the away support of both sides.
Hearts biggest home attendances are no longer against Rangers or Celtic. They are against Hibs.
The TV deal is setup with a hugh bias in favour of the status quo with the top two sides, not only claiming a disproportionate share of the TV revenue, but they also avoid any loss of revenue to their home gates because it is all their away games that are covered live. It’s currently a charter for the armchair Rangers or Celtic fans with home games at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon and all their away games live on TV.
The only Rangers and Celtic home games covered live are those against one another, the unfurling of the league flag and the league winning matches, all of which are likely to be sell outs.
My solution to the TV debate would be to give SKY/ESPN carte blanche to cover any games they want, as long as the ground is sold out. That means the TV companies would have the option to buy up all the unsold seats if there is a particular game they wish to cover, even if it means that they subsequently give the tickets away free. It becomes a win/win situation for both the clubs and the TV companies and we are less likely to see live coverage of empty stadiums for Dunfermline v ICT.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 50 2455 44114 5 24/1/2012 22:11:0 easyJambo 78 28 “Paulsatim says: 24/01/2012 at 9:54 pm
if anyone is interested………………..
interesting Q and A too.
What is interesting from the Q&A is that HMRC are pursuing a PAYE debt from December, i.e. just last month.
If RTC is correct that RFC have been delinquent in paying PAYE for at least a couple of months then it begs the question why no such order has been lodged in respect of RFC, to date. One can speculate that HMRC are well aware of the financial status and cashflow situation of RFC and will act accordingly.
Reading between the lines of what RTC has said previously, then I would look for HMRC to issue a winding up order at the end of January or beginning of February in respect of any overdue payments of PAYE, NIC or VAT, i.e. RFC should have some cash from transfer dealings at thgat point.
If I’m wrong in my reading of RTC’s previous posts then I apologise in advance.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 50 2476 44135 26 24/1/2012 22:33:0 easyJambo 78 29 “TBK – If HMRC have read the situation correctly then they know that they won’t get any money if the plug is pulled following the FTT verdict (either the EBT related tax money or the more recent PAYE indiscretions).
With the completion of the evidence gathering, whether or not the FTT ruling comes pre or post insolvency is immaterial. the value of the ruling is how it influences the behaviour of the other bigger fish in the EBT pond.
If they can collect a few million in PAYE through a winding up order because CW wants to see it through to the FTT verdict, then it is in HMRC’s interests to do so.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 58 2878 44563 28 25/1/2012 22:24:0 easyJambo 78 30 “Gully says:
25/01/2012 at 9:45 pm
Paulie Walnuts says:
25/01/2012 at 9:28 pm
I sent RTC a copy of all the earlier securities the RFC had lodged with Companies House between 1997 and 2006. As Gully says there are securites held in favour of two Kelvinside trusts and the Scottish Sports Council regarding land at Auchenhowie.
The BoS floating charge as amended in Dec 2001, set the priority of securities as:
1. The Trusts security for the Trusts debt (Kelvinside trusts on the land at Auchenhowie)
2. The Priority Security for the Priority debt (the SSC debt up to £500K + interest or greater sums as agreed by BoS)
3. The Floating charge for the Bos Debt
4. The Priority Security for any additional sums outstanding on the SSC debt.
There is no indication of the size of the debt owed to the Trusts.
There is also a security held by Premier Property Ltd (probably relates to the purchase of the old car park when the club deck was built)
The strangest of the securities was for a loan that appears to have been paid off by RFC …… to Dunfermline Building Society in respect of a mortgage on a property in Helensburgh owned by Basile and Genevieve Boli in 1997.”

Rangers Face Their Fate 58 2892 44577 42 25/1/2012 23:3:0 easyJambo 78 31 “TBK – I remember Tapie was subsequently jailed for other offences. I guess that RFC can rightly point to Marsailles having been implicated in match fixing and thus have a claim that the CL triumph was tainted.
Here is an extract from Tapie’s Wiki entry
In 1993, the same year that Olympique de Marseille won the Champions League, he was accused of fixing the match between his club and minor club Valenciennes; the motivation seemed to be that, in this way, he could save his best players for important matches and not waste their energy. His club was stripped of its French league championship, though not of the Champions League title, and later suffered a forced relegation to the second division because of financial irregularities widely blamed on Tapie. In 1994, Tapie was put under criminal investigation for complicity of corruption and subornation of witnesses. After a high profile case against public prosecutor Éric de Montgolfier, he was sentenced in 1995 by the Court of Appeals of Douai to 2 years in prison, including 8 months non-suspended and 3 years of deprivation of his civic rights. He was incarcerated for about 6 months in 1997. He sold his boat Club Med 2 to Club Méditerranée.
Bernard Tapie was also prosecuted for tax fraud.
On 30 September 2008, a French court ended a long legal battle between Tapie and the Crédit Lyonnais bank. Crédit Lyonnais had allegedly defrauded Tapie in 1993 and 1994 when it sold Adidas on his behalf to Robert Louis-Dreyfus, apparently by arranging a larger sale with Dreyfus without Tapie’s knowledge. The court awarded 405 million euros to Tapie. This decision was partially overturned on 9 October 2006 by the Court of Cassation, the main court of last resort in France.”

Rangers Face Their Fate 58 2895 44581 45 25/1/2012 23:12:0 TheBlackKnight 43 154 “easyJambo on 25/01/2012 at 11:03 pm
Strange thing is Boli left Rangers in 1995?”
Rangers Face Their Fate 58 2896 44582 46 25/1/2012 23:17:0 easyJambo 78 32 “TBK – The timing doesn’t make sense to me either.”
Rangers Face Their Fate 63 3118 44839 18 26/1/2012 20:13:0 easyJambo 78 33 “layman00 says: 26/01/2012 at 7:43 pm
Is there a an administration scenario where the Rangers players could be released as free agents?
1) If the players aren’t paid due to a lack of cash. The club (administraor) would have breached the players contracts and the players could ask the authorities to be released from their contract, thus becoming a free agent.
2) The administrator can terminate the players contracts unilaterally, effectively making the players redundant.
3) By mutual termination of a contract, i.e. agreement between the player and the administrator
There may be more similar circumstances.”

Rangers Face Their Fate 65 3241 44963 41 26/1/2012 22:29:0 easyJambo 78 34 “Tyke Bhoy says:
26/01/2012 at 10:04 pm
Anyone know how many season tickets for next season MBB has had the money for?
Adam might be able to help with this as he can interpret and advise on RFC’s accounts and ST arrangements better than I can.
My understanding is that the following season’s STs are included in the ‘Accruals and other deferred income’ figure. This was stated as £16.833M in the 2010 accounts under Creditors – within one year (note 15) No such breakdown was issued with the 2011 accounts.
The 2010 figures also show a figure of £7.354M for ‘Accruals and other deferred income’ under Creditors – more than one year. (note 16) – this may include multi-year STs
This is where I need Adam’s input:
Is my interpretation of the handling of ST income in the accounts correct ?
Does RFC operate a multi year ST scheme?
If they do/did operate such a scheme, then does the £7.354M sound a reasonable figure?
Is this sum (or equivalent 2011 figure) available to CW to use to aid the cashflow now?”

Rangers Face Their Fate 66 3251 44973 1 26/1/2012 22:42:0 easyJambo 78 35 “Adam says:
26/01/2012 at 10:39 pm
EJ ‘ I am working from memory here as i dont have access just now, but im pretty sure that £7m includes £6-£7m ‘owed’ to the the Bond holders which is repayable ‘at our discretion’ in the year 2026.
Not 100% on that though.
The Bond is reported under Capital and Reserves and is valued at £7.736M”

Rangers Face Their Fate 66 3254 44976 4 26/1/2012 22:45:0 easyJambo 78 36 “Adam – The bond is also referenced in the Accounting policies notes with the following statement
The Directors consider the Rangers Bond to be a compound financial instrument. The directors have assessed the liability component of the bonds and consider this to be an immaterial element and as such have recognised the full amount as an equity instrument.”

Rangers Face Their Fate 66 3264 44986 14 26/1/2012 22:56:0 easyJambo 78 37 “Adam says:
26/01/2012 at 10:49 pm
A little too technical now for me EJ and need a second opinion, but despite the conditions set out, would there not still be a creditor in the liabilities for it, if it was due at a point in time in the future?
Thanks for the quick response Adam, but I was hoping that you would be able to answer the questions not the other way round. 🙂
Can I ask that you take a look at the accounts at your convenience and post a reply, tomorrow or whenever you get the chance.
Rangers Face Their Fate 66 3270 44992 20 26/1/2012 23:4:0 easyJambo 78 38 “TheBlackKnight says: 26/01/2012 at 10:55 pm
I’m not sure if the Independent article actually states that the 3 year scheme was ongoing.
The number of season tickets involved will be nothing like the 24k-27k a year mentioned in the MG05s.
If you work it out, then the £16M would relate to approx 40,000 STs. £7M would therefore be the equivalent of 17,500 STs spread over two years (in a 3 year scheme) or 8,750 x 3 year STs sold. Does that sound reasonable?”
Mixing It Up With The Media 4 152 45233 2 27/1/2012 13:50:0 easyJambo 76 1 “The SPL are now free to create a soft loanding for RFC 2012 after dismissing the case against Hearts for not acting in good faith.

Mixing It Up With The Media 4 153 45234 3 27/1/2012 13:50:0 easyJambo 76 2 “Loanding??? Landing of course 🙂 ”
Mixing It Up With The Media 5 227 45311 27 27/1/2012 18:36:0 easyJambo 76 3 “Just listened to Neil Doncaster being interviewed on Sportssound about the Hearts charge being dismissed. He has just said that any club that has not paid PAYE up to date have gained a financial advantage on other teams and could could be subject to an adjudication process as Hearts were re the late payment of wages.
Now what club(s) may be late in payment of PAYE?”
Mixing It Up With The Media 5 246 45342 46 27/1/2012 21:0:0 easyJambo 76 4 “Podcast of tonight’s Sportsound with Neil Doncaster saying that clubs that don’t pay their PAYE have a competitive advantage.(12:10-12:40 into the broadcast)
Mixing It Up With The Media 12 577 45691 27 28/1/2012 23:21:0 easyJambo 76 5 “RFCsupporterinpeace says: 28/01/2012 at 10:05 pm
Hoopy 7 says: 28/01/2012 at 10:34 pm
Do either of you have any evidence that Hearts have used EBTs? …… No? I didn’t think so.
Hearts do have ongoing tax issues, but not related to EBTs. It is a matter of public record that Hearts have reported that they are the subject of an ongoing investigation by HMRC. They have done so in each of their last three sets of published accounts, 2008-2010, although these were not publshed until 2009-11. I think one can assume these these investigations are related to the early Vlad years from season 2005/06 through to 2007/08.
I don’t know what the outcome of these investigations will be, but I fear the worst.
It will not be quite as easy for some clubs to simply liquidate themselves to eliminate their debts and reform as newcos with SPL status. Hearts are one that would fall into that category as the bulk of the debt is due in the owner and he would have to take most of the hit.
Others clubs with significant personal indebtedness include Hibs to Tom Farmer and Dunfermline to Gavin Masterton. Aberdeen, Dundee Utd and Kilmarnock do have debts to Stewart Milne, Stephen Thomson and Michael Johnston respectively, but they also have a fair degree of bank debt, therefore it may be more practical for them to use the newco route.”
Mixing It Up With The Media 16 776 45903 26 29/1/2012 17:15:0 easyJambo 76 6 “The TV deal as far as Sky and ESPN are concerned are all about viewer figures.
Over last season and this season to date, games between Celtic and Rangers have ranged between 531K and 867K viewers. All games were covered by Sky, but live games on SS1 always attract more viewers than those shown on SS2, SS3 or SS4. All four Sky channels attract more viewers than ESPN.
Typical away games for Celtic or Rangers average around 125K on ESPN or 225K if shown on Sky. Certain games when shown on SS1 can be higher, the peak being that game between Hearts and Celtic last May which had 487K viewers.
Games between non-OF sides on ESPN typically average just 65K viewers, with the low point being Hibs v Hamilton, last season, which attracted only 33K viewers. The highest viewing figures outwith the OF are for Hearts v Hibs games, with around 110K on ESPN, peaking at 260K for the recent New Year game at Easter Rd. which was shown on SS1.
To put the SPL numbers into perspective, the EPL typically attract between 1.75M – 2M viewers for their Sunday games.
TV audience figures are available from the Broadcasters Audience Research Board website
Mixing It Up With The Media 17 805 45932 5 29/1/2012 18:15:0 easyJambo 76 7 “STV only reporting discussion between RFC and Everton re Jellyfish; i.e no mention of an offer.
@STVRamanRaman Bhardwaj
Discussions between Rangers and Everton re Jelavic took place today.”
Mixing It Up With The Media 17 810 45937 10 29/1/2012 18:24:0 easyJambo 76 8 “Other sources saying offer is £6M + extras up to £7.5M.
Everton have money available after the Bilyaletdinov transfer to Spartak Moscow.
Suggestion on a Hearts messageboard that RFC have had discussions with Hearts re Templeton 😦 ”
Mixing It Up With The Media 17 826 45953 26 29/1/2012 18:50:0 easyJambo 76 9 “Adan – I have a spreadsheet of the TV figures that I had gathered while doing some investiagations for another purpose last season. I’ve worked out a few averages, rather rely on just a quick visual review.
The total number of viewers for the 56 games for which I have figures was 9.77M
SPL Averages for 2010-11 – Nos in 000’s
All games 175
All games (ESPN) 90
All games (Sky) 242
Rangers v Celtic v Rangers 719
Anyone v Rangers or Celtic (all) 174
Anyone v Rangers or Celtic (ESPN) 109
Anyone v Rangers or Celtic (Sky) 226
Non OF (all) 65
Non OF (ESPN) 45
Non OF (Sky) 93
Hibs v Hearts v Hibs 106
Re the impact on value of the contract without RFC. I’d guess that they could get something between 50%-70% of the current deal.
There are a number of other pluses and minuses from RFC being out of the SPL. I still think that the positives exceed the negatives for the whole of Scottish football, if you don’t limit the criteria to finances alone.
The other factor to be considered is the potential loss of fans, of all clubs, who are considering giving up going to games completely if a newco RFC are readmitted to the SPL, because they see a lack of integrity within the game. I include myself as being in that category. I will give up my season ticket and revert to my interests in watching youth football.”
Mixing It Up With The Media 17 839 45966 39 29/1/2012 19:3:0 easyJambo 76 10 “‘The Sunday Post reports that if Rangers sell Jelavic, his former club Rapid Vienna will take at least 20% of the fee’
Does anyone have a copy of the Sunday Post 🙂
I’m not sure if the 20% figure includes the £1M or so that they are still owed from the original transfer, or if it is just a sell-on fee.”
Mixing It Up With The Media 19 907 46039 7 29/1/2012 20:55:0 easyJambo 76 11 “Chris Barrie says:
29/01/2012 at 8:50 pm
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how a deal like that would work, given that Rapid Vienna are due 20% of the transfer fee?
Assuming a £6M total fee then that would be a £5M transfer plus VAT.
£1M VAT (applies to transfers within the UK)
£1M to Rapid Vienna (outstanding balance of transfer)
£500K to Jelavic (10% of fee as he didn’t ask for a transfer)
£1M to Rapid Vienna (20% sell on fee if such an arrangement exists)
£2.5M to Craig Whyte
£0 to Ally Le Guen 🙂 ”
Mixing It Up With The Media 19 933 46065 33 29/1/2012 21:15:0 easyJambo 76 12 “Hugh McEwan says:
29/01/2012 at 9:11 pm
mooby says:
29/01/2012 at 8:48 pm
Well said.
I would love to see Scottish football going back to bringing through youth and developing players.
That’s also what makes me so hacked off with recent signings by both Rangers and Celtic added to RFC’s never ending queue of foreign trialists.”
Mixing It Up With The Media 20 977 46112 27 29/1/2012 22:10:0 easyJambo 76 13 “Tomorrows Times to report that RFC have accepted a £3.5M bid from Everton for NJ.”
Mixing It Up With The Media 20 983 46118 33 29/1/2012 22:15:0 easyJambo 76 14 “timtim says:
29/01/2012 at 10:06 pm
I believe a 3rd payment is still due of €500k
but according to the link above will also be paid late
The English translation is quite funny with its references to ‘Billionaire’ and ‘back duty’
Football club Rapid Vienna have to wait even longer than expected for the payments in the course of the transfer of Nikica Jelavic to Rangers FC, according to the newspaper Kurier.
The current instalment of 500.000 Euro will come later than originally agreed (31st August). The upcoming instalments will also be payed with delay.
The newspaper reports that the new owner of Rangers FC, the billionaire Craig Whyte, refuses to pay for debts from the past. Furthermore, Rangers also have to pay back duty to the amount of 33 million Euro.
Werner Kuhn, manager of Rapid Vienna, was informed by the Scots, but doesn´t want to speak to the media about it. ‘Because it´s a contract issue. And it´s confidential.'”
Mixing It Up With The Media 22 1060 46202 10 30/1/2012 1:32:0 easyJambo 76 15 “The Scottish Sun’s £8M bid
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 1 43 46254 43 30/1/2012 10:41:0 easyJambo 34 1 “For those who are unaware of Rangers wage bill, RTC made the following post in November when he reported that they were late in their PAYE and NIC contributions to the extent of £2M or more.
‘rangerstaxcase says: 26/11/2011 at 10:17 am
For those who asked, Rangers’ player salary bill per month (before bonuses) is £1.725m. That would place the PAYE & NIC bill at about £863k per month. That would imply that Rangers are at least 2 months behind in their tax affairs (ignoring VAT).
My source did not want to give me the exact amount as too few people are aware of this figure, but the £2m figure is likely to be conservative.'”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 5 212 46443 12 30/1/2012 19:31:0 easyJambo 34 2 “Can some of our legal and insolvency experts give an outline of a likely sequence and timeline of events following a substantial FTT ruling against RFC. From reading the blog there appear to a number of hoops to be gone through
When and in what sequence would the following steps occur? I assume certain steps can run in parallel. Please add any necessary steps.
HMRC will request payment within 7 days
RFC have 30 days to appeal the FTT decision?
HMRC issue winding up order
CW triggers Receivership
Newco receives/buys RFC assets
Receiver completes his satisfaction of the floating charge
Court hearing re winding up order
Liquidator is appointed following HMRC petition to court
Dissolution notice posted in Edinburgh Gazette
RFC is dissolved.
While RFC remain in receivership I assume that they can continue to fulfil their fixtures, whether or not the players are being paid. Does the same apply while the company in the hands of a liquidator? I ask that question because I think RFC’s fulfilment of this season’s fixtures could well be a key factor in how any newco’s application is handled during the close season. Failure to fulfil their fixtures will cause all sorts of difficulties for the SPL.”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 5 219 46450 19 30/1/2012 19:37:0 easyJambo 34 3 “TheBlackKnight says:
30/01/2012 at 7:35 pm
easyJambo on 30/01/2012 at 7:31 pm said:
‘From reading the blog there appear to a number of hoops to be gone through’
No resistance from us! Boom boom!
(sorry EJ couldn’t resist)
Totally unintentional 🙂 ”

Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 5 221 46452 21 30/1/2012 19:40:0 easyJambo 34 4 “Perry Whyte says:
30/01/2012 at 7:35 pm
Bit of clarification/rumour control needed gang. Any truth in the notion that if/when a certain bodily discharge impacts the air displacement device ~£8m in bonds used to pay for the club deck back in ’91 becomes refundable and bond holders get in the unsecured creditor line, yay or nay?
Yes – the 6,050 bond holders would join the queue of unsecured creditors with a combined debt of £7.736M”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 5 225 46456 25 30/1/2012 19:45:0 easyJambo 34 5 “TBK – From the notes to the RFC accounts
The debentures rank pari passu with respect to voting and repayment, are unsecured and no interest is payable.The debentures are repayable under the following conditions:
i. at the discretion of the Company on or after 16 December 2026, being the 35th anniversary of the completion of the Club Deck in the Bill Struth Main Stand,
ii. if an order is made or an effective resolution is passed for the winding up of the Company, or
iii. if an administrator or receiver is appointed to the undertaking of the Company or any of its property or assets, or
iv. if the Company ceases on a permanent basis to carry on its business at the Stadium.”

Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 5 231 46462 31 30/1/2012 19:55:0 easyJambo 34 6 “TBK – I guess it would be down to the new owners and the amount of funding they are prepared to invest. Clearly they would be under pressure to honour existing Season Tickets for the remainder of the season and Debenture holders for longer, otherwise they risk losing what is a core element of their support for future seasons.”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 6 295 46530 45 30/1/2012 21:8:0 easyJambo 34 7 “Probably worth reminding folks of Braca’s post from last week.
‘Barcabhoy says: 22/01/2012 at 10:58 pm
I am about to do an Adam, so don’t shoot the messenger
Incredibly good source, with a very significant connection to the old Rangers regime tells me this is what has happened
Whyte has forward sold 3 years worth of season book income. The anticipated value of this income was £41,000,000. The amount advanced to Whyte was circa £31,000,000. He used this to pay off Lloyds and provide working capital for this season. The reason the season tickets are being renewed early is because it was a condition of the forward sale
The European and CIS results have blown a hole in the budget. With EL money and a reasonable run in the CIS, then Rangers could have got to season’s end. Paying season 2 early took most of the risk out for Close, and the creation of a first ranking charge for £5 million gave them a guaranteed modest profit at worst.
The lack of EL and CIS income is forcing player sales.
My source also tells me that he believes if no significant player sales then receivership is likely in Feb.'”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 7 306 46542 6 30/1/2012 21:21:0 easyJambo 34 8 “Follow-up post from Barca on the structure of the deal.
‘Barcabhoy says: 23/01/2012 at 12:20 am
thats what my source believes, although it’s 3 years front loading…..in simple terms from the funders perspective
yr 1 receive £14 million….leaving a book valance of £17 million + accrued interest + profit
yr 2( april 2012 )….receive another £14 million, leaving £3 million + accrued interest + profit
June 2012, lets say it all goes wrong and receiver called in….
there is a first charge of £5 million which covers £3 million balance and accrued interest and maybe a small profit over and above the interest turn
if whyte made it to yr 3 the funder had got himself a great return
what was in it for Whyte
1……using OPM ( other peoples money) which is normal MO for him
2…If FTT rules against he sell has floating charge to recover any management fees and transaction costs he has been able to pad onto Rangers
3. It was a punt, a long shot, but he wasn’t risking any personal cash
4. If the FTT went his way , he could have sold on or exercised an option to pay yr 3 early at a significant discount, thereby keeping the season ticket money in Rangers
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 7 311 46549 11 30/1/2012 21:29:0 easyJambo 34 9 “Lord Wobbly says: 30/01/2012 at 9:25 pm
I think it was Onandx3 who first picked up on the MG05S. The Don added his learned expertise to help explain it.”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 7 312 46550 12 30/1/2012 21:30:0 easyJambo 34 10 “When was pay day for the players? Surely they will have been paid on time. 😉 ”

Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 7 315 46553 15 30/1/2012 21:34:0 easyJambo 34 11 “Blog post from RTC on 19th June – excerpt from CW’s interview with Daryll King
‘Contrary to a report elsewhere this week, no form has been signed that would allow season-ticket money to be used as a guarantee against any future loans; indeed, the form lodged at Companies House by RFCG last month does the opposite: it prevents season-ticket money from being used for that purpose.'”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 8 373 46617 23 30/1/2012 22:36:0 easyJambo 34 12 “is nibs says:
30/01/2012 at 10:27 pm
I understand Administration and Liquidation. But can someone breifly explain Receivership.
Here are the first two posts I bookmarked on the blog (from early June). Unsurprisingly, they were posted by Onandx3 and the Don.
‘OnandOnandOnand says: 07/06/2011 at 7:58 pm
How to avoid Administration…………
Simple, if you are relying on the original BOS security granted in 1999, you are entitled to appoint an Administrative Receiver, not an Administrator. This is available where the Floating Charge was created before 15th September 2003 when the law was revamped. An Administrative Receivership is a totally different insolvency procedure, most notably in that the Receiver acts for the chargeholder, not the creditors. If Whyte has spent £18m paying off the loan to LTSB, spent £5m on players, paid the small tax bill and various others, including penalties and fees, up to, say £30m, he will then persuade the Receiver to transfer the assets to him as an offset arrangement. Job done. HMRC will moan but there will be revised valuations on a break up basis that shows £30m is a reasonable price. So the Whyte camp will have bought Rangers Football Club for £30m, debt free, will trade for a year or two then sell at a huge profit.
On that analysis, Whyte needs to spend some money to get his loan up to the level where he can set off, so expect some signings.
Only a theory, mind’
‘the Don Dionisio says: 08/06/2011 at 1:59 pm
‘he will then persuade the Receiver to transfer the assets to him as part of an offset arrangement’. What is your authority for that proposition, and how sure are you about the offset arrangement?
This is hugely important, because in my experience in a previous life, the position was as follows at least in relation to private companies, albeit I recognise we are dealing with a listed plc here.
To facilitate a sale, a new subsidiary of the failed group may be set up by the Receiver and the relevant assets ‘hived down’ to the new company. The new company will have a low share capital and the consideration for the assets hived down will be left outstanding and perhaps undetermined for the time being. If a purchaser agrees to buy the business he will purchase the share capital of Newco for a nominal amount and provide funds to satisfy the debt to the former parent. The debt will at this stage be crystallised as the amount the buyer has agreed to pay for the business.
Through the hiving down procedure, the buyer can buy a business which starts with a clean sheet and the liabilities and commitments of which can be precisely assessed.
To my mind, this could be the key to avoiding any question of administration/ liquidation, as no unsecured creditor will get anything given the figures. There would be no point to admin/liquidation unless I am missing something.
There has to be a ‘sale’ however for ‘hive down’ to work, and hence my query to Onand.
However, from memory, and it’s a vague memory, the Receiver’s preference in ranking still comes after that of any creditor who has already executed diligence prior to the Receiver’s appointment. The Receiver can still sell, with the authority of court, free of the burden of that creditor’s diligence, but ‘subject to such order as the Court sees fit”(i.e presumably the creditor executing diligence gets some sort of pound of flesh, as he was in first!)
Therefore, it seems to me that HMRC ‘and I hope they are listening’ should immediately lodge Inhibitions against both Ibrox Park and Murray Park preventing the sales of those heritable properties, as soon as they win the tax case, if that happens.
Any views out there, as this is getting complicated??
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 11 532 46781 32 31/1/2012 6:23:0 easyJambo 34 13 “kev says: 31/01/2012 at 6:19 am
Thanks Katie.
Anyone got a link to the story online? (I’d just pop out and buy a copy but I’m in Oz)
What’s the problem with being in Oz? I thought you’d be a wizzard. 🙂 ”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 13 616 46868 16 31/1/2012 9:38:0 easyJambo 34 14 “Extract from the DR article
‘CRAIG WHYTE sold off four years of fans’ money to help fund his Rangers buy-out, it was revealed last night.
And Record Sport can also reveal high-ranking HMRC officials are investigating alleged non-payment of VAT since Whyte gained control of the club last May.
Current director Dave King and former board member Paul Murray have been quizzed by the tax authorities as part of their enquiry which has revealed £24.4million has been borrowed against future season-tickets sales.
Tranches of tickets over four seasons have been sold to Ticketus, a London-based group linked to Octopus, and it’s claimed this deal helped finance Whyte’s operating costs after the takeover.
Whyte himself last night confirmed he had sold off the tickets but denied he used the money to pay off Lloyds Bank. He insisted the £18m for the bank came from one of his companies.
When Whyte took over Rangers’ debt was £18m to Lloyds Bank and their wage bill had been reduced to £14m but it is believed the club could owe much more than that.
It’s thought the current debt is £21m to Ticketus plus £5m VAT on the ticket deal. But there could be other bills due and of course Rangers are awaiting the final verdict on their £49m EBT (Employee Benefit Trust) tax case.
Last night Whyte insisted the Ticketus deal was normal practice for clubs and his spokesman said: ‘The suggestion that the Rangers takeover was funded through financing arrangements on season tickets is categorically untrue.
‘Rangers FC is no different in that it has a working capital facility with Ticketus, as have many, many other clubs. It is a common arrangement in football. This facility was in place at Ibrox long before the takeover.’
The EBT ruling is due within weeks and if Rangers lose they will be facing financial meltdown.
Their debt could then be in the £75m region with liquidation a stark reality.
But many now fear Rangers could be tipped over the abyss and into some kind of insolvency even before their Judgment Day over the tax case.
Rangers fans put their faith in Whyte believing he would get rid of the club’s debt and also provide transfer money for manager Ally McCoist, who has been an impoverished bystander during this transfer window.
But the Ibrox club’s support will be shocked by the detail of invoices and letters now in the revenue’s possession. It is claimed these show Whyte sold off massive chunks of Rangers’ future season-ticket sales.
And former board member Murray believes the takeover wouldn’t have been possible without the fans, even though they had no idea future tickets had been sold off to raise extra cash.
Murray said: ‘These documents prove to me that Rangers fans have actually paid and will continue to pay for the sale of their club.’
He added that HMRC have told him they are also due VAT, as much as £5m, on the deal with Ticketus and insists he has seen details of letters and invoices held by HMRC.
Murray claims that in one of the documents, a letter dated March 8, 2011 and signed by Whyte, it is alleged he made it clear that through Wavetower, his bid vehicle at the time, he would be entering into a deal to sell the season tickets to a company called Ticketus.
They are part of London-based Octopus, a perfectly legitimate lender who grant immediate loans based on future ticket sales. Record Sport managed to speak with most of the people who were on the Rangers board at the time of the takeover and they insist they knew nothing about the sale of season tickets. In fact they tried to ring-fence supporters’ money.
The papers, which are being pored over by HMRC officials, are said to reveal borrowing against ticket sales for seasons 2011-12, 12-13 and 13-14 that Whyte was able to raise £24.4m.
Then on June 27 he was hit with the first of his repayment bills from Ticketus, who were demanding a total of £9.5m, their share of that summer’s season-ticket sales. Whyte could only come up with £3.5m cash and to fill the shortfall mortgaged off part of season 2014-15 to the value of £6m.
Opening in March last year Murray claims the detail contained within HMRC’s file is extensive and explosive.
This is the timetable and interpretation of events: March 8, 2011: A letter from Liberty Capital (one of Whyte’s companies) is signed by Whyte and addressed to Ticketus.
In the letter Whyte confirms the intention to sell Rangers’ season tickets to Ticketus.
April 7: Lawyers on behalf of Ticketus deposit £24.4m into a Collyer Bristow (lawyers for Whyte’s bid) client account. A further £2m was placed in the same account from a company called JLT Benefit Solutions with £1m from the Merchant House Group, a firm of corporate finance specialists with whom Whyte is closely linked.
May 9: An agreement was entered into between Ticketus and Rangers to sell the season tickets.This was just three days after the takeover date of May 6. The bank was repaid the £18m.
June 27: Ticketus raised an invoice to Rangers seeking first repayment of £9.5m on their agreement. Rangers paid only £3.5m of that amount in cash and borrowed £6m more from Ticketus by selling another portion of 2013-14 as well as a portion of season 2014-15.
Analysts stress there is nothing illegal in selling future ticket sales. In fact, it is common practice in British football, although the problems encountered by Leeds United and Newcastle United, who both borrowed too often and too much, are proof of the dangers.
Whyte has never declared the deals with Ticketus although HMRC documents suggest he has cashed in on fan loyalty.
The tax officials quizzed Murray and South African-based King, who was on conference call, as recently as last Friday morning.
They insisted they had no knowledge of what had been happening and Murray, who last year offered to take the club off Lloyds’ books and invest £15m in the team in a last-ditch attempt to prevent Whyte from getting the club, said he couldn’t believe what he was reading when presented with the HMRC file.
‘HMRC asked for a meeting at the end of last week to find out what knowledge I, having been a director of the club at the time, had of these transactions prior to the takeover,’ Murray said.
‘I knew nothing about this and although I have been questioned by HMRC and seen some especially revealing documents which are in their possession, it is still very hard to take in what has been going on.
‘Collyer Bristow were acting for Craig Whyte during the takeover and I have been shown their client account, from the opening of it until today.
‘I’ve also seen all invoices from Ticketus to Rangers and Rangers to Ticketus supporting all these actions.
‘I can’t believe Rangers have been handed over in this way.
‘Remember also, the Independent Board, set up to make sure any potential buyers were capable of making the purchase and then funding the business, asked repeatedly where Craig Whyte was getting the money.
‘He said it was from his own personal wealth and through Liberty Capital, which he insisted he owned 100 per cent, in the British Virgin Islands.
‘Plans were being made to sell off future ticket sales but the directors were never told. This was all being done behind our backs.’
King was also shocked to learn of the seasonticket sale and said: ‘Securitising season tickets is a valid seasonal funding strategy to smooth cash flows within the year – but no longer.’
Whyte’s spokesman added: ‘The takeover team instigated discussions with Ticketus prior to the takeover because the relationship with Rangers was already in place and the new owners wanted to continue it.
‘They were clear from the outset they wanted to ensure there were robust working capital provisions in place that could deal with the many financial challenges the club faces.
‘The takeover was funded by one of Mr Whyte’s companies. Several months before then – and long before any discussions with Ticketus – Mr Whyte was asked to provide proof of funds for the takeover and he did that to the satisfaction of the previous owners, Lloyds Banking Group and professional advisers.’
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 13 634 46886 34 31/1/2012 9:58:0 easyJambo 34 16 “OnandOnandOnand says:
31/01/2012 at 9:41 am
Rangers don’t owe Octupus/Ticketus a penny. Wavetower does. We’ll see in the coming weeks/months how that is secured
CW very carefully worded his promises in the June circular to shareholders:
‘ …… nor is it the intention of The Rangers FC Group to redeploy any of the FIXED assets of the Club
The Rangers FC Group has stated its intention to invest, or PROCURE an investment of, £20 million by 2016 for investment in the playing squad.
The Rangers FC Group has undertaken to provide or PROCURE the provision of up to
£5,000,000 of additional working capital facilities to the Club;’
It is clear that re PROCURED the funding from Ticketus by mortgaging the STs which could not be classed as FIXED assets. …………. and he didn’t need to use a penny of his own money.”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 13 647 46899 47 31/1/2012 10:21:0 easyJambo 34 17 “Strange that the other MSM outlets have been so slow to react to this story. Are they still in denial?”

Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 14 663 46917 13 31/1/2012 11:11:0 easyJambo 34 18 “Paranoid Timdroid says: 31/01/2012 at 11:06 am
I’m not sure about the setup of the deal with Ticketus. It may be that the Ticketus debt lies with ‘Group’ rather than the PLC.”
Jelavic Transfer: What is at stake 14 664 46918 14 31/1/2012 11:12:0 easyJambo 34 19 “New blog up
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 4 200 47129 50 31/1/2012 16:25:0 easyJambo 103 1 “I don’t wholly agree with some of the mocking of the MSM over the six months delay before the the DR had the courage to run with the story. That said, it would have been better if they had been more transparent about what they knew and put in more effort to follow up on the leads that were provided by the blog, rather than resort to blanket denials or avoidance of the issues.
In the same six months the collective resources of the blog watchers also failed to find confirmation of the smoking gun that we identified back in June, although Barcabhoy finally got a good lead on it last week.
The MSM have obviously been aware of the blog’s thoughts on the subject, but were reluctant to proceed with the story before they had a credible source who was prepared to go on the record. In they event they have manage to persuade Paul Murray to do so, so at least give them some credit for that.
However, keep hounding anyone who continues suggest that any newco goes straight back into the SPL. 🙂 ”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 5 236 47165 36 31/1/2012 17:34:0 easyJambo 103 2 “BBC Sportsound hoping to speak to Alastair Johnston in tonight’s programme at 6:10.
Could be interesting!”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 6 286 47219 36 31/1/2012 18:58:0 easyJambo 103 3 “Pretty damning stuff from Alastair Johnston. Also indirectly having a go at SDM as it was MIH who dealt with CW in the takeover wheeling and dealing.”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 6 294 47227 44 31/1/2012 19:3:0 easyJambo 103 4 “Fan Club says: 31/01/2012 at 6:58 pm
That’s the £49M + £42M + + Question.
Is it possible that ‘Group’ retains the Floating Charge, but separately has written undertakings with Ticketus that the proceeds (or a proportion thereof) of any free funds or the sale of assets would be assigned to Ticketus in the event of an insolvency event? Would such an arrangement require to be notified to Companies House?”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 7 304 47238 4 31/1/2012 19:21:0 easyJambo 103 5 “Fan Club says: 31/01/2012 at 7:13 pm
The original BoS floating charge had a condition attached to it that prevented any security being granted precedence without the explicit permission of BoS.
CW obviously allowed that scenario to happen with the Close security over catering services income being given a first ranking status ahead of the floating charge.
It wouldn’t surprise me that he has entered into a similar arrangement with Ticketus that doesn’t require anything to be lodged with Companies House..
However, there is another possibility that the security or other arrangement is not actually with Rangers PLC, but with ‘Group'”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 7 311 47245 11 31/1/2012 19:24:0 easyJambo 103 6 “Barcabhoy says: 31/01/2012 at 7:14 pm
could it be the floating charge may have moved from ‘group’ to Liberty Capital in the BVI. There is absolutely no requirement in the BVI to register any paperwork..
Is it possible for a foreign corporation to hold a floating charge over UK assets and not register this in the UK ?
I don’t have the expertise to make such a judgement, but would it not still be necessary to lodge an amendment or a satisfaction of the Floating Charge security”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 7 312 47246 12 31/1/2012 19:26:0 easyJambo 103 7 “Fan Club says: 31/01/2012 at 7:20 pm
The charge could effectively be transferred to Ticketus without any change over the security. If Liberty in BVI is just a shell company, Whyte could have played around with share structure to give a preference share to Ticketus allowing it first call over the shares in Liberty held by Whyte. This would allow Ticketus to benefit from protection of charge without disturbing it. Just a thought at least
Sounds perfectly plausible to me.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 7 322 47256 22 31/1/2012 19:35:0 easyJambo 103 8 “Auldheid says: 31/01/2012 at 7:31 pm
I’d hope that HMRC have the resources to follow the mon(k)ey.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 7 331 47266 31 31/1/2012 19:43:0 easyJambo 103 9 “Slimshady says: 31/01/2012 at 7:33 pm
There is no legal requirement for such a security to be registered unless and until it is needed in a court action;
Thanks Slim – if that is the correct interpretation of the law, then it sounds as if it’s the simplest explanation.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 10 451 47388 1 31/1/2012 21:44:0 easyJambo 103 10 “TheBlackKnight says:31/01/2012 at 9:20 pm
and others

Privileged information

I sense a blog from Paul McC coming our way before too long”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 14 689 47642 39 1/2/2012 9:42:0 easyJambo 103 11 “Chick Young’s piece from yesterday.
I had to laugh at his comment Rangers, once a class act in the transfer window, have operated this January like they were in a car boot sale, the flotsam and jetsam of the market place turning up at Murray Park for a quick look round.
A class act in offering tax free salaries, more like.
He is really hurting.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 17 825 47786 25 1/2/2012 15:20:0 easyJambo 103 12 “Corsica – I follow your logic about the accounting dates, but I’m still not clear on the transaction between the PLC and Group. I too would have expected some reference to the Ticketus deal in the PLC’s Accounts.
I’m not an accountant, but if the date of Ticketus’ first invoice to Group(?) was on 27th June, then surely there there a possibility that there would be no transaction to show in the PLC accounts prior to 30th June.
The Ticketus money clearly went straight to ‘Group’ and RFC were aleady in the process of receiving the ST money for 2011/12 as normal, so no change there.
Where would future sales of STs appear in the accounts or would it simply just require a note to the accounts as an inter-group transaction? We know that the notes to the accounts never appeared with the release of the full year accounts in their unaudited form.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 17 831 47792 31 1/2/2012 15:30:0 easyJambo 103 13 “duggie73 says: 01/02/2012 at 3:23 pm
The numbers from the MG05S were as follows.
2011-12 23,154
2012-13 27,017
2013-14 27,014
2014-15 23,154
I can’t see how Ticketus could enter an agreement with a company that doesn’t exist, nor could CW guarantee that he would either own the newco or be sure of its continued status as an SPL club in order that the ST numbers would be sustained.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 17 840 47801 40 1/2/2012 15:41:0 easyJambo 103 14 “Not The Huddle Malcontent says: 01/02/2012 at 3:34 pm
Thanks for the reply. I probably wasn’t clear enough in my last post that comments related to Duggie’s question specifically about the Ticketus deal being continued with a newco.

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 17 850 47811 50 1/2/2012 15:51:0 easyJambo 103 15 “Torquemada says: 01/02/2012 at 3:35 pm
Quick question from someone who has enjoyed but not analysed everything that has occurred over the past day or two: If the sum borrowed from Ticketus is #24.5m (no sterling sign on my Asian keyboard), then how much is owed?
Everybody seems to be adding #24.5m to the existing Rangers debt so I am obviously missing something. Help!
My reading of the Ticketus debt was that £24.5 was the up front payment, secured against 3 years STs, which would be paid back in 3 anual installments of £9.5M, starting in late June 2011.
There was a shortfall of £6M in meeting the first installment so a further advance was made by Ticketus, suecured against a 4th year’s ST money.
The Ticketus debt position should therefore be £24.5M plus £6M less the £9.5M first installment, so £21M is the outstanding figure.
The £18M Group debt still remains plus all other ‘CW investments’ and expenses will be added to that sum. I’d guess around £45M in total at the moment.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 18 857 47819 7 1/2/2012 15:56:0 easyJambo 103 16 “Sorry, I’m talking through a hole I don’t normally use for speaking.:-)
As Onandx3 has pointed out it should be now be approx £9.5M * 4, but less the £9.5M first installment.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 18 865 47827 15 1/2/2012 16:12:0 easyJambo 103 17 “TBK – RFC showed ‘Cash at Bank and in Hand’ of £8.893M, but that was believed to be the result of delaying creditor payments, thus massaging down the ‘Net Debt’ figure to £14.051M”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 18 867 47829 17 1/2/2012 16:19:0 easyJambo 103 18 “I think some of us (me included) are are getting things a bit wrong with automatically adding the Ticketus debt to that of the PLC’s.
Surely the debt is split, with liability for the Ticketus debt being with Group and the ex Lloyds debt plus extras being due by the PLC to Group.
How would the split of debt be managed in an insolvency situation, or do we expect both the PLC and Group to be wound up?”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 20 965 47929 15 1/2/2012 20:29:0 easyJambo 103 19 “TheBlackKnight says:
01/02/2012 at 7:55 pm
EJ (or others)
Any reason the ‘taxation’ segment of the final accounts lodged with Plus Markets/Companies House, is blank?
I’ll repeat that I’m not an accountant, so this is just my educated guess.
VAT is already deducted from the Turnover, thus isn’t listed separately.
PAYE is always included in the Salary figure (or in the case the overall operating expenses)
The separate Taxation figure relates to corporation tax, which RFC will not need to pay as the have accumulated losses over a number of years that they can set against tax.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 22 1099 48069 49 2/2/2012 0:55:0 easyJambo 103 20 “Goosy says: 01/02/2012 at 11:41 pm
Before your post is lost to in the mire of more recent comments. Great post. I’m sure your summation won’t be far from reality.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 23 1111 48081 11 2/2/2012 1:5:0 easyJambo 103 21 “rangerstaxcase says:
02/02/2012 at 1:01 am
Just to confirm that there are 2 additional ex-directors who participated in the EBT.
Now who could you be talking about that may have left the club in the last year? 🙂 ”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 23 1113 48083 13 2/2/2012 1:10:0 easyJambo 103 22 “I’ll guess Johnston and McIntyre”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 23 1118 48089 18 2/2/2012 1:18:0 easyJambo 103 23 “Further update on the Sun website
‘I inherited £18m worth of bank debt and we had a lease on the Albion Car Park which we did a deal for.
‘Then there are trading debts, transfers and we have spent £4m refurbishing Ibrox.’
Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4103114/Rangers-fans-demand-answers-so-SunSport-turns-the-spotlight-on-WHYTE.html#ixzz1lBP3fLU2&#8221;
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 23 1120 48091 20 2/2/2012 1:25:0 easyJambo 103 24 “guinnessjohn says: 02/02/2012 at 1:14 am
Were they in the game long enough or high profile enough ?
Johnston was there from Feb 2004 and McIntyre 2006”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 24 1166 48142 16 2/2/2012 10:9:0 easyJambo 103 25 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says: 02/02/2012 at 9:38 am
This leaves Wavetower with £11Million at Collier Bristow’ should be enough to pay fees and the first instalment back to Ticketus.
Except Rangers get horsed out of Europe and so lose out on revenue leaving them scrambling for cash so they have to dip into the Ticketus repayment money and stall on every other bill’ with the result that they can only pay back some of the Ticketus money!!!!!
The shortfall of funds to pay the first installment on the Ticketus debt had nothing to do with going out of Europe. It was due to be paid at the end of June!
The question is what happened to the bulk of the £27.5M raised prior to the takeover, between 6th May and the end of June.”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 27 1315 48296 15 2/2/2012 16:6:0 easyJambo 103 26 “william1968 says: 02/02/2012 at 3:52 pm
campsiejoe :
The 25% only applies to the unsecured amounts. Any secured debt will have been satisfied by the sale of the relevant assets in an insolvency process.
He can certainly transfer the Ticketus (or other share purchase debt) onto RFC in the same way as the Glazers did at Man Ure., but if that is secured then it won’t affect a CVA.
CW would need unsecured creditors of 3 x the FTT tax case bill (+penalty).
Players’ contracts?, Rangers bond holders? Unused portion of STs? Trade creditors like Hearts or Rapid Venna? It doesn’t seem anywhere near enough. I can’t see him being able to generate that level of debt (at least legally).”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 27 1335 48316 35 2/2/2012 16:44:0 easyJambo 103 27 “william1968 says: 02/02/2012 at 4:29 pm
easyJambo says: 02/02/2012 at 4:06 pm
Would the penalty come in to play?
Bearing in mind that this FTT is not about penalties only about the alleged tax liability, which I believe is a maximum of £36m, if he puts RFC in to admin prior to the TT for the penalty and creditors agree, surely the penalty is too late, otherwise the result of any Admin etc could take another 2 years or so to resolve.
Surely his company who underwrote the debt to Ticketus is unsecured, whilst I understand that Ticketus have the security over the season ticket sales, Whyte’s company could not enjoy such security, could they?
OK let’s say CW takes RFC into receivership / administration before the FTT decision. Yes, it is possible he can get out of Administration within a few weeks with a CVA based on the creditors’ status at that point and a 10 point penalty.
Two weeks after coming out of adminstration, the FTT rules against RFC. Ouch! Back into administration, another 10 point penalty and the likelihood of liquidation to follow.
I don’t know what guarantees Ticketus has, other than the the rights to whatever money is raised through the sale of the first 25K of STs for the next 3 seasons.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 27 1344 48325 44 2/2/2012 16:59:0 easyJambo 103 28 “chicos says:
02/02/2012 at 4:47 pm
easyJambo says:
02/02/2012 at 4:44 pm
…Two weeks after coming out of adminstration, the FTT rules against RFC. Ouch! Back into administration, another 10 point penalty and the likelihood of liquidation to follow.
would that not be a 25 point penalty for the second stint in administration ?
No. The SPL can only apply a second 10 point penalty for each insolvency event. They can also apply a second 10 point penalty for a single insolvency that goes over two seasons.
The 25 point penalty is only within the remit of the SFL, that being the sanction used against Dundee”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 28 1374 48356 24 2/2/2012 19:4:0 easyJambo 103 29 “Did I just hear Roger Baillie on SSB say that CW inherited a £7M bill due to Ticketus from a previous agreement made by Martin Bain? That’s one from left field, to quote Alastair Johnston.
Question for Roger. Where can I find that debt in the RFC accounts for 2010-11?”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 28 1383 48365 33 2/2/2012 19:21:0 easyJambo 103 30 “Moomins says: 02/02/2012 at 7:07 pm
Thank’s for the reminder. I took that as two separate statements.
1) RFC had dealt with Ticketus in previous seasons.
2) The liability he spoke about was actually his own, being the first installment on the £24.4M advance made in March. Stated as a £6M shortfall in the Record.
I can see that CW’s statement could be interpreted as it being a liability from the old regime. Well either we are right and Roger is wrong, or Roger is right and we are wrong.
My money is on us being right.”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 33 1626 48620 26 3/2/2012 14:16:0 easyJambo 103 31 “Casual Observer says: 03/02/2012 at 1:18 pm
The longer that Rangers run before setting in train the inevitable ‘insolvency event’ the less likely it is that there will be time enough to reconstitute and put forward a team for next season.
I see where you are coming from but there is also an argument that he needs to delay the process to as close to the end of the season as possible, in order to minimise the risk of the oldco failing to fulfil the remainder of their fixtures.
If they are unable to complete the season, then it creates all sorts of dificulties for the SPL with regard to games, played, points earned, prize money due etc,
However the biggest risk associated with going bust before the end of the season is the disconnect between a club completing one season and its replacement starting the next season. It would make it easier for people to argue that there is a break in continuity, therefore a newco cannot be offered the the assurance of immediate admittance to the SPL. This in turn would make the purchase of the oldco’s assets less attractive if there was no guarantee of acceptance into the top flight.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 33 1639 48634 39 3/2/2012 14:43:0 easyJambo 103 32 “CJ & McNair itg – I agree that the SPL will seek to enable the club to complete its fixtures. I just think that with 13 games to go, its just a bit far out for that to happen. Such a scenario would rule out a pre-pack, if the club had to be sustained for three months or so.
Just a small point. The precendent of the relegated club getting a stay of execution have occurred when the club in the promition position did not meet the ground criteria. The promotion of Ross County, Falkirk or whoever, will be automatic if they meet the SPL’s criteria. Should a place become available as a result of the demise of RFC, then there is an argument to be had whether or not a newco, the relegated side, or the 2nd placed side in the SFL Div 1 should be given priority.”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 34 1674 48673 24 3/2/2012 17:13:0 easyJambo 103 33 “Tangerine Taysider says: 03/02/2012 at 4:49 pm
I understand the dilema that Stephen Thompson and others will face, but he also risks antagonising your existing ST holders into walking away if he votes in favour of a newco.
Basically Scottish football in currently on a downward spiral. If RFC go bust then the spiral continues. If a newco RFC is admitted to the SPL then the spiral continues. Its a rock and a hard place scenario.
The only way out is for RFC to go bust and come back at the lowest level without its historical baggage and the extremist elements of its support. The downward spiral will finally level out and Scottish Football will have the chance to resurrect itself on a solid financial and goverance footing Allow a newco RFC do a ‘Gretna’ and rise through the divisions, giving a boost to the interest in those divisions while it does so, then to re-establish itself in the SPL as a fully inclusive club. Hopefully the league will have become more competitive as Celtic cut their cloth accordingly (of their own volution), and Dundee Utd., Hearts, Aberdeen etc. can get closer to the title than they have been since the inception of the SPL.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 34 1677 48676 27 3/2/2012 17:23:0 easyJambo 103 34 “TheBlackKnight says:
03/02/2012 at 4:54 pm
Seems the good word is spreading!
It’s good to see some contributions by my alter ego on Hearts sites being picked up 😉
Note that the thread on the Hearts board was from over a year ago.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 35 1724 48725 24 3/2/2012 18:57:0 easyJambo 103 35 “From the SPL Rules
‘Club ceasing to play and be a member of the League
H5 If any Club in the League ceases to operate or to be member of the League for any reason, its playing record in the League may be expunged and the number of relegation places from the League shall be reduced accordingly.’
Now how can a newco be admitted without extending the league to 13 teams”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 35 1733 48734 33 3/2/2012 19:9:0 easyJambo 103 36 “Barcabhoy says: 03/02/2012 at 6:53 pm
I’d hope (probably too much to ‘expect’) that any vote would go along the lines of the 10 team SPL debacle with Hearts, Kilmarnock, Inverness, Dundee Utd and Dunfermline aligning themselves against the newco.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 36 1790 48791 40 3/2/2012 21:22:0 easyJambo 103 37 “Corsica
Tynecastle – Scotch pie + Bovril £3.80, Steak pie + Bovril £4”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 36 1797 48798 47 3/2/2012 21:30:0 easyJambo 103 38 “Pie costs across the SPL
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 40 1969 48977 19 4/2/2012 10:45:0 easyJambo 103 39 “Dun D Bhoy says: 04/02/2012 at 3:52 am
I don’t think your maths really stand up.
e.g. Hearts only allocate sections of the Roseburn stand to away fans. The maximum it holds is 3,595, which has recently been reduced for Celic by several hvndred in the wake of last May’s trouble.
The best way of calculating the extra numbers at OF games would be to compare the average attendances against the attendance when the OF are in town.
I don’t have the average nos from last season, but the McLeish report gave the average attendancs for the previous 3 seasons.
McLeish Report 2010 2009 2008
Aberdeen 10,461 12,928 11,994
Celtic 45,582 57,670 56,676
Dundee Utd 7,821 8,651 8,291
Falkirk 5,634 5,639 5,568
Hamilton 3,005 3,822 2,470
Hearts 14,484 14,397 14,253
Hibernian 11,806 12,673 14,004
Inverness CT 3,509 4,457 4,753
Kilmarnock 5,919 5,726 6,181
Motherwell 5,307 5,527 6,599
Rangers 47,564 49,533 49,143
St Mirren 4,414 5,411 4,547
I think Celtic did some ‘funny’ accounting in 2010, but attandances will be down around 5-10% for most teams in 2011. Hearts biggest attendances are now against Hibs, not the OF.
Hearts attendances against Rangers, Celtic and Hibs in 2009/10 were:
Rangers 15637 & 16737
Celtic 14389 & 15632
Hibs 16762 & 17126
What the figures mean for Hearts is that, while they may sell out to OF fans, there is a drop off in home fans attending, probably because of Live TV, early kick offs and the other baggage that goes with OF games. The drop off doesn’t seem to affect Hibs games so much, probably due to the local rivalry more than anything else.
Note that Hearts have a number of Category B season tickets that do not include games against the OF and Hibs.
You can get stats on individual games from the SPL website.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 42 2066 49081 16 4/2/2012 20:7:0 easyJambo 103 40 “Hugh McEwan says: 04/02/2012 at 1:27 pm
Tam Cowan is a sectarian fud.
Slimshady says: 04/02/2012 at 3:37 pm
Good performance today by CFC, …….
David Begg c/o Freemasons Hall, 96 George Street, Edinburgh, Grand Lodge Office Bearer
Fritz Agrandoldteam says: 04/02/2012 at 3:47 pm
He was in the vanguard of BBC Scotland Loyal’s attempt to dumb down for the (Rangers) masses.
Slimshady says:
04/02/2012 at 5:25 pm
Robert S Tait ** Grange Road Edinburgh Grand Lodge Office Bearer ?? (same source)
There’s a fine quote from ‘To a Louse’ by Robert Burns.
‘O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us’
Now what would a newcomer to the blog make of what has been posted today? 😦
Give it a rest guys.”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 42 2096 49115 46 4/2/2012 21:8:0 easyJambo 103 41 “Hugh McEwan says: 04/02/2012 at 8:55 pm
easyJambo says: 04/02/2012 at 8:07 pm
No, he is a sectarian fud.
Hugh – I made no comment on the accuracy or otherwise of your’s or any others’ comments. I merely asked for you guys to refrain from making such comments on this blog.
If you and others can’t restrain yourself from indulging in such taunts or baiting on the blog, and RTC condones it, then I for one will find somewhere else to post.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 43 2101 49120 1 4/2/2012 21:24:0 easyJambo 103 42 “Hugh McEwan says: 04/02/2012 at 9:15 pm
I accept what you say and I leave it at that.”

Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 45 2204 49232 4 5/2/2012 1:12:0 easyJambo 103 46 “TBK – you forgot that he filled an £10M black hole.”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 49 2433 49470 33 5/2/2012 19:6:0 easyJambo 103 47 “I’ve had a look over the cashflow statement that RTC obtained back in October(?).
Rangers probably earned about another £400K-£500K up to the same stage of the cup last season as they were drawn against Celtic. However, their exit will leave them a further £800K down on last season as that is what they earned from the Celtic cup replay.
The bigger problem is that all extra income streams have dried up at this time of the season. The net outflows for Feb Mar and Apr last year were £2.5M, £0.9M and £1.9M respectively and those figures included £1.3M of UEFA income.
The have one more home game v Kilmarnock in Feb, then Hearts and Celtic in March and a final home game against St Mirren in April before the split.
There doesn’t seem any point in CW carrying on as he is going to continue to lose money.
If I were HMRC, I would be looking to petition for administration or a winding up order, NOW, to get what they can in PAYE, NIC and VAT payments that are already late”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 50 2471 49511 21 5/2/2012 21:20:0 easyJambo 103 48 “Dave B says: 05/02/2012 at 9:08 pm
RFC received €18.526M from the CL. €724K for the EL participation.
Matchday income is additional to this with home games against Valencia, Man Ure and Bursaspor in the CL and Sporting Lisbon and PSV in the EL”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 50 2472 49512 22 5/2/2012 21:22:0 easyJambo 103 49 “Jimbo milligan says: 05/02/2012 at 9:15 pm
Sure it was reported as a meeting with grant thornhill tomorrow morning.
It was in his 2nd tweet:
BBCAlLamontAlasdair Lamont
Whyte tells RSA he’ll provide details and the timetable for publication of full accounts following the meeting with auditors Grant Thornton”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 50 2480 49521 30 5/2/2012 21:44:0 easyJambo 103 50 “Dave B says: 05/02/2012 at 9:33 pm
OK, that was last season. When was it paid?
Trying to establish when CW would expect UEFA income for this season.
Sep 2010 – £960K
Oct 2010 – £6.08M
Nov 2010 – £1.29M
Dec 2010 – £5M
Feb 2011 – £570K
Mar 2011 – £610K
Jun 2011 – £5M
Estimated figures for this season were:
Jul 2011 – £400K
Aug 2011 – £400K”
Battle For Rangers’ Soul Begins 50 2487 49533 37 5/2/2012 22:13:0 easyJambo 103 51 “Dave B says: 05/02/2012 at 9:59 pm
It was multiple payments. Some with be related to the TV money distribution other elements would be performance payments (for points) as they were earned.
The figures for this season will include matchday income. The ‘prize money’ for losing in qualifying rounds is very low, i.e. under £100K”

A victim of our own success 3 115 49700 15 6/2/2012 10:1:0 easyJambo 84 1 “JMaclure says:
06/02/2012 at 9:12 am
I read it., financial impact,is not my main point. Though I still maintain Celtic’s sponsorship deals would be affected and their TV income.
Now, honestly, tell me a lack of real competition will be good for the Scottish game.
What club in Scotland will benefit to be able to be nearer than 20 points close to Celtic in a season.
Point me to a league that prospers with one dominant club in size and wealth?
I think that you are missing the point from a ‘diddy clubs’ point of view. What is the difference between the 3rd place sides consistently being 20 points plus behind the top two and the 2nd place sides being 20 points plus behind the top one?
The fact is that the league is already uncompetitive and diminishing attendances at all clubs are a symptom of that. If the current setup is allowed to continue, then half the SPL sides will probably go part time within the next five years.
Scottish football needs a wake up call. The demise of RFC and its replacement by a newco at the lowest level will be the biggest opportunity to narrow the gap between the haves (Celtic) and the have nots (everyone else). The other clubs will have an opportunity to force through change without an OF veto.
I have every faith in the Celtic board that they will actually downsize in response to RFC’s financial woes.
While the league will probably remain out of the reach of the other clubs in the short term, there is a huge opportunity for cup success for every SPL team (bar Hibs 🙂 ), with only one ‘big’ team in their way.”
A victim of our own success 3 131 49718 31 6/2/2012 10:33:0 easyJambo 84 2 “For whoever was asking about James Richardson, here is a list of companies that he has been involved with. CW’s father Thomas Whyte has also been a director of some of them.
1Waverley Asset Management Ltd DISSOLVED
2Carmyle Films Ltd DISSOLVED
3Patersons Of Greenoakhill Ltd
4Mcgeoch Marine Hardware Ltd DISSOLVED
5International Transact Systems (uk) Ltd DISSOLVED
6Envirocentre Ltd
7Palmaris Capital Plc
8Clydeway Golf Range Ltd DISSOLVED
9Waverley Investment Management Ltd DISSOLVED
10Patersons Of Greenhead Ltd DISSOLVED
11Scotcircuits (leisure) Ltd DISSOLVED
12Patersons Quarries Ltd
13Meadow Construction Ltd DISSOLVED
14Patersons Of Raebog Ltd DISSOLVED
15Charlie Parkers (restaurants) Ltd DISSOLVED
16Waverley Mining Finance Ltd DISSOLVED
17William Taylor Engineering Ltd DISSOLVED
18Patersons Financial Services Ltd DISSOLVED
19Martin Main Ltd DISSOLVED
20Mossview Developments Ltd DISSOLVED
21Ganderbridge Ltd DISSOLVED
22International Transact Systems Ltd DISSOLVED
23Modular Extensions Ltd DISSOLVED
24Palmaris Plant Hire Ltd
25Fife Silica Sands Ltd NON-TRADING
26Loganbridge Ltd.
27Meadow Contracts Ltd DISSOLVED
28Kinross Computer Systems Ltd NON-TRADING
29First Edinburgh Asset Services Ltd DISSOLVED
30City Hire Centres Ltd DISSOLVED
31Fife Resources Ltd NON-TRADING
32Tom Whyte (plant Hire) Ltd DISSOLVED
33International Transact Systems Management Ltd NON-TRADING
34Gartsherrie Engineering Ltd
35Parsons Peebles Generation Ltd
36Strathallan Meeting, Ltd
37City Site Electrics Ltd DISSOLVED
38City Plant Hire Ltd DISSOLVED
39Mcgeoch Marine Ltd
40Palmaris Cabins Ltd
41Stirling County (bridgehaugh) Ltd
42Palmaris Services Ltd
43Patersons Waste Management Ltd
44Precon Blocks Ltd NON-TRADING
45Kit Software Ltd NON-TRADING
46Tom Whyte Plant Sales Ltd DISSOLVED
47Stirling County Rugby Football Club Ltd

A victim of our own success 4 154 49742 4 6/2/2012 11:53:0 easyJambo 84 3 “One idea that may work is for posts by the certified posters to be colour coded e.g. in maroon?. 🙂 That would allow readers to quickly skip what is described as the ‘noise’, whilst allowing a certain amount of comment from other blog watchers.”
A victim of our own success 4 157 49745 7 6/2/2012 11:58:0 easyJambo 84 4 “Looks like the remnants of the red tops are finally getting in line with Bill Leckie’s article in the Sun having a go at just about everyone associated with RFC.
A victim of our own success 5 211 49802 11 6/2/2012 13:48:0 easyJambo 84 5 “Nothing to see in the new documents.
The AR only confirms that ‘Group’ is now the owner of 85.34% of the PLC. It doesn’t list any other shareholdings
The other documents only relate to various Registers of Members, Directors, Directors contracts and Secretaries being held at the registered office.”
A victim of our own success 8 367 49970 17 6/2/2012 19:0:0 easyJambo 84 6 “I go out for around 3 hours and miss all the fun. 😦
Fortunately, while I was out, I was able to listen to Sportsound to catch up on Mark Daly’s latest revelations.
It’s clear from the information that Mark has obtained confirms much of what we have suspected, that he is a serial liar and his history in business points to him purely and simply being an asset stripper.
A question for out resident experts, is how much do you think CW could already have squirreled away into some offshore accounts out of reach of the tax man and any insolvency practitioner?
I guess he could already have made significant personal gain in the from salaries, interest, arrangement fees, consultancy fees etc. Would £5M be understating the possible position?”
A victim of our own success 9 413 50018 13 6/2/2012 20:41:0 easyJambo 84 7 “Barcabhoy says: 06/02/2012 at 7:54 pm (edit)
Net cash position
Rangers interim accounts to end Dec 2010.. £5.22 million
Rangers unaudited accounts to end June 2011….£9 million
So, the net Cash position improved by £4 million in this 6 month period. Thats hardly what you would expect with a cash injection of £24 million from Ticketus, and Whyte having paid off the overdraft..
It is almost certain that the £24.4M never appeared in the PLC’s accounts.
I would almost guarantee that the transaction(s) would have appeared in the ‘Group’ accounts between 17th April and 30th June 2011.
How convenient that we will never find out if that was the case, as CW brought forward the accounting date for ‘Group’ to 16th April 2011.”
A victim of our own success 9 422 50027 22 6/2/2012 20:53:0 easyJambo 84 8 “Ticketus timeline according to the Daily Record
March 8th – Letter of intent to sell STs from Liberty to Ticketus signed by CW
April 7th – Ticketus deposited £24.4M with Collyer Bristow
May 6th – Takeover date
May 9th – Ticketus deal concluded.
Jun 27th – Ticketus invoice Rangers for £9.5M”
A victim of our own success 9 431 50037 31 6/2/2012 21:11:0 easyJambo 84 9 “Quote from the Bain Papers re the STs
‘As a result of concerns about tax liability and liability for wrongful trading the defender’s Board of Directors prior to the takeover by Mr Whyte were making arrangements with the defenders bankers to ring fence subscriptions from season ticket holders to guard against those sums of money being lost in the event of there being a substantial tax liability. It is understood that Mr Whyte has not ring fenced those monies collected from season ticket holders. What is more it is understood Mr Whyte has arranged for the defender to assign its season ticket income for the next four years to a London finance company in exchange for cash flow at the present time.’
It is difficult to extract from that passage, who knew what and on what date”

A victim of our own success 9 448 50055 48 6/2/2012 21:29:0 easyJambo 84 10 “OnandOnandOnand says: 06/02/2012 at 9:18 pm
Is it not the case that there was no actual deal or liability in place prior to 9th May?
My interpretation would be that the financial transfer from Ticketus to Collyer Bristow on 7th April didn’t actulally involve the PLC or Group accounts, thus no accounting record of the transaction was required at that stage.”
A victim of our own success 10 457 50064 7 6/2/2012 21:37:0 easyJambo 84 11 “OnandOnandOnand says: 06/02/2012 at 9:33 pm
I’ll bow to your superior knowledge as I have never been involved in transactions of that magnitude 🙂 ”

A victim of our own success 10 476 50084 26 6/2/2012 22:10:0 easyJambo 84 12 “Barcabhoy says: 06/02/2012 at 9:55 pm
Justin Case says:06/02/2012 at 9:44 pm
I’m having difficulty getting my head round the VAT issue.
Could an argument be made that Ticketus have only purchased the ‘right to sell’ future STs. Is that transaction in itself VATable? In which case would Ticketus be liable as the purchaser of the service.
Clearly when RFC sell STs (on behalf of Ticketus), VAT is collected from the fans at that point. Is that VAT payable to HMRC in full or can it be offset against the Ticketus deal?”
A victim of our own success 12 588 50196 38 7/2/2012 1:6:0 easyJambo 84 13 “On the SFA ‘Fit and Proper Persons Test’, it is clear that the SFA’s interpretation of their rule is that 5 years must elapse following a period of disqualification, otherwise they would have responded before now that there was no case to answer.
I’m sure that Stewart Regan, Campbell Ogilvie and co. are well aware of what is going on at RFC and realise that impending insolvency events will ultimately negate the need to come to a judgement on the FPP test.
Funny how the new compliance officer can come to a decision on an infraction of the rules within a couple of days. 😦 ”

Ibrox Confidential 2 51 50278 1 7/2/2012 10:11:0 easyJambo 31 1 “I’m sure that CW is right in what he said about the EBTs having stopped following the takeover. Whether or not he stopped them is another matter entirely.
EBT contributions had been falling almost year on year since their peak in 2006, probably the result of existing contracts being run down, which had nothing to do with CW. The EBT contribution for season 2010/11 was only £150K as compared to the peak of £9.192M
2006 £9.192M
2007 £4.988M
2008 £2,291M
2009 £2,360M
2010 £1,358M
2011 £150K”
Ibrox Confidential 2 54 50281 4 7/2/2012 10:21:0 easyJambo 31 2 “FJ says: 07/02/2012 at 9:55 am
It’s HMRC on Vlad’s case again. It doesn’t surprise me, but it begs the question of why HMRC seem content to play the long game with RFC, while being much more agressive with Hearts.”

Ibrox Confidential 2 60 50287 10 7/2/2012 10:41:0 easyJambo 31 3 “Paulie Walnuts says: 07/02/2012 at 10:31 am
I posed the same question a couple of weeks ago when the FTT completed it’s evidence gathering. The FTT ruling is effectively already in the bag as the judges have all the information they require to make their ruling, whether or not RFC fold in the interim.
I honestly thought that HMRC would have tried a fishing expedition to see how much they could squeeze out of RFC in late PAYE or VAT before the plug was pulled, particularly just after the close of the transfer window. It would have placed CW (and his backers?) in a dilema whether or not use it as an excuse to go early or to pay something in order to muddle his way through to the FTT verdict.”
Ibrox Confidential 2 93 50320 43 7/2/2012 12:9:0 easyJambo 31 4 “It might be worth revisiting the MG05s that released (or didn’t) the STs from the floating charge on 31st May and its subsequent removal from the public records on 22nd June.
I don’t know if we came to a view about the status of the MG05s following its removal. The June action was recorded as being carried out under section 1096 of the Companies Act 2006.
Extract from Section 1096
‘ 1096 Rectification of the register under court order.
(1)The registrar shall remove from the register any material’ .
(a)that derives from anything that the court has declared to be invalid or ineffective, or to have been done without the authority of the company, or .
(b)that a court declares to be factually inaccurate, or to be derived from something that is factually inaccurate, or forged, .
and that the court directs should be removed from the register.
(2)The court order must specify what is to be removed from the register and indicate where on the register it is. .
(3)The court must not make an order for the removal from the register of anything the registration of which had legal consequences as mentioned in section 1094(3) unless satisfied’ .
(a)that the presence of the material on the register has caused, or may cause, damage to the company, and .
(b)that the company’s interest in removing the material outweighs any interest of other persons in the material continuing to appear on the register ‘
If its removal was allowed under 3(a) and 3(b), is the MG05s still valid? Could further assignations or securities involving Ticketus and ST sales be hidden from public view using this ruling as an excuse?”

Ibrox Confidential 3 112 50340 12 7/2/2012 12:45:0 easyJambo 31 5 “TheBlackKnight says: 07/02/2012 at 12:34 pm
Don’t have the document to hand, but I recall the reasons being stated in the court papers for the removal. (if that helps)
I have a copy of what was submitted to Companies House but it doesn’t detail the reason(s) other than specifying which part of the Companies Act was referenced in making the decision.
Ibrox Confidential 3 117 50345 17 7/2/2012 13:12:0 easyJambo 31 6 “TheBlackKnight says: 07/02/2012 at 1:03 pm
I’m not sure that I fully understand 1094, but I’ll take your word for it.
Going back to my original question, does that mean that the MG05s submitted on 31st May can now be considered to have no legal standing.?”
Ibrox Confidential 7 336 50594 36 8/2/2012 10:19:0 easyJambo 31 7 “Hoopy 7 says: 08/02/2012 at 8:49 am
Hearts are in trouble about EBT ‘ who was there when it was done ?
Do you have any evidence that Hearts have been involved with EBTs? No?
Hearts do have problems with HMRC, some of which relate back to the period while CO was at Hearts. He may or may not be culpable for these tax issues and most certainly should be brought to book should he have had any involvement in them.
However, Hearts have NOT used EBTs, so please stick to the facts rather than indulge in wildly inaccurate speculation.”
Ibrox Confidential 7 341 50599 41 8/2/2012 10:41:0 easyJambo 31 8 “layman00 says:
08/02/2012 at 10:16 am
0 0 i
Rate This
My apologies a little off topic.
I notice the sun are running a story on Romanovs other teams Kaunas and Partizan Minsk both having to drop down from their respective leagues. If liquidation happens at Hearts It will be interesting to see how the SFA SPL deal with it as it will set a precedent for any future developments in the SPL
It’s not off topic in relation to how Hearts may be treated as compared to Rangers.
There are similarities in the perilous financial state of the two clubs, however the implications of the failure of the two businesses for their respective owners are different.
CW stands to lose £1 of his own money. Vlad stands to lose circa £30M in current debts plus another £32M he has already written off in his tenure at Hearts.
Rangers are at risk of liquidation as they may have difficulty obtaining a CVA as HMRC could probably block it. That is not the case with Hearts and the bulk of the debt remains with Vlad therefore administration, with a CVA, a 10 point penalty and Vlad taking a severe haircut would be a much more likely outcome.
If Hearts are liquidated and reform then I have no problem with the newco applying to join the SFL in Div 3.”
Ibrox Confidential 7 344 50602 44 8/2/2012 10:45:0 easyJambo 31 9 “Morally outraged says: 08/02/2012 at 10:35 am
Gwared says: 08/02/2012 at 10:38 am
I’ll give you a detailed response shortly, but I have a dentist’s appointment in 15 mins and need to leave now 😦 ”
Ibrox Confidential 8 372 50632 22 8/2/2012 12:11:0 easyJambo 31 10 “Morally outraged says: 08/02/2012 at 10:35 am
Gwared says: 08/02/2012 at 10:38 am
Hoopy 7 says: 08/02/2012 at 11:46 am
I’m afraid this is off topic (apologies RTC) but may be of interest to people with a view of Scottish football beyond Celtic and Rangers.
The recent HMRC Winding Up petitions against Hearts have all been related to month to month PAYE & NICs.
Separately, Hearts have reported that they have been under investigation by HMRC in their last 3 sets of accounts (2008, 2009 & 2010). As with Rangers they have pleaded their innocence and not made any contingency for any sums that may become due.
A senior figure at Hearts confirmed to me late last year that the investigation was ongoing, but stuck to the line that the club weren’t liable but that the players involved could be. EBTs were not involved.
I have been advised independently that the longer term investigations also relate to PAYE and NIC. I’m speculating that it may be about payments into offshore accounts, possibly in the midst of multiple loan deals between Hearts and Kaunas in the early years of Vlad’s ownership.
Campbell Ogilvie joined Hearts in November 2005 and left in the summer of 2010. He may or may not be implicated in any tax scam. It may be worth revisiting RTC’s earlier blog on CO from April. http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/campbell-ogilvie/comment-page-1/#comments
Hearts last accounts showed an operating loss of £7.9M in 2009/10 and they only reported a profit of £39K after debt forgiveness by Vlad’s companies. If that funding is withdrawn unilaterally then Hearts will go under, but I suspect the Vlad will continue to fund the club, at the minimum required level, through to the end of the season when a significant number of players are out of contract.
There have been at least 3 consortiums reported to have been interested in taking over Hearts, but no-one has come out publically. I tend to treat such claims with a pinch of salt and will wait until such times as a formal approach is made before making comment on the merit or otherwise of the bid.”
Ibrox Confidential 10 453 50715 3 8/2/2012 15:10:0 easyJambo 31 11 “A little snippet on how HMRC are approaching football clubs comes with the publishing of the full accounts for Chelsea FC at Companies House today.
Extract from notes to the the financial statements
‘……. also amounts paid to HMRC in relation to a settlement of the industry wide investigation into the taxation of payments under image rights £6.4M ‘”

Apologia 3 123 50962 23 9/2/2012 19:20:0 easyJambo 71 1 “easyJambo says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
09/02/2012 at 7:17 pm
I obviously exceeded that max no of links in one post so here are the Companies House documents from earlier in the week in separate posts
TheBlackKnight says: 09/02/2012 at 6:14 pm
AD03 ‘ http://www.scribd.com/doc/81089257/CH-Rangers-AD03-03-02-12
AD04 ‘ http://www.scribd.com/doc/81089263/CH-Rangers-AD04-03-02-12
I pretty sure the registered office is Edminston Drive. The SAIL office may be c/o Collyer Bristow”
Apologia 3 124 50963 24 9/2/2012 19:20:0 easyJambo 71 2 “TheBlackKnight says: 09/02/2012 at 6:14 pm
AR01 ‘ http://www.scribd.com/doc/81089270/CH-Rangers-AR01-27-01-12
and the annual return.”
Apologia 3 128 50969 28 9/2/2012 19:40:0 easyJambo 71 3 “Paulsatim says:
09/02/2012 at 7:26 pm
0 0 i
Rate This

Rangers. Preparing for the end.

I think that blog is typical of Phil flying a kite. His sources are so non-specific it could be any punter in a pub.
I could probably say that, based on this blog, I think RFC will face an insolvency event within the next six weeks which is in essence what Phil is saying.”
Apologia 4 154 50960 4 9/2/2012 20:59:0 easyJambo 71 4 “TheBlackKnight says: 09/02/2012 at 6:14 pm
AR01 – http://www.scribd.com/doc/81089270/CH-Rangers-AR01-27-01-12
AD03 – http://www.scribd.com/doc/81089257/CH-Rangers-AD03-03-02-12
AD04 – http://www.scribd.com/doc/81089263/CH-Rangers-AD04-03-02-12
I pretty sure the registered office is Edminston Drive. The SAIL office may be c/o Collyer Bristow”
Apologia 5 223 51067 23 9/2/2012 22:38:0 easyJambo 71 5 “Re the 5 year disqualification rule – I posted on this same point a few days ago.
It is clear that the SFA believe that their rule requires that 5 years must elapse following a period of disqualification, otherwise they would have already completed the investigation ‘by return’ as there would be no case for CW to answer.
The purpose of the 5 year rule is as the you would expect from a ‘Fit and Proper Person’ test, is to ensue that anyone wishing to be involved in the running of a club has demonstrated over a period of at least 5 years, before becoming involved with an SPL club, that they have been of good character and integrity.
I accept that the specific wording used in the drafting of the rule could be interpreted differently. However, if the SFA have retained minutes of meetings that discussed this rule prior to its impementation, then they should be able to demonstrate how it was meant to be interpreted. Any clubs represenatives who attended these meetings should also be able to confirm this.
Only a laywer would see an opportunity to exploit such ambiguity in the English language (for a fee, of course). No offence to any lawyers on the blog 🙂 ”
Apologia 5 242 51086 42 9/2/2012 23:15:0 easyJambo 71 6 “Interested Observer says: 09/02/2012 at 10:55 pm
OnandOnandOnand says: 09/02/2012 at 11:03 pm
One of the assurances given in the Shareholders’ Circular of 6th June was that CW would NOT redeploy RFC’s assets
‘……. It is anticipated that there will be no likely repercussions on employment and the locations of the Club’s place of business, nor is it the intention of The Rangers FC Group to redeploy any of the fixed assets of the Club; ‘
As in the interpretation of the SFA rules re the 5 year disqualification, I’m sure that a lawyer would argue the case that the words used ‘nor is it the intention of’ isn’t actually a cast iron guarantee not to do something.”
Apologia 10 466 51315 16 10/2/2012 18:26:0 easyJambo 71 7 “Here is a suggested more equitable distribution of TV money using an £18M pot (£16M from Sky/ESPN and the rest from Clydesdale Bank or other new sponsorship). I have set it up with the bottom six receiving similar amounts with a small bonus for the team ending up in 7th place, giving something to play for to ‘win the bottom 6’. Only the top two would lose out with significant increases for the lower ranked clubs.
Current Distribution Alternative Distribution Difference
1 17.00% £3,060,000 12.00% £2,160,000 -£900,000
2 15.00% £2,700,000 11.00% £1,980,000 -£720,000
3 9.50% £1,710,000 10.00% £1,800,000 £90,000
4 8.50% £1,530,000 9.00% £1,620,000 £90,000
5 8.00% £1,440,000 8.00% £1,440,000 £0
6 7.50% £1,350,000 7.50% £1,350,000 £0
7 7.00% £1,260,000 7.50% £1,350,000 £90,000
8 6.50% £1,170,000 7.00% £1,260,000 £90,000
9 6.00% £1,080,000 7.00% £1,260,000 £180,000
10 5.50% £990,000 7.00% £1,260,000 £270,000
11 5.00% £900,000 7.00% £1,260,000 £360,000
12 4.50% £810,000 7.00% £1,260,000 £450,000”
Apologia 21 1012 51886 12 12/2/2012 17:31:0 easyJambo 71 8 “liveinhope says:
12/02/2012 at 5:24 pm
0 0 i Rate This
Sorry cant get the link saying chelsea have to pay 6’5 million to hmrc for misuse of ebts
I posted this a couple of days agao, but it has nothing to do with EBTs. There was a note in Chelsea’s accounts about exceptional items, one of which was a payment of £6,4M to HMRC in respect of an industry wide purge on ‘image rights'”
Apologia 21 1017 51892 17 12/2/2012 17:59:0 easyJambo 71 9 “rangerstaxcase says: 11/02/2012 at 11:44 am
Corsica has very kindly put together a spreadsheet related to the value of Rangers to Scottish football. It is currently open for group improvement.
I finally got round to looking at Corsica’s spreadsheet earlier today. The Ticket income as stated is far too high for most clubs. e.g. the figure for Hearts shows a total ticket income figure of £6.859M. Hearts annual turnover is only £7.908M that suggests that Ticket sales are 87% of total income which is way off the mark.
Hearts and a few other clubs conveniently provides a breakdown of their turnover by segment. Hearts matchday income is £3.917M. Aberdeen’s is £2.756M, Celtic £30.986M and Rangers £25.834M in their last published (audited) accounts. However, these figures will include cup and european income. The segmentation isn’t consistent between clubs, but I’d suggest that a better way of calculating SPL ticket income is to use a percentage of turnover of around 40%.
Most clubs offer big discounts for kids season tickets, in particular, which brings the average price down. There is also the VAT element to be considered which is a sixth of the face value of the ticket.
The headline figures for losses resulting from no RFC visits remain valid although the amount retained by the clubs will be net of VAT.”

Apologia 22 1091 51968 41 12/2/2012 22:30:0 easyJambo 71 10 “Scotland on Sunday made reference to 30% of the central revenues being at risk from there being no RFC
‘Yet there is an inter-dependency among SPL clubs, and a reliance on the four Old Firm games per season believed to be worth 30 per cent of central revenues. It is so great that the SPL board would be unlikely to destabilise the league by preventing the new Rangers taking the place of the current club.’
The passage is written in CW-speak to suggest that every team would take a 30% hit. That is clearly not the case.
A ‘back of a fag packet’ calculation (not that I smoke) 🙂 shows that there is obfuscation at play. RFC’s share of the SPL’s annual turnover of around £165M is, you’ve guessed it, approximately 30%. Now that share of SPL revenue doesn’t go anywhere other than to RFC itself so there is no actual £30 loss to the rest of the SPL on that that front.
There would of course be a loss from visiting fans. 19 x SPL games plus a few cup ties would give a maximum 100K RFC fans at £20 a ticket (net of VAT). That IS a loss of revenue of £2M
That figure can be offset as follows:
Rangers future share of TV/Merit payments would be available to be redistributed around the other clubs. – £3M
A minimum of 10,000 visiting fans from the extra SPL team (either Dunfermline or Falkirk) -200K.
The extra team would themselves generate at least 40K more supporters at £20, per season, than they would in the SFL – £800K
Saving on police/stewarding costs for RFC games across the SPL – £300K.
A European place would be available to another club. Even a single game with a 5,000 attendance would gross a minimum of £100K.
That is £4.4M just for starters.
So we have a net surplus of £2.4M for the rest of the SPL with no RFC. Of course the TV deal could be re-negotiated, but until such times as we see the numbers then it shouldn’t be considered. Even if it is changed then a redistribution of TV money/merit payments, as Corsica and myself have suggested, would probably negate the impact to just about every team bar Celic (who happen to be the one club with the capacity to absorb the loss, with minimal impact).
That is pretty well a worst case scenario for the SPL. Any other team making progeress in the qualifying rounds or reaching the group stages of the CL or EL would boost the revenue streams from those achieved this season.”
Apologia 22 1092 51969 42 12/2/2012 22:32:0 easyJambo 71 11 “oops – typo warning £30 should read 30%”
Apologia 22 1097 51974 47 12/2/2012 22:47:0 easyJambo 71 12 “First, all ‘Betts’ are off, then ‘whiter that Whyte’ Dave King decides the the Whyte knight can’t be trusted. It really must be really bad this time 🙂 ”

Apologia 24 1173 52050 23 13/2/2012 9:53:0 easyJambo 71 13 “Text from the Record’s article on Dave King’s departure
‘DAVE KING has been ruthlessly axed as a Rangers director for daring to question Craig Whyte’s regime.
South-African based King was told by e-mail late on Friday afternoon he had been kicked off the beleaguered club’s board.
Record Sport believes the latest boardroom change will be announced on the Plus Market today with Ibrox sources insisting King’s dismissal is punishment for objecting to Whyte’s dealings.
Rangers fans will be shocked by this latest departure as many of them saw King as the man who would save their club.
King was alarmed when we revealed the new owner had mortgaged four years of season tickets to raise £24.4million.
The deal with Ticketus was done without the previous board’s knowledge and although Whyte later said he’d been left with a £7m bill from Ticketus, he was quickly slapped down by the man who sold him the club last May.
Sir David Murray firmly denied Whyte had been left to pick up a Ticketus tab.
King was the last link between Whyte’s board and the old guard but he has been dumped just as chairman Alastair Johnston, chief executive Martin Bain, financial director Donald McIntyre and Paul Murray were after the takeover.
Apologia 24 1178 52055 28 13/2/2012 10:18:0 easyJambo 71 14 “Apologies for going a bit off topic but I think the following comments do have some relevance to Celtic followers on the blog and the Board’s likely reaction to the financial wellbeing of the club following an RFC liquidation.
I see that Celtic are now putting out positive spin on their Interim results that has been relayed by the MSM almost verbatim. I wish these guys would actually analyse the results before passing on the club’s statement.
Celtic are reporting Net Debt as being down by £2M on the same period last year. This is correct but actually masks that fact that the Net Debt figure is actually UP by £6.5M since the last accounting period to June 2011. This is mainly due to the Cash in Hand balance having come down by £6.7M since June 2011.
I know that Net Debt is’t the only figure that should be looked at. Trade Receiveables are also £261K down on June 2011. The one positive is that Trade Creditors are significantly down by £3.8M again since June 2011.
The 2nd half of the year should bring in good income streams as Celtic are clear favourites in all three competitions still open to them.
The point I wish to get over is that regardless of how the future of RFC pans out, I suspect that the Celtic Board will be seeking to cut costs to a break even position. The other option is that they continue to spend at current levels and gamble on CL participation. I would hope that the former would be the case.”
Apologia 25 1247 52124 47 13/2/2012 13:23:0 easyJambo 71 15 “CMC says: 13/02/2012 at 12:10 pm
Don’t know if this has been covered
Fsa have stopped the company from carrying out new business. Whyte is/was the company secretary
For those who haven’t bothered to open the link, you will see from the extract below that CW and his business colleagues seem to share a similar propensity to use clients’ money rather than their own.

3. The FSA has serious concerns, on the basis of the facts and matters described below, that:
(1) Pritchard has failed to arrange adequate protection for clients’ assets when it was responsible for them;
(2) Pritchard has allowed client money to be used on Pritchard’s own account and not that of clients; and
(3) this demonstrates that Pritchard is failing, and will continue to fail, to satisfy the threshold conditions set out in Schedule 6 to the Act (‘the Threshold Conditions’) in that the FSA is not satisfied that Pritchard is a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances (Threshold Condition 5 ‘ Suitability).

Apologia 27 1306 52184 6 13/2/2012 15:13:0 easyJambo 71 16 “Blue touchpaper now lit. Stand back and enjoy! 🙂 ”
Apologia 27 1308 52186 8 13/2/2012 15:15:0 easyJambo 71 17 “Is it possible that RFC have been given advance notice of the FTT outcome and have taken pre-emptive action?”

Apologia 27 1308 52186 8 13/2/2012 15:15:0 easyJambo 71 17 “Is it possible that RFC have been given advance notice of the FTT outcome and have taken pre-emptive action?”
Apologia 28 1353 52232 3 13/2/2012 15:57:0 easyJambo 71 18 “Rangers Media – [#2001] Sorry, the server is too busy to handle your request, please try again in a moment
Big Swee says: 13/02/2012 at 3:49 pm
Will Hearts now follow?
The last I heard, the likelihood was ‘negligible’
Let’s hope my sources are right.”
Apologia 28 1389 52268 39 13/2/2012 16:17:0 easyJambo 71 19 “Gwared says: 13/02/2012 at 4:09 pm
Sorry I dont understand your point because as it is Motherwell will be in Europe as Rangers are now out for three years.
The 3 year rule is for newcos. Clubs in administration are only affected if they are still in administration at the licensing date, or otherwise fail to meet the criteria for participation in the next season’s competition.”
Apologia 29 1434 52313 34 13/2/2012 16:55:0 easyJambo 71 20 “Gwared says: 13/02/2012 at 4:21 pm
In principle it would be possible to enter administration and exit it with a CVA prior to 31st March and be granted a UEFA licence for next season.
Highly unlikely though as HMRC could have them back into administration almost immediately with the result of the FTT.”
Apologia 30 1476 52355 26 13/2/2012 17:36:0 easyJambo 71 21 “Let the real questions begin with ‘Where is the money?’
Some guesses as to what he has accumulated.:
£24.4M from Ticketus
£6.5M for Jelavic
£3M delayed PAYE and NIC
£5M delayed VAT
Total £38.9M to fill a £10M black hole.
I think CW must have a black hole in his pocket that empties itself into a BVI account.”
Apologia 30 1482 52361 32 13/2/2012 17:38:0 easyJambo 71 22 “Andy says: 13/02/2012 at 5:35 pm
Even if the Club were to succeed in the tax tribunal, it would still face substantial liabilities. Zero liability will not happen
can anyone explain that part of whytes statement ?
PAYE, NIC and VAT will be overdue.”
Apologia 31 1528 52408 28 13/2/2012 18:42:0 easyJambo 71 23 “Video of Whyte’s statement to the fans outside Ibrox
Apologia 32 1580 52462 30 13/2/2012 19:25:0 easyJambo 71 24 “CW says HMRC bill could be as much as £75M !!!!!!!!”
Apologia 34 1680 52562 30 13/2/2012 21:1:0 easyJambo 71 25 “Can one of our insolvency experts confirm or correct my understanding of issues with a pre-pack
Some posters have stated that a pre-pack remains an option.Surely this cannot happen during the season without the prior agreement of the SPL/SFA to allow the newco to complete its fixtures. Football clubs are not like normal businesses when it comes to a pre-pack because of the issues of licensing and league membersip.
If a pre-pack can be achieved in the close season, then it still means that the administrator will have to keep the club afloat through the next three months. Obviously he can cut costs by making a number of staff redundant, or even ask some players to play for nothing, but there must still be new bills to pay. One question about the administrator. Is it accepted practice that the Administrator will pay any new bills e.g. for PAYE, NIC and VAT as they fall due or can he too use the protection of the administration process to avoid paying such bills during his tenure?”

Apologia 34 1687 52569 37 13/2/2012 21:8:0 salvomontalbano 18 9 “Team of the season: RTC XI
4-4-2 (traditionalists)
EasyJambo – Paulie Walnuts ‘ Don Dionisio – OnandOnandOnand
BarcaBhoy ‘ Hugh McEwan ‘ Paul McConville – Corsica
Lord Wobbly ‘ The Black Knight
Sorry but the rules only allow 11.
Subs: too many to mention!
Managed by…. The one and only… RTC !
Take a bow one and all…”
Apologia 35 1716 52598 16 13/2/2012 21:55:0 easyJambo 71 26 “jean says: 13/02/2012 at 9:44 pm
Tell you something else I think we’ve seen the last OF game
Both sets of fans would still turn up at Ibrox for the occasion of a minute’s silience at the Copeland Rd end and a minute’s applause from the Broomloan stand. 🙂 ”
Apologia 35 1730 52612 30 13/2/2012 22:11:0 easyJambo 71 27 “Not The Huddle Malcontent says: 13/02/2012 at 10:04 pm
I kept a copy of Mark’s post
‘1. Mark Dickson says: 19/10/2011 at 3:01 pm
Rangers successfully lobbied to an end to sharing gate receipt money starting in 1981 season which was just another nail in the coffin to ensure the rich get richer whilst the rest continually fall behind.
Consider the following
Salary Capping (maximum wage), Gate-sharing & equitable sharing of league/cup prize money help ensure healthy competition in Scottish football & record attendance levels at every ground.
• from 1946-1965 Rangers & Celtic win 12 titles v Other Clubs win 8 titles (Hibs 3, Hearts 2, Aberdeen, Dundee & Killie 1 each)
• in 1960-61 the footballers maximum wage (salary capping) is abolished in Scotland
• from 1966-1985 Rangers & Celtic win 16 titles v Other Clubs win 4 titles (Aberdeen 3, Dundee Utd 1) ‘ attendances start to decline.
• In 1981 Sharing gate receipts is abolished in Scotland
• from 1986 until 2011 Rangers & Celtic win 25 titles v Other Clubs win ZERO titles
• newly built stadiums see crowds rise and all-time record spending see all-time record attendances at Ibrox & Parkhead, crowds then start to fall away again with a 20% decline since 2008.
• From 1999 the SPL / SFL ensured the top 10/12 clubs take 90% of the money inputed into Scottish football with the top 2 clubs taking 32% of all TV & Sponsorship money
• in 12 seasons since only 1 team (Hearts in 2005-06) has managed to finish in the top 2 in the SPL.
• I think that adequately describes the deliberate and systematic dismantling of competitive forces in Scottish football and it’s subsequent decline.

Apologia 35 1750 52632 50 13/2/2012 22:29:0 easyJambo 71 28 “calderon says: 13/02/2012 at 10:16 pm
Is there any means of listening again to tonight’s Sportsound on BBC Scotland MW?
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 2 97 52882 47 14/2/2012 10:31:0 easyJambo 73 1 “Mark D – Here are the rules you are looking for:
Special Qualified Resolutions (83%)
(e) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL);
(g) the allotment and issue of a Share;
Ordinary Resolutions (66%)
(j) any alteration, variation or modification of the Rules, except for Section C and/or any other part of the Rules the alteration, variation or modification of which would have the effect of altering, varying or modifying a provision or provisions in Section C of the Rules or the adoption of a new, substitute or different Section C of the Rules;
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an
effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place.
11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered.
The board does have an involvement but only to communicate with the administrator / liquidator as to what should be done ‘following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution’ and to whom the share should be transferred
The final rule listed above relates only to the board consenting to the registration of the share, not the allocation of a share.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 3 106 52891 6 14/2/2012 10:47:0 easyJambo 73 2 “I’ve only had a chance to look at one of the documents so far, the shortest one, ‘Working Capital Facility’. The rest of the documents will take substantially more time and their interpretation will most likely be above my pay grade.
There is nothing in the letter which states who can ask for or how the facility will be called upon. The implication of that is that it seems to remain at the discretion of CW whether or not such a facility would be used.
There is specific reference to the the Facility not being available should an insolvency event occur. Now that is imminent, then there is no possibility of it being used.
The question remains as to whether or not CW can prove to the administrator that he did indeed provide such funds and thereby is able to add such sums to the debt due to him as specified in the Circular to Shareholders issued on 6th June.
As an aside – Is there a requirement for the administrator to publish a list of all the creditors and amouts due to each, that would be available to any interested party?”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 3 131 52918 31 14/2/2012 11:26:0 easyJambo 73 3 “I guess that RFC will now be in the same position a Hearts, i.e. pay up within a week, or an administrator would be appointed by the court.
It is more likely now that the floating charge or fixed charge holders will move to protect their positions. e.g. CW /Ticketus appointing a receiver and Close looking to appoint an Administrator. There may be some discussion between the various parties to agree on a specific Insolvency Practitioner to look after multiple interests.”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 3 137 52925 37 14/2/2012 11:37:0 easyJambo 73 4 “Mark Dickson says: 14/02/2012 at 11:08 am
The only rule that they have is the 10 point penalty for an insolvency event.
I can’t find any reference to their being any rules, guidance or scope for applying sanctions to a newco, other than the fact that the SPL is a members club and therefore can make up new rules on the hoof or apply ‘entrance fees’ as they see fit.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 3 140 52928 40 14/2/2012 11:41:0 easyJambo 73 5 “the Don Dionisio says: 14/02/2012 at 11:34 am
Agreed, EJ, except that I thought Hearts had been threatened with liquidation, several times.
They have indeed, but on each occasion (to date) have always paid up in full.
I’m sure that CW has neither the funds nor the inclination to pay anyone.”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 4 151 52939 1 14/2/2012 12:5:0 easyJambo 73 6 “Remember that HMRC seeking to appoint an administrator now is nothing to do with the ‘big’ tax case, as the FTT hasn’t come to a decision as yet. This is more to do with non payment of PAYE, NIC and VAT.
HMRC is playing hardball and making a statement that there will be no negotiations about a settlement. This is a very strong message that is being sent out to all football clubs, that HMRC are going to make an example of RFC and that other chairmen better beware.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 4 182 52970 32 14/2/2012 12:44:0 easyJambo 73 7 “Zanzibar – Thanks for this link. I think it is worth posting in full.
‘Rangers are a quintessentially British institution. This is the Queen’s XI. Their fans sing Rule Britannia and God Save the Queen ‘ but they are in deep trouble, and may well fold completely before it’s time to launch the Jubilee barge. Football writer and Rangers fan Graham Spiers has called this the club’s ‘bitter harvest’, and railed against the club’s inability to cope with its own sectarian songsheet, which has been the source of grief and resentment for years.
But this is a story about financial stupidity more than cultural insolvency. The emerging collapse of Rangers football club is an allegory for a different game that’s not so beautiful anymore, where we can’t run failed institutions just because it’s what we’ve always done. Rangers may go bust owing the tax man almost £50m.
How did this happen? After the loyalty she has been shown over the years, how can Her Majesty allow her Revenue & Customs to behave in this manner? The reality dawning on the Scottish sports press and supporters of Rangers FC (two groups that are not always entirely distinct) is that the Scottish champions are perilously close to administration and, potentially, liquidation.
Rangers chairman Craig Whyte (himself currently under investigation by the government’s intelligence and enforcement directorate for his acquisition of the Ibrox club) said there is no ‘realistic or practical’ alternative to getting ready for administration. The problem relates to a claim by HMRC for unpaid taxes over a period of several years dating back to 2001, which could result in massive liabilities.
The collapse of such a footballing giant after decades of mismanagement tells us a story not just about football as a bloated dysfunctional cultural spectacle, but of feral businessmen, media collusion, and a society witnessing key institutions collapse and teeter while desperately denying that such a thing is happening.
As bitter reality dawns, other certain truths are clung to amid the wreckage. Two of these stand out. One is that Craig Whyte is a shrewd guardian with a secret plan. Rumours swirl that Graeme Souness waits in the wings like a moustachioed Sauron. A Blue Knight to replace Craig Whyte. The second is that Rangers will emerge from the ordeal stronger, and, er, leaner.
Establishment voices mutter confidently of the club’s fanbase and that the ”club will never die’. Such macho posturing is a default setting from the club’s supporters (who numbered 17,822 at the recent home defeat to Dundee United), but the full extent of the club’s debts are unknown. Closely tied to this belief that RFC will re-emerge is the notion (repeated like a mantra on all broadcast frequencies) that ‘the Scottish Premiere League without Rangers is unthinkable’, and ‘Scottish football couldn’t survive without the Old Firm’. But this idea was quashed by Celtic’s chief executive Peter Lawwell only this week, when he stated plainly that his club ‘don’t need Rangers’ to flourish financially. Lawwell said the eventuality of their Old Firm rivals going bust ‘would have no material effect on Celtic’.
The idea that the two clubs are mutually dependent persists only because the idea of Rangers and Celtic is so deeply embedded not just in Scottish culture, but also in Scottish press circulation. The Old Firm flog papers. But, in reality, the idea that splitting the Old Firm would be a travesty for Scottish football is upheld only by people who have vested interests in our (already) hopelessly failing game. Scotland’s Sky TV deal is already pitiful, and BBC Scotland’s coverage is reduced to a poorly produced highlights package.
Michael Grant of the Herald wrote: ‘Celtic and Scottish football could live without Rangers but, boy, it would be as dull as dishwater.’ For the absent-minded and unobservant, Scottish football has been in dire terminal decline for some time now. The idea that it would be worse in a league that would immediately present more opportunities for success is patently absurd. It’s the sort of logic that could only be expressed by members of a closed group.
Life After Rangers Football (Larf) would mean for every other club a chance that the thousands who migrate towards Ibrox from towns across Scotland every other Saturday might show an interest in their local team. They would have realistic hope of winning trophies. But the positive reality of a Scottish game without Rangers is not primarily about a sport rid of a substantial element of ritualised bigotry and sustained intergenerational hatred, but the prospect of top-quality football being played by young Scotsmen in an atmosphere of optimism. That’s something worth aspiring to.
The mainstream press have been fatally blindsided on the impending crisis at Ibrox despite excellent blog coverage. But let’s not blame the clubbable journos. The real culprits are the management and board of the club who piled profligacy upon spending spree, from Dick Advocaat’s dubious £12m Tore Andre Flo to David Murray’s gigantic vanity project. But who’d blame them? Our culture lauds these dodgy geezers. Murray, the club’s previous owner, was quoted as saying: ‘For every £5 Celtic spends I’ll spend £10.’ That doesn’t seem so clever now.
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 5 210 52998 10 14/2/2012 13:10:0 easyJambo 73 8 “Fan Club says: 14/02/2012 at 12:51 pm
Has anyone noticed clause 7 of the SPA which talks about what happens in event of a breach by Whyte of his funding promises to invest in playing squad, working capital etc?
Clause 7 relates to Clause 6.3 in the event of there being no insolvency event within 90 days of the conclusion of the tax case. Now that the insolvency in imminent, then the debt remains.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 5 216 53004 16 14/2/2012 13:14:0 easyJambo 73 9 “Recent tweets
Cara Sulieman@carasulieman
Lawyer for #Rangers told court paperwork on its way to appoint administrators. HMRC questioned the validity of this move.
Case taken 20 min break for lawyers to get more instruction.”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 5 225 53013 25 14/2/2012 13:22:0 easyJambo 73 10 “Paulie – Roddy Dunlop QC (Axiom Advocates) is representing RFC at the Court of Session today. What’s his standing in the area of insolvency?”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 5 249 53037 49 14/2/2012 13:41:0 easyJambo 73 11 “Cara Sulieman@carasuliemanReply
#Rangers given until 3.30pm to appoint administrators. If they do HMRC’s application will no longer stand.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 8 356 53146 6 14/2/2012 15:23:0 easyJambo 73 12 “HMRC didn’t exactly have the strongest legal representation at today’s proceedings in David Thomson (Junior counsel to the Advocate General for Scotrland)
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 11 522 53312 22 14/2/2012 19:15:0 easyJambo 73 13 “This may seem odd, but I actually feel angrier now than I did a few hours ago when RFC formally went into administration. RFC will get their comeuppance over the next few months, but the anger I have actually lies more with the footballing authorities.
We have seen the SPL sit on their hands while one of their member clubs has systematically shafted the tax authorities, cheated and effectively embezzled funds from all other members over a 10 year period. They failed to conduct an investigation into the financial affairs of RFC, as is their right, despite the warning signs. They then continued their hear, see and speak no evil approach while a known asset stripper has taken over a member club who proceeded to do exactly that.
Stewart Regan, despite making the right noises on his appointment, also sat on his hands while a member club openly ignored their own rules on financial propriety. He failed to investigate and report on the probable deceit in issuing a licence to RFC for European competitions. He failed to properly conduct a fit and proper persons test into the owner of RFC despite the availability of adequate information. Today has the temerity to make a statement on RFC entering administration, yet still feels the need to include a reference to Heart of Midlothian experiencing financial uncertainty in an effort to portray RFC’s demise as a wider issue affecting Scottish Football.
My message to messrs Doncaster, Regan and his sidekick Ogilvie is that you should all hang your heads in shame and resign immediately.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 15 715 53508 15 14/2/2012 22:40:0 easyJambo 73 14 “All in all it has turned out to be a good day.
Hearts have been confirmed as Scotland’s 2nd force after being given a last minute penalty to take their cup replay into extra time. 🙂
Sorry to any St Johnstone fans reading the blog. (and RTC for going off topic)”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 18 874 53672 24 15/2/2012 9:47:0 easyJambo 73 15 “Sections F & G in the SPL rules demonstrate how negligent the hierarchy have been in their governance of the game. That includes the representative of several clubs on the board of the SPL
Inspection of Financial Records
F1 Every Club shall keep detailed financial records and the Company shall be entitled to inspect such records and to require Clubs to provide copies of any financial or other records which the Company may reasonably require in order to enable the Company to investigate whether the Club has complied and is complying with these Rules, the Articles of Association, the SFA Articles, the UEFA Statutes and the FIFA Statutes and to ensure compliance by the Club with the same.’
Power of Inquiry and Determination
G1.1 The Board and, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, shall have the power of inquiry into all financial, contractual and other arrangements within, between and/or amongst Clubs and Players and all matters concerning compliance with the Financial Disclosure Requirements and into all matters constituting or pertaining to any suspected or alleged breach of or failure to fulfill the Rules by any Club, Club Official and/or Player or any matter considered by the Board or, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, to be relevant to an Adjudication or an Appeal and every Club and Club Official and Player shall be liable to and shall afford every assistance to the Board or, as the case may be Commission, as may be requested or required of it or him.'”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 21 1001 53801 1 15/2/2012 14:15:0 easyJambo 73 16 “Garry88 says: 15/02/2012 at 2:07 pm
in regards the fantastic Henry Clarson Post , cant seem to find it anyone ?
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 21 1011 53811 11 15/2/2012 14:35:0 easyJambo 73 17 “I’ve just been reminded on a Hearts site that the demise of RFC is going to have a major impact of the fans of all other clubs.
How many songs and ditties are going to have to be re-worded to drop Rangers from the verses or choruses? 🙂 ”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 21 1027 53828 27 15/2/2012 15:9:0 easyJambo 73 18 “BartinMain says: 15/02/2012 at 3:04 pm
I wouldn’t have thought so. Trever Steven stopped playing for Rangers in 1997, long before EBTs were countenanced.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 21 1044 53845 44 15/2/2012 15:29:0 easyJambo 73 19 “BartinMain says: 15/02/2012 at 3:23 pm
Thanks – I hadn’t seen P.Mac’s tweets”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 23 1111 53912 11 15/2/2012 17:21:0 easyJambo 73 20 “Recent tweets from James Cook (BBC) in the last 10 mins:
Administrators: #Rangers will continue as a football club…we hope to reach a stage asap where the Club can emerge from administration.
Duff & Phelps: the cost structure of the Club and ongoing losses were such that the Club had outstanding liabilities to HMRC. #rangers
Duff & Phelps: We are talking to HMRC and will work with them constructively, as is the case with all other key stakeholders.
Duff & Phelps: Hall of Fame Dinner and Awards Ceremony scheduled for this Sunday at the Glasgow Hilton is postponed. #Rangers
Duff & Phelps: Saturday’s home match against Kilmarnock will go ahead as scheduled. #Rangers”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 23 1125 53926 25 15/2/2012 17:42:0 easyJambo 73 21 “An indication of how fans are thinking from Hearts Kickback forum. (519 votes to date)
Should HMFC vote for newco Rangers FC to join the SPL?
Yes – 20 votes 3.85%
No – 486 votes 93.64%
Don’t Know – 13 votes 2.50%”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 24 1175 53976 25 15/2/2012 19:2:0 easyJambo 73 22 “An interesting read – The Administator’s 6 month report on Portsmouth FC’s administration.
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 24 1176 53977 26 15/2/2012 19:3:0 easyJambo 73 23 “For some reason the ‘.pdf’ has been dropped from the link so you will need to copy and paste the full link”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 24 1188 53990 38 15/2/2012 19:27:0 easyJambo 73 24 “Elected politicians are not likely to make any statements recommending that any business is shut down, football or otherwise. Best to stick to the normal response when a politician opens their mouth – ignore them.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 25 1224 54026 24 15/2/2012 20:35:0 easyJambo 73 25 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says: 15/02/2012 at 8:21 pm
I sense that if the administrators attempt to progress along the lines of selling or hiving off assets to CW then HMRC will be back in court PDQ if they haven’t been given a satisfactory explanation of where all the cash has gone.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 26 1296 54100 46 15/2/2012 22:24:0 easyJambo 73 26 “Barcabhoy says: 15/02/2012 at 10:11 pm
Using info from the 2010 accounts we can guess from the main headings:
Creditors within 1 year
Item 2011 (2010)
‘Group’ £18M (£0)
Trade Creditors ? (£2.2M)
Social Security and other taxes ? (£2.7M)
Accruals and other deferred income ? (£16.8M) – this would include STs
Creditors more than 1 year
Bank Loan £0 (£18M)
Accruals and other deferred income ? (£7.4M)
Deferred income: Capital Grants ? (£8.5M)
Lease Creditor ? (£3.9M)
You can add the RFC bond of £7.7M to the creditor list in an insolvency process”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 27 1325 54129 25 15/2/2012 23:3:0 easyJambo 73 27 “What do you expect wee eck to say? Liquidate them immediately? Change the law to make HMRC the priority creditor? Hang Craig Whyte by the nuts? Defrock ‘Sir’ David Murray?
He has expressed a politically neutral response to say that he doesn’t want to see a business fail, but that he wants to see them come to an agreement to repay what they owe.”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 31 1550 54362 50 16/2/2012 13:15:0 easyJambo 73 28 “Alasdair Lamont@BBCAlLamont
Administrator also said liquidation was an extremely remote possibility. Sure he’ll be questioned about that at news conf at 1530”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 33 1644 54461 44 16/2/2012 15:45:0 easyJambo 73 29 “TheBlackKnight says: 16/02/2012 at 3:32 pm
Mark Dickson/ EJ/ Allyjambo (and others) This one is for you…….,
I refer you to a post I made on 27th Jan at 6.36pm 🙂
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 34 1652 54469 2 16/2/2012 15:58:0 easyJambo 73 30 “This Press Conference has CW’s fingerprints all over it. I wonder if it will be as late as his RFC PAYE return.”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 37 1820 54639 20 16/2/2012 18:27:0 easyJambo 73 31 “I was unable to see or listen to the Press Conference so I’m having to rely on the various slants on proceedings as given by posters on this blog, other forums and Twitter.
Can anyone confirm my understanding of the key issues were as follows:
The two pertinent issues seem to be the non payment of PAYE and confirmation that the Ticketus money didn’t go through RFC accounts, both of which have been discussed at length on this blog several months ago. (confirmation that RTC is always ahead of the game).
There is still no clarity of the status and the mechanics of how those two issues were managed and by whom.
There seems to be a strong view that the administrators were either hiding a number of things or are incompetent or both. Some of the answers given, particularly in their positive comments on the future for the club, seem at odds with their primary function of looking after the best interests of the creditors
Question for those at the correct pay grade. – Can HMRC go back to the Court of Session and request that the current administrators are removed if they believe that the individuals are failing in their statutory duties as demonstrated by their words and actions?”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 37 1825 54644 25 16/2/2012 18:38:0 easyJambo 73 32 “kotton says: 16/02/2012 at 6:35 pm
Thanks – I’ll watch it at HT & FT in the Ajax v Man Ure game”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 38 1858 54677 8 16/2/2012 19:14:0 easyJambo 73 33 “Johnboy says: 16/02/2012 at 6:53 pm
It’s obvious what’s happened . . .
No Ticketus cash is RFC PLC, no assets (Murray Park or Ibrox) either.
They’ve all been transferred to Rangers FC Group (formerly Wavetower).
And they’ll all soon be transferred to a new company …………..
Moving assets out of a comany and out of reach of the creditors is pretty similar to what CW did with Vital that ended up with his 7 year disqualification.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 38 1869 54688 19 16/2/2012 19:36:0 easyJambo 73 34 “Lord Wobbly says: 16/02/2012 at 7:21 pm
easyJambo says: 16/02/2012 at 6:38 pm
I can’t help thinking that you are not entirely focused Easy.
I assure you I am – Sitting in my ‘study’ (aka the Dining Room according to the wife). Football on the TV, Desktop PC up and running, SSB on my DAB radio in the background, wife on the phone to her pal in the living room, perfect. 🙂 .”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 40 1954 54775 4 16/2/2012 21:15:0 easyJambo 73 35 “Hugh McEwan says: 16/02/2012 at 8:58 pm
Re Ticketus, and dissolution (if that’s the word) you would need to know if it was the right one. I believe there are loads, maybe even one per club they do business with.
A quick count on Companies House currently shows 61 Ticketus Companies of which 11 are dissolved.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 42 2052 54880 2 16/2/2012 22:48:0 easyJambo 73 36 “There could be a nasty shock for half a dozen teams if RFC (in adminstration) are unable to complete their fixtures after Saturday’s match. Those are the teams in line to host RFC (in administration) before the end of the season. I’ve listed their likely away games pre and post split together with the attendance the previous corresponding fixture.
The ST holders for each of those teams will be losing out on one home game (approx 5%) of the value of the ST and clubs may feel obliged to make up for the loss in some way, either as a discount to next season’s ST or a money off voucher for the club shop.
These will be real losses against projected cashflows and I believe that there will be pressure on the SPL to recompense the affected clubs. (all the more reason for the SPL to bend over backwards for RFC (in administration) to fulfil their fixtures.)
26-Feb ICT 6,623
17-Mar Dundee Utd 10,156
31-Mar Motherwell 10,092
Split 1 Hearts 15,495
Split 2 Celtic 58,658
Split 3 St Johnstone 6,577”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 42 2061 54889 11 16/2/2012 23:1:0 easyJambo 73 37 “AllWhyteOnTheNight says: 16/02/2012 at 10:53 pm
I’m looking for the SPL to recompense Hearts first and in full for the balance of the Wallace transfer (as per their current rule book), then Dunfermline, Dundee Utd and ICT for ticket sales already made, but not received. There might not be much left in the balance of money due to RFC.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 42 2062 54890 12 16/2/2012 23:4:0 easyJambo 73 38 “corsica says: 16/02/2012 at 10:52 pm
An update of the Hearts forum poll that may help the Contra view
Should HMFC vote for newco Rangers FC to join the SPL? (724 Votes)
Yes 26 votes – 3.59%
No 676 votes – 93.37%
Don’t Know 22 votes – 3.04%”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 42 2070 54898 20 16/2/2012 23:9:0 easyJambo 73 39 “Paulmac says: 16/02/2012 at 11:06 pm
Thanks – I should have twigged that one but the same principle applies.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 42 2071 54899 21 16/2/2012 23:11:0 easyJambo 73 40 “Andy says: 16/02/2012 at 11:07 pm
could hearts take wallace back if the final payments are not made (i know they probably wouldnt want to as they are trying to get wages down)
but would it be in the contract regarding payments ?
I would take him back if it was possible, if only to re-sell him.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 44 2195 55030 45 17/2/2012 10:12:0 easyJambo 73 41 “Mark Dickson
Here is the link to the Herald’s archive – Type in ‘Celtic PLC’ and you will get a list of 74 stories going back to the early McCann days.
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 45 2206 55041 6 17/2/2012 10:57:0 easyJambo 73 42 “jimbomilligan says:
17/02/2012 at 10:43 am
2 0 i Rate This
I’ll try again .
If the ticketus debt is not on rangers books ,does that not mean that hector has the whip hand with his 9 million bill in terms of having the more than 25% necessary to block a CVA ?
Surely that puts HRRC in the drivers seat ?
Ingnoring the big tax case, the £9M is probably still not enough. There may well be £3M of ST money still to be honoured, £7.7M to the Rangers Bond holders, £5M? to Close, £20M? for Players contracts, £1m to Hearts, and other SPL sides, probably another £1M to Rapid and GAIS. There will be numerous other creditors fron Strathclyde’s finest to the Glasgow City council and the like of Joe the plumber.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 49 2443 55284 43 17/2/2012 17:35:0 easyJambo 73 43 “McCaig`s Tower says:17/02/2012 at 4:30 pm
Your wish is my command 🙂
rangerstaxcase says: 11/02/2012 at 11:44 am
Corsica has very kindly put together a spreadsheet related to the value of Rangers to Scottish football. It is currently open for group improvement.
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 49 2446 55287 46 17/2/2012 17:47:0 easyJambo 73 44 “PG says: 17/02/2012 at 5:15 pm
My brother just told me:
Floating charge can be invalidated if it is less than 2 years old at the date of administration and is in favour of a ‘related party’…
The invalid element are any ‘Variations’ made to the floating charge within 2 years of an insolvency event.
To clarify. CW had a valid Floating Charge covering the £18M debt he claimed to have paid to Lloyds..
CW then sought to extend that debt, and thus the scope of the debt secured by the Floating Charge, to include the promised investments made in the shareholders circular. It is these variations to the scope of the floating charge that may be invalid, because of the short time frame before the insolvency. The orginial £18M secured by the Floating Charge will remain.
At least that’s my understanding.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 52 2578 55422 28 17/2/2012 20:36:0 easyJambo 73 45 “Re the Guardian article – Good work RTC. Now that you have gone mainstream, do we now have to refer to you as a part-time Guardian journalist, rather than just a blogger? 🙂 ”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 67 3331 56189 31 19/2/2012 1:30:0 easyJambo 73 46 “I think the SoS article is only interesting in that it looks to me like another Jack Irvine planted story to undermine RTC, by suggesting that side letters and second contracts may not exist or be as significant as has been suggested on the blog.
I don’t see the value in such attacks. the tribunal judges have heard all the evidence and will shortly make their decision. The outcome of their deliberations will be exactly that, regardless of what RTC or anyone else says.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 67 3335 56193 35 19/2/2012 1:38:0 easyJambo 73 47 “Johnboy says: 19/02/2012 at 1:33 am
It’s not a Tom English article. It was written by Andrew Smith”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 73 3633 56501 33 19/2/2012 22:36:0 easyJambo 73 48 “corsica says:
19/02/2012 at 10:23 pm
0 1 i
Rate This
Regarding this morning, I can’t get hold of my guy in Nice nor can I track down the CW studio on the internet (presume it may have been rented) but I’m pretty certain it was on the seventh or ninth floor of Le Petit Palace, 41 Avenue Hector Otto.
The address came from CW’s sister Adele’s marriage register entry. One of the witnesses was Kim Martin with a given address of 9A Patio Palace, 43 Av Hector Otto, ML9800, Monaco.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 73 3642 56511 42 19/2/2012 22:45:0 easyJambo 73 49 “OnandOnandOnand says: 19/02/2012 at 10:15 pm
What’s with all the cryptic comments tonight? Am I the only one who finds them tiresome? Guys and gals, if you’ve something to say, say it, please.
I agree. The blog is at its best when it has FACTS to evaluate, discuss, debate, investigate, test scenarios against, etc.
Phil Mac has a habit of flying kites in cryptic tweets, some which are proved to right but with at least a similar number that are wrong.
Today he has suggested Fraud, Uttering, Financial Assistance and Sequestration. I guess that the law of averages would suggest he might get at least one of those right.”

Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 74 3658 56529 8 19/2/2012 23:12:0 easyJambo 73 50 “Full list of Dundee’s creditors (was posted several weeks ago)
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 77 3830 56709 30 20/2/2012 14:55:0 easyJambo 73 51 “the Don Dionisio says: 20/02/2012 at 2:28 pm (edit)
As I mentioned before. I was extremely surprised to hear'(at least I think I heard)’the press conference confirm that Ibrox and MP have been transferred out of RFC to another company or other companies . Few have mentioned that on here, to my surprise, but I am now unable to trawl through in excess of 3,000 comments so I may have missed that. Anyway, if I heard right, and depending on the dates of these transfers /disposals they well be subject to reduction, actions of restoration of property or such other redress as the Court sees fit vis-a-vis disadvantaged parties, in the main creditors.
I think you misheard, although the two administrators did appear to contradict one another at one point in the midst of questioning. I think that the last answer to Traynor confimed that the PLC owned the assets.
The relevant part is from 17’10’ through to 19’45′”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 79 3944 56828 44 20/2/2012 19:35:0 easyJambo 73 52 “Paulie Walnuts says: 20/02/2012 at 7:01 pm
Do you know the date of the transaction? It may be that any deposit in the ‘Group’ account was made from the Collyer Bristow Client Account at the request of RFC PLC following the takeover, in which case it would be all above board. However, perhaps there should have been some reference to it in the (unaudited) accounts for 2010/11.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 81 4039 56926 39 20/2/2012 22:18:0 easyJambo 73 53 “Looks like the Daily Mail is next in line to have a go at disparaging CW
John Greechan@jonnythegreek
In tomorrow’s Scottish Daily Mail. The story that will bury #Rangers owner Craig Whyte. And much more. No cluses. Night night.”
Blogger Scoops Mainstream Media Yet Again Shocker! -in spare time 81 4050 56940 50 20/2/2012 22:52:0 easyJambo 73 54 “RTC has provideda new post
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 4 181 57158 31 21/2/2012 10:31:0 easyJambo 99 1 “stunney says: 21/02/2012 at 9:13 am
Anyone get the sense that the MSM have begun trying to scoop RTC? They’re all leaping out of their sleepy hammocks and putting on their trousers in a mad rush, it seems.
Clearly it is now their intention to usurp both RTC and the administrators by revealing what they know. However with revelations likely to come fast and furious and from all angles over the next few days and weeks there are exclusives to be had.
RTC clearly has more information relating to the big tax case that he will reveal after the FTT decision. I’m pretty sure that Traynor has seen the Collyer Bristow bank statements or a transcript of them. I think he almost said as such on Sportssound last night when he talked about transactions on the Collyer Bristow account (I will have to listen again to the podcast later). The Record article this morning about Betts payments is further evidence of that. I suspect that others such as Darrell King have more information that they will share with us in due course but I suspect that they are being constrained by previous loyalties.
However there is one consistent place to read or gather information, without any slant or vested interests and that is here. The recent investigations by Billybhoy68 and associated ramblings of Paul McC are a good example of that. There are also a number of sleuths on KDS who are willing to share information with posters here.
If you want the truth, stick with RTC and you won’t go far wrong.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 4 198 57175 48 21/2/2012 11:0:0 easyJambo 99 2 “I’ve had a look through the SPL rules and can’t find anything that either allows or prevents 3rd party ownership. There is an implied ownership by the Club in section D9 (Contracts of Service)
‘Contracts of Service
D9.1 All Contracts of Service between Clubs and Professional Players must be for a term of:-
D9.1.1 not less than the period until the next first day of a Registration Period; and
D9.1.2 not more than five years and the unexpired portion, if any, of any Season during which such contract was entered into.
D9.2 All Contracts of Service between Clubs and Players must be in writing, fully completed and in a form approved, from time to time, by the Board.
D9.3 No Player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a Club in respect of that Player’s participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned.’
Club is defined as follows:
‘Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;’
If anyone knows different, can they please point out to the rule that definitively states that contracts can only be only between the club and the player.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 7 341 57324 41 21/2/2012 16:11:0 easyJambo 99 3 “TheBlackKnight says: 21/02/2012 at 3:03 pm
The PLC accounts to Jun 2011 were discussed when published at the end of November. They were Full Year accounts for 2010/11.
Adam was adamant (reminds me of a 60s TV series) that the cash in hand would be higher that others suggested (possibly fed form an internal source). We know that CW had been squeezing creditors (including the tax man) since day one. They also received £5M from UEFA in June 2011, so the figure is not unreasonable.
The net debt figure was disguised (lower) by the Cash in Hand figure.
The whole reduction in debt was achieved through their participation in the CL and EL, where they received €19M, plus home gate revenues. That is where the black hole comes from in this season’s cashflow.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 7 346 57329 46 21/2/2012 16:22:0 easyJambo 99 4 “easyJambo says: 21/02/2012 at 4:11 pm
TheBlackKnight says: 21/02/2012 at 3:03 pm
I should have added that the Ticketus money didn’t go near the PLC accounts therefore there is no record of it. However there should have been a reference to it as an inter-group transfer of assets (STs) in the notes to the accounts,…………….. only there were no notes to the accounts.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 8 354 57337 4 21/2/2012 16:34:0 easyJambo 99 5 “TheBlackKnight says: 21/02/2012 at 4:17 pm
easyJambo says: 21/02/2012 at 4:11 pm
Thanks EJ, knew I could rely on you. So why admin at this stage? Is this a preemptive admin or a constructed admin?
The timing will only be down to with the cashflow situation at the PLC, i.e. CW had maximised the cashflow out of RFC and into one or more of his offshore companies. RFC would be losing money for the rest of the season, so the decision to go now was a no brainer.”

Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 8 356 57339 6 21/2/2012 16:37:0 easyJambo 99 6 “Mark Dickson says: 21/02/2012 at 4:28 pm
I have only retained around 20 or so key posts, so anything else is a manual search, page by page. If you could be more specific abot the date or who posted it, then it might be easier to find.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 8 360 57343 10 21/2/2012 16:43:0 easyJambo 99 7 “Jonbhoy says: 21/02/2012 at 4:24 pm
Straight from the horses mouth !
As it was from CW, the only thing I could add is ‘ Nay! ‘”

Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 8 368 57351 18 21/2/2012 16:55:0 easyJambo 99 8 “Let’s guess where CW’s personal guarantees may be funded. ‘Group’ anyone? I’d expect it to be liquidated along with the PLC, if not before.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 9 435 57420 35 21/2/2012 18:56:0 easyJambo 99 9 “OnandOnandOnand says: 21/02/2012 at 6:45 pm
No reason why it should bug you. The initial deal was for 3 years @ approx £20M + VAT (£24.4M?). The 4th year was sold in return for £6M to help pay the 1st installment on the 3 year deal. Why pay for something out your own funds when you can still borrow more?
The only issue I have with it was the date. The MG05S was lodged with Companies House on 26th May, which would suggest that CW had already planned to mortgage a fourth year’s STs before then. I guess it would depend on the actual date that he was invoiced for the first installment of the repayment by Ticketus”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 9 441 57427 41 21/2/2012 19:4:0 easyJambo 99 10 “The Mighty Atom says: 21/02/2012 at 7:00 pm
What instalment? Weren’t the tickets sold to Ticketus by Group? Why would an ‘instalment’ be due to be paid to Ticketus?
Ticketus own the season tickets, but Rangers physically sell the tickets on their behalf through the normal RFC channels. As soon as the designated tickets (23,154 for 2011/12)are sold then Rangers are due to pay the funds to Ticketus.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 10 464 57450 14 21/2/2012 19:40:0 easyJambo 99 11 “OnandOnandOnand says: 21/02/2012 at 7:06 pm
easyJambo says: 21/02/2012 at 6:56 pm
Not often I disagree with you EJ but have to on this one. The tickets were divided roughly evenly over 4 seasons. As you say, the date is the key. The MG05S was in May, long before CW defaulted in the first payment and rolled the £6m over. I think it was always for 4 years, the £6m is a convenient excuse to hide this.
Will all come out in due course
I’m basing the sequence of the events on what the Daily Record reported on 31st Jan. Thus far they seem to be pretty accurate. So much so that I suspect that they have a copy of a statement or other list of transactions on the Collyer Bristow client account.
The DR reprted that Ticketus invoiced RFC on 27th June for the first payment of £9.5M on the agreement. However, I don’t know if the invoice appeared on that date or the payment was made on that date.
You may be correct of course that the original intention was to release 4 years tickets, but it could be that he held the 4th year’s tickets in reserve.
Traynor made reference to there being a series of transactions on the client account in last night’s Sportsound (10mins into the podcast). He specifically mentioned the Banstead FC payment, then he ran with the Betts payment story in today’s paper. I suspect that he will detail other transactions over the next few days unless the administrators beat him to it.
But as you say it will all come out in the wash”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 10 496 57482 46 21/2/2012 20:39:0 easyJambo 99 12 “Lord Wobbly says: 21/02/2012 at 8:21 pm
As I was reading thru, I was paying particular attention to your chat EJ and Onandx3. This was the question that puzzled me. We knew the 4 year Ticketus split back in June, so how does this square with our hero’s claim of a 3 year deal? Is it possible that there is an earlier MG05 covering 3 years?
Unlikely, as there was nothing like that posted with Companies House.
I’m not too bothered about whether or not it was 3 or 4 years or the specific dates of certain dates at this stage. The public admission of what CW has done is damning enough. We may have to wait for the Administrators’ or, perhaps your fellow Lordship Nimmo Smith’s reports to get the full time line.”
Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation 10 497 57483 47 21/2/2012 20:42:0 easyJambo 99 13 “the second ‘dates’ should read ‘events'”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 2 69 57791 19 22/2/2012 10:28:0 easyJambo 44 1 “Barcabhoy says: 22/02/2012 at 9:36 am (edit)
Lets assume that £67 million included season ticket obligations to the fans, not Ticketus, and these would reduce as the season unfolds . I am not convinced this is the case, however lets assume it is
Celtic’s annual and interim accounts are helpful in that they confirm the treatment of ST funds in this way.
Deferred income forms part of the current liabilities due within one year figure.
Note 26 to the Full Year accounts (Jun 11)
‘Deferred income comprises season ticket, sponsorship and other elements of income, which have been received prior to the year-end inrespect of the following football season.’
The figure at 30th June 2011 was £11.754M
The corresponding figure in the interim accounts to 31st Dec 2011 was £7.725M.
That means that Celtic effectively reduced their liabilities by a net amount of £4M in the first half of the season as ST hoders attended matches. They will, of course, have spent more than that, as additional ST funds would have come in between the end of June and the start of the new season and possibly after that point if installment plans were used.”

Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 2 75 57797 25 22/2/2012 10:41:0 easyJambo 44 2 “BartinMain says: 22/02/2012 at 10:25 am
Phil Mac Giolla Bhain says a BBC documentary is being planned on the Murray years at Ibrox with the words ‘financial doping’ included prominently within it.
With respect he didn’t actually say that. He asks the question – The tweet reads as follows:
Phil MacGiollaBhain@Pmacgiollabhain
BBC docu being planned on the Murray years at Ibrox? Will the term ‘financial doping’ be used? Oooer Mrs!”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 2 93 57816 43 22/2/2012 11:13:0 easyJambo 44 3 “Mark Dickson says: 22/02/2012 at 10:53 am
A much simpler way would be for the SPL to have an agreement with HMRC or other bodies whereby they are alerted to any club that is in arrears to the tax authorities, players or other clubs.
As for sanctions, start with a three point deduction if a month in arrears, a further six points if two months in arrears etc.”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 2 96 57820 46 22/2/2012 11:23:0 easyJambo 44 4 “Mort says: 22/02/2012 at 11:09 am
tigertim at 10:58 am
Eight months and NINE DAYS after reported here.
It was actually earlier than that. Onandx3 alerted everyone to the existence of the MG05S on 1st June.
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 3 124 57851 24 22/2/2012 12:25:0 easyJambo 44 5 “Don Abraham says:
22/02/2012 at 11:59 am
There appear to be some very clear links between Craig Whyte and the administrators, which suggests they should already be aware of the various money trails in this case. Both Craig Whyte and David Grier were paprt of ‘MCR’, until Craig Whyte’s recent resignation. David Grier is a partner in Duff and Phelps and helped broker the Criag Whyte’s purchase of RFC.
Not wholly true – Two different MCRs I’m afraid. – Menzies Corporate Restructuring and Merchant Corporate Recovery.”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 6 267 57999 17 22/2/2012 18:53:0 easyJambo 44 6 “Latest ‘positive’ statement from Duff and the lesser spotted Duff Yoiu would think that this Admin this is a piece of cake.
‘DUFF and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, today issued the following statement.
David Whitehouse, joint administrator said, ‘The Rangers fans have been absolutely tremendous over the last 10 days and it’s vital to the administration process that we continue to receive the support we have had thus far.
‘Ibrox was sold out last Saturday and hopefully that can be the case for the rest of the season. The fans are clearly extremely loyal to Rangers and by coming to matches at Ibrox they are directly contributing to the Club’s future.
‘We are hopeful that we can enhance revenue streams in the coming months through a variety of means and we have been very encouraged by the support of the business partners who have helped in that regard already.
‘The Club’s suppliers are also working with us to improve income flows where possible and the sponsors have also been tremendously supportive. We are in discussion with them to see if we can enhance the packages that we currently have in place.
‘This is obviously a very difficult period for the Club but those who come to the fore and support the Club will obtain tremendous publicity which is what sponsorship is all about.
‘Right now, it is quite simple – income now will help secure the future of Rangers.
‘Our focus is on generating income for the Club but there is also a focus on costs and the steps we are taking in terms of the cost base of the Club will evolve during the next week.
‘On a daily basis we are talking to department heads and seeing where there is capacity for cost savings but being very mindful of the need to both to preserve the performance on the pitch and retain the efficiency of the club off the pitch as well.
‘Overall, I would describe the situation as positive. Everybody recognises the plight that the club is in and have come to the table to help and assist where possible.
‘We have also had very good support from the football authorities and have met with both the SFA and the SPL.
‘For 140 years Rangers has been a key part of Scottish football. We hope that the influence and the support which the Club has given to the game over the years will carry some weight at these difficult times.
‘Generally other clubs are sympathetic. I think clubs realise this is a difficult time for the football industry in general and Rangers isn’t unique in its financial position. They are very supportive of the survival of the Club which is critical to Scottish football.””

Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 6 268 58000 18 22/2/2012 18:54:0 easyJambo 44 7 “my typong is getting worse 😦 ”

Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 8 359 58095 9 23/2/2012 1:15:0 easyJambo 44 8 “Goosy says: 23/02/2012 at 12:45 am
I’m not sure that the deal with Ticketus is necessarily illegal. It’s completion may well have been dependent on the takeover when CW would have the ability and authority to do as he wished with the future STs, e.g. transfer them to ‘Group’. The only bit we are missing is the reference to an intergroup transfer of ST assets from the PLC to Group.
Consider the deal as being similar to buying a house. You view the property, get a survey done (due diligence), obtain agreement with your bank to lend you the funds, put in an offer, have it accepted, agree the settlement date, lender deposits the funds in advance with your solicitor, deal goes through, money trasferred, keys handed over, sorted.
However, if you are gazzumped at the last minute, deal doesn’t go through, money returned from your solicitor to your lender, back to square one.
There is nothing illegal in that process and if that is what CW did, then I can’t see him being guilty of a criminal charge (at least in relation to that arrangement). There may be some issues with the subsequent accounting practices but that is a different issue.”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 11 523 58263 23 23/2/2012 13:9:0 easyJambo 44 9 “Paulsatim says: 23/02/2012 at 12:59 pm
It’s just the notice of Administration document.
Link to it here http://www.scribd.com/doc/82555444/CH-Rangers-Administration-14-02-12&#8221;
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 14 675 58421 25 23/2/2012 18:25:0 easyJambo 44 10 “While further revelations about CW’s period of tenure continues to generate a mixture of glee and incredulity, I’d urge a measure of caution.
I think that the increasing amount on scrutiny on CW and possible criminality may end up giving the SFA and SPL the perfect excuse for going easy on RFC. CW will continue to be pilloried from all quarters, but he will be described by the footballing authorities as a rogue owner and that the club should not be subject to excessive sanctions because of the actions of an individual.
All other misdeeds will be viewed as being of much less significance, thus a decsion to retain RFC (old or new) in the SPL will be deemed appropriate.
However, I’m sure that the vast majority of the blog’s followers will do what they can to campaign against such a course of action.”

Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 14 690 58436 40 23/2/2012 19:1:0 easyJambo 44 11 “TheBlackKnight says: 23/02/2012 at 6:49 pm
I sincerely hope that your theory comes to fruition rather than mine 🙂 ”

Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 15 702 58449 2 23/2/2012 19:36:0 easyJambo 44 12 “Did I hear Mark Daly correctly on Reporting Scotland saying that it was HMRC who chose to take the arrested funds as payment of the Ticketus VAT bill rather than settlement of the wee tax case?
Assuming that HMRC have the powers to prioritise payments in that way, I guess that it would help their internal accounting to balance off the input and output taxation of whole Ticketus deal.
I’m not surprised by the decision of the administrators to drop the appeal on the ‘wee’ tax case. They were never going to win it and it would cost them to continue to argue the case.”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 15 712 58462 12 23/2/2012 19:56:0 easyJambo 44 13 “rab says: 23/02/2012 at 7:41 pm
I agree with your post and hope that you are right. I’m well aware of all the arguments, but I just have a nagging doubt about how the SFA and SPL will play it.
There has been no scrutiny of Murray by the authorities to date. Let’s hope that they react with some alacrity once the FTT decision is made public.”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 18 892 58647 42 24/2/2012 1:9:0 easyJambo 44 14 “OK – Lets say the £18M RFC debt to Group is extinguished and the Ticketus deal is ‘unwound’.
Ticketus seek the return of their £24,4M from Group (Lloyds won’t refund Group the £18M settlement). Ticketus are unsecured, but seek a winding up order on Group. Group’s only option is to go into Liquidation. Ticketus takes ownership of Group’s assets, i.e. RFC, Ticketus sell the Stadium and Murray Park to Paul Murray/Dave King/Andrew Ellis/Mark Dingwall. RFC are still left high and dry with HMRC on their case. HMRC still liquidate the club.
I don’t see how the nullification of the Group debt or the Ticketus deal actually helps RFC in the long run.”
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 19 941 58706 41 24/2/2012 10:26:0 easyJambo 44 15 “I see the Herald had provided a little more detail on the Catering / Close / Azure deal.
‘£3m for catering revamp at Ibrox
Martin Williams
Senior News Reporter.
CRAIG Whyte used around £3 million of future income to refurbish Rangers’ catering facilities.
The club entered into a hire purchase agreement with finance company Close Leasing in the middle of last year to pay for new kitchen equipment and to improve catering facilities.
The Herald understands that prior to the takeover, Azure, which provides catering at the stadium, agreed to put up £1m while Rangers put up nearly £2m. In return Azure was to have its contract extended and have other ‘royalty’ payments enhanced.
Mr Whyte, as part of a commitment to takeover the club in May, said his Rangers FC Group would provide £1.7m to ‘fund capital expenditure in relation to improving kitchen and public address equipment at the stadium’.
It was understood that the catering refurbishment was needed as Rangers had been warned facilities would not pass health and safety regulations.
According to Companies House filings, Close Leasing now has a security over future catering revenues, a move usually brought in to guarantee payment.
Close Leasing has refused to comment on the matter. Whyte’s representatives would not comment.
Sources for the administrators Duff and Phelps confirmed the equipment was bought on a hire purchase agreement.
Last year, Azure renewed its contract with Rangers for nine years, and also took over cleaning duties at Ibrox, in a deal worth £35m.
The revelation comes after Whyte confirmed he had sold future season ticket sales to London firm Ticketus for £24.4m to help fund his takeover. Duff and Phelps said £18m had been taken from the deal to pay off the club’s debt to Lloyds Banking Group.
Arsenal Shares: Previous Board Alerted Whyte 20 953 58721 3 24/2/2012 10:57:0 easyJambo 44 16 “Strathclyde’s Finest statement:
‘there has been reporting in the press today indicating policing of future matches at Ibrox is in jeopardy ……….. we are working on a match by match basis. However we have an excellent relationship with administrators and we currently do not forsee any problems policing future matches at Ibrox'”
Well done! 2 86 59442 36 26/2/2012 9:53:0 easyJambo 46 1 “I haven’t posted for a couple of days, but I’ve been content to sit on the sidelines watch the story develop to where we are now. There are now so many people watching every source, for every little titbit of information, there has been little I can add to what has been posted by many contributors.
I think today will prove to be a pivotal one in this story, as the initial thrust of the blog is being vindicated by what is now main stream news. I am glad that the focus has moved away from CW. We know he is a shyster and an asset stripper, but the Blog was started before CW ever took ownership of the club and he is really just a side show to the main event.
The EBT scam and its implications are key to how this story ends. If today’s revelations are genuine then the repercussions for the game are immense. It is now a matter of trust (no pun intended) that the authorities act decisively in the interests of openness, integrity and fair play to see that all those involved in the creation, execution and cover-up of this scheme are excluded from any role in the game in the future.”

Well done! 2 94 59450 44 26/2/2012 10:6:0 easyJambo 46 2 “It is no longer possible for a Roman Abramovich figure to rescue RFC. Even if they had the funds to pay the big tax bill it will still necessary for sanctions to be taken against the club for their misdeeds, rule breaking and the lack of ‘utmost good faith’ over the last decade.
There shouldn’t be the slightest consideration about them either remaining in the SPL or for a newco being invited to join the SPL.”

Well done! 3 105 59462 5 26/2/2012 10:25:0 easyJambo 46 3 “Hugh McEwan says: 26/02/2012 at 10:12 am
I’ll defend Vlad for a moment. (although I don’t always 🙂 ) He has actually written off £9.9M of Hearts debt, recorded as ‘forgiveness of debt’ in the accounts.
The £22M Debt for Equity swaps he has undertaken has also effectively written off debt. If you already own 90% of a club, then the dilution of shares in a DfE swap impacts mainly on yourself.
It’s would be a different scenario if a DfE swap was used to allow a newcomer to take up a stake in a club by way of the issue of new shares, say of 25%.”
Well done! 10 457 59842 7 27/2/2012 13:41:0 easyJambo 46 4 “I think that the key thing for us to take from the PLUS statement is that CW’s disqualification was NOT disclosed to the SFA.
Mr Regan, why did you sit on your hands for so long? The information you required was in the mainstream element of the public domain since Mark Daly’s programme in October.”
Well done! 11 529 59917 29 27/2/2012 18:2:0 easyJambo 46 5 “Rangers players reported as discussing pay cuts with the administrators according to STV”

Well done! 15 705 60099 5 27/2/2012 23:53:0 easyJambo 46 6 “BlackJacques says: 27/02/2012 at 11:31 pm
John Anthony says:
27/02/2012 at 10:55 pm
Can someone explain to me why Lee Wallace’s registration does not revert to Hearts.
(The only thing I can think of is the last payment is not yet overdue.)
How can Rangers ‘own’ Lee Wallace when they have not paid for him?
The next payment is not due until after the end of the season. If RFC emerged out of administration before then, they would be liable to pay the full amount as and when it became due.
If they get liquidated, then Hearts will seek recompense from the SPL using funds that may otherwise be due to RFC (as per their rules), rather have the SPL hand over the funds to the liquidator.
Wallace wil become a free agent if the club gets liquidated, or made redundant (released) by the administrator. If he remains employed by RFC (In administration) he can be sold at at any point, but he cannot be registered to play with another club until the transfer window opens.”
Well done! 16 797 60197 47 28/2/2012 10:7:0 easyJambo 46 7 “Magic Circle says: 28/02/2012 at 2:07 am
Art. 11 of the SPL Articles say that the share can be transferred with the consent of the Board of the SPL. There are some conditions (e.g. it must be to the owner/operator of a club).
I think you will find that the board only consents to the registration of the share, not the transfer of the share
’11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered.’
Article 14 deals with the transfer of the share in administration or liquidation,
’14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place.’
This article states that the board will only write to the administrator or liquidator authorising the transfer of a share, after all the clubs pass a qualified resolution (at least 10 to 1).”
Well done! 18 859 60261 9 28/2/2012 12:30:0 easyJambo 46 8 “The two contracts issue needs to be followed up regardless of the EBT result, despite Roger Hannah saying on SSB last night that if the EBT case went in RFC’s favour then there would be no need to investigate further.
If a second contract is deemed to be against against the rules, then appropriate sanctions need to be put in place. The question then arises about who knew about them, when and what they did with the information. ‘Utmost good faith’ Huh! The SPL made a rod for their own backs when they went after Hearts after the late wages situation.”
Well done! 18 867 60271 17 28/2/2012 12:52:0 easyJambo 46 9 “garry88 says: 28/02/2012 at 12:47 pm
I appreciate the points that you are making, but your post would be so much more readable if it was written in paragraphs and without the extensive use of upper case.”
Well done! 18 871 60275 21 28/2/2012 12:59:0 easyJambo 46 10 “Insomniac says: 28/02/2012 at 12:45 pm
duggie73 says: 28/02/2012 at 12:04 pm

Keane’s last stand

The same Gavin Masterton is owed £8.2M by Dunfermline Athletic, according to their last set of accounts (2010). He made some grave mistakes in his stewardship of BoS and has continued that with the Pars.”
Well done! 21 1043 60453 43 28/2/2012 17:21:0 easyJambo 46 12 “Hoopy 7 says: 28/02/2012 at 2:55 pm
SPL Rule C9.1 covers the withholding of sums due to other Clubs
‘C9.1 If any Club defaults in making payment of any sum or sums due to the Company and/or to another Club the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, under these Rules, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any debt due by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.'”
Well done! 21 1048 60458 48 28/2/2012 17:27:0 easyJambo 46 13 “Hoopy 7 says: 28/02/2012 at 2:55 pm
SPL Rule C9.2 gives the Board the authority to withhold any sums currently due to RFC until the end of the season if they believe that there is a risk of them failing to fulfil their fixtures.
‘C9.2 If, in the opinion of the Board, there are grounds to believe that a Club may not fulfil or be able, on the basis of information available to the Board, to fulfil all or any of its fixture obligations in Official Matches in the course of a Season then the Board may withhold, retain and/or defer payment of any sums which would otherwise be payable and/or be expected to be paid by the Company to such Club until such time as the Board is satisfied that such fixture obligations have or will be fulfilled.'”

Well done! 22 1085 60501 35 28/2/2012 19:50:0 easyJambo 46 14 “Bartin Main says: 28/02/2012 at 7:30 pm
This guy is to be trusted, 100%
I seldom venture onto KDS 👿 , but I seem to have come across that poster before in connection with a breaking story at the Daily Record (which proved to be 100% accurate). Is it the same guy?”
Well done! 25 1246 60665 46 29/2/2012 0:56:0 easyJambo 46 15 “Ross County’s ground situation could create an opening for a newco to exploit (assuming they win Division 1). They have until 31st March to satisfy the SPL that they will be able to provide 6,000 seats under cover by the start of next season. If they can’t do so then the ‘relegated’ team will be given a reprieve.
RFC 2012 could therefore offer to fill the gap created by the demise of their forefathers without impacting on any other SPL side. It would still be reliant on a vote of the other clubs, although the teams at the bottom of the SPL would no longer have the need to vote in a way to ensure their own survival in the SPL.”
Well done! 27 1347 60774 47 29/2/2012 10:25:0 easyJambo 46 16 “Paulie Walnuts says: 29/02/2012 at 10:01 am
Good informative post as always Paulie.
Could the internal transaction be as simple as ‘Group’ will take over management of all Ticket income in return for day to day funding of the PLC’s operations. All that is missing is a reference to the internal transaction in the ‘Notes to the Accounts’, then again there were no ‘Notes to the Accounts’ in the unaudited ones published at the end of November.
Hearts effectively have a similar setup with their parent company, UBIG, who are required to fund / authorise a proportion of the clubs spending (including wages).
The Circular to Shareholders on 6th June stated ‘nor is it the intention of The Rangers FC Group to redeploy any of the fixed assets of the Club. By implication, he was therefore prepared to redeploy any other assets of the club, whether it was players or tickets.”
Well done! 28 1352 60779 2 29/2/2012 10:45:0 easyJambo 46 17 “JMaclure says: 29/02/2012 at 10:01 am (edit)
Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of Rangers predicament is that the 40,000 season ticket holders plus how many sympathisers will be lost to football. That revenue will be lost to the SPL. No business can sustain losing that amount of customers.
You are also removing the only competitive element in the SPL, Rangers v Celtic.
You may well be right that the 40,000 ST holders could be lost to football. That is their choice. However the majority of revenue generated by those 40,000 isn’t actually lost to the SPL. It is lost to Rangers. It is only Rangers who benefit from ST sales (notwithstanding the Ticketus deal).
On average, only 10% of the 40,000 go to away games. That is the level of revenue lost to the SPL.
Your point on competitiveness demonstrates perfectly the attitude of the MSM and a significant number of Rangers fans (plus an element of Celtic fans) that the whole of the Scottish game revolves aroud Rangers and Celtic.
Is a Motherwell v Dundee United game not competitive? How about a Hearts v Hibs game, or in an expanded league, a Dundee derby, or Dunfermline v Falkirk? There is already plenty competition around the league, which in my opinion would be enhanced with the demise of one of the ‘big two’.”
Well done! 28 1358 60785 8 29/2/2012 10:50:0 easyJambo 46 18 “No job cuts to be announced today according to STV”
Well done! 29 1429 60858 29 29/2/2012 13:52:0 easyJambo 46 19 “shug says: 29/02/2012 at 11:42 am (edit)
easyJambo says: 29/02/2012 at 10:45 am
You appear to undermine your own point with that final sentence. If the competitiveness in the SPL does not depend on the existence of the Old Firm (Motherwell v Hibs being competitive matches), how can its’ competitiveness be enhanced by the demise of one of the old firm?
If the only competitive games are between Rangers and Celtic, then the assumption is that any game between either of the big two and a ‘diddy team’ is uncompetitive. Remove one of the big two and you remove a series of uncompetitive games.
The interest in the rest of the league would also be enhanced if coverage of it in the MSM increased, as it will need to do if there is no RFC.
Hearts average crowd is in excess of 13,000 despite having no chance of winning the league. Aberdeen and Hibs average more than 9,000 with similar prospects. Are these fans going to walk away if there is no RFC and an increased opportunity to win a trophy?
If like minded Rangers and Celtic centric fans care to take their blue or green tinted spectacles off then they may find a whole new world out there in full technicolor, with shades of Claret & Amber, Tangerine, Maroon, Red in addition to blue and green.
I also sense the beginning of MSM interest in Motherwell’s success this season with the potential of a CL qualifying place. That is to welcomed, not knocked. Sure they may find it impossible to qualify as it is perfectly possible that they could be drawn against someone like Arsenal or Chelsea, then drop down to the EL and get another big draw against Newcastle. The more that non-OF sides can share in such bounties, then the better it will be for Scottish Football in the long run.”

Well done! 30 1457 60886 7 29/2/2012 14:55:0 easyJambo 46 20 “tigertim says: 29/02/2012 at 2:09 pm
easyJambo says: 29/02/2012 at 1:52 pm
‘Hearts average crowd is in excess of 13,000 despite having no chance of winning the league. Aberdeen and Hibs average more than 9,000 with similar prospects. Are these fans going to walk away if there is no RFC and an increased opportunity to win a trophy?’
I take it these averages include the games aginst both Celtic & Rangers, and also would be different dependent on top 6 bottom 6 finish?
They are the last figures I saw for this season, therefore include game against Celtic & Rangers and reflect the current lack of on field success at Easter Rd and Pittodrie.
Note that Hibs and Hearts biggest crowd for the last few seasons have not been against Celtic or Rangers, but against one another, despite early kick offs and live TV.”
Well done! 30 1460 60889 10 29/2/2012 15:11:0 easyJambo 46 21 “JMaclure says: 29/02/2012 at 2:28 pm
Look Motherwell v Hibs or even Dunfermline v Hearts will be or can be competitive matches, that is not the real point, taking the Rangers v Celtic rivalry out, will these games fill the void, will they be attractive enough to have sponsors ot TV moguls drooling to invest.
Clubs need sponsorship to survive, from business and TV nowadays. The SPL needs it.
In my view the SPL was dying on its feet anyway, with Rangers and Celtic, without one of them, the outlook for the patient is anything but positive.
I couldn’t really give a toss about the TV deal. My own preference would be to rip it up and have them do a deal for 10/12 games a season of their choosing. That way the sell out derby matches and championship matches could still be covered.
Who currently suffers most from the current TV deal? It’s the ‘diddy clubs’ who no longer sell out against the Celtic & Rangers because of the blanket live TV coverage of their away games and competing coverage of live games down South. I think that a limited coverage deal would be better value for money and encourage more fans to turn up at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon.
Football in Scotland will survive RFC going bust (either permanently or incapacitated for several years) and in doing so may have to downsize by reducing wage levels in the short term. Celtic would probably see the biggest adjustment, but I strongly believe that it is for the long term wellbeing of the game that ALL teams learn to live within their means.”
Well done! 30 1465 60894 15 29/2/2012 15:42:0 easyJambo 46 22 “There is a debate on HMRC and Scottish fooball going on at the moment in Westminster Hall. Finishes at 4pm though.
Well done! 30 1470 60899 20 29/2/2012 15:46:0 easyJambo 46 23 “easyJambo says: 29/02/2012 at 3:42 pm
There is a debate on HMRC and Scottish fooball going on at the moment in Westminster Hall. Finishes at 4pm though.
I should have added that you can choose an option to view the debate from the start.

Well done! 30 1498 60927 48 29/2/2012 18:6:0 easyJambo 46 24 “garry88 says:
29/02/2012 at 4:14 pm
easyJambo says: 29/02/2012 at 3:46 pm …….. Sorry Not TAX related im on windows 7 it will NOT play either LIVE or from the start ….what to do
I’m on Windows 7 too and it worked fine for me. It still does. The recording will remain in the archives for a while. Might be something to do with your media player, but I’m no expert in that area.”
Well done! 31 1530 60959 30 29/2/2012 19:51:0 easyJambo 46 25 “tenerifetim says: 29/02/2012 at 6:56 pm
Easyjambo gets a mention on SSB ‘ internet bampot !
Just as well I was watching the U21s and not listening to SSB then. Nothing controversial I assume?”
Well done! 31 1544 60974 44 29/2/2012 20:22:0 easyJambo 46 26 “tenerifetim says: 29/02/2012 at 8:14 pm
Cheers – Scotland game is on Primetime on Sky PPV.
You should be able to get it on a streaming site.”

Well done! 32 1590 61021 40 29/2/2012 21:44:0 easyJambo 46 27 “scapa says: 29/02/2012 at 8:58 pm
Dunfermline players and staff have not been paid in full this month. The club has admitted there is a cash flow problem and expect to make a second payment on Monday. The SPL has been informed ‘ more to come on Sportsound.
Perhaps Rangers will host a charity match for them to raise funds 💡
tigertim says: 29/02/2012 at 9:37 pm
Being a Private Limited Co they have longer to produce their accounts.
Hearts are in a similar boat. Their accounts to 31st July will probably be issued on 31st March.”

Well done! 33 1612 61043 12 29/2/2012 22:13:0 easyJambo 46 28 “Dunfermline released this statement on 15th Feb, the day after RFC went into Administration
It makes reference to the £80K due from RFC and £44K due to HMRC”
Well done! 33 1614 61045 14 29/2/2012 22:19:0 easyJambo 46 29 “Stan Black says: 29/02/2012 at 10:06 pm
The Taxmans message seems to be don’t bother paying tax, run up as much debt as you can. eventually go into administration, offer to pay 20p in the pound whilst keeping every single one of your highly paid squad.
In a perverse way, HMRC will actually be receiving money from RFC (in Administration). The Administrators are legally bound to pay any new taxes as they fall due, therefore HMRC should receive around £750K in PAYE plus NICs from February’s payroll.”
Well done! 35 1701 61135 1 1/3/2012 0:56:0 easyJambo 46 30 “The existence of the MG05s was first mooted by Onandx3 and was subsequently analysed and dissected by Onand and the Don”
Well done! 38 1866 61303 16 1/3/2012 12:37:0 easyJambo 46 31 “Chris McLaughlin‏@BBCchrismclaug
Definitive announcemet on job losses at #Rangers more likely to be tomorrow. Still number crunching.”
Well done! 44 2189 61629 39 1/3/2012 20:43:0 easyJambo 46 32 “Magic Circle says: 01/03/2012 at 5:57 pm
I’m not qualified in legal matters and I assume that you are. However I think that you are misrepresenting the SPL articles in their intent.
I’m sure that you are correct in your statement that ‘The general principle of corporate law is that the shares in a limited company can be transferred unless the Articles provide otherwise or can be transferred if the conditions set out in the Articles are met’
My observations are as follows:
Article 11 deals with the registration of the share, not the transfer of the share.
Article 12 also deals with the registration of the share not the transfer, although 12(iii) does set a condition of Board consent to a transfer being a pre-requisite to the registration.
I’m surprised that you chose to skim over the reference to Article 14 and dismiss its use in the current situation, as it that Article which specifically deals with the transfer of shares in an Administration/Liquidation process, unless the intention of your post was to mislead.
You are wrong is stating that Article 14 ‘gives the Board of the SPL the right to require the administrators to transfer the shares to someone else.’ Article 14 makes it clear that the Board’s role is to communicate with and instruct the Administrator / Liquidator ‘on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board’ i.e. it is for ALL the clubs to vote on a motion to transfer the share, with 83% support (10 to 1), then the Board will notify the administrator or liquidator accordingly.”
Well done! 44 2193 61633 43 1/3/2012 20:46:0 easyJambo 46 33 ” 😳 Apologies, for Article 12 , read Article 13.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 4 155 61987 5 2/3/2012 10:45:0 easyJambo 97 1 “Private Land says: 02/03/2012 at 9:59 am
I also listened to Sportsound last night and was a bit surprised that Traynor’s comments were not picked up or discussed further on here.
Either Lawwell is lying or Traynor is lying with regard to any agreement about up-front payment for tickets. As you say, Traynor was bullish in his comments and invited Lawwell to call him or go into his office to see the evidence.
My reading of the situation is that there probably was an informal agreement between the clubs dating back to the pre New Year game which was made because of the risk of administration. Now that administration has occurred then all bets (agreements) are off and the threat is now of liquidation. I think that Celtic’s current position is therefore perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.
However the tone of Lawwell’s letter was such that he risks personal reputational damage if Traynor publishes his evidence and it shows that the clubs did have an agreement. (Traynor doesn’t have a reputation to damage if he is in the wrong 🙂 )”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 4 186 62018 36 2/3/2012 11:28:0 easyJambo 97 2 “Given RTC’s post on the SFA and SPL’s leadership I’ve reposted a comment I made on the same subject the day that RFC actually went into administration
‘ easyJambo says: 14/02/2012 at 7:15 pm
This may seem odd, but I actually feel angrier now than I did a few hours ago when RFC formally went into administration. RFC will get their comeuppance over the next few months, but the anger I have actually lies more with the footballing authorities.
We have seen the SPL sit on their hands while one of their member clubs has systematically shafted the tax authorities, cheated and effectively embezzled funds from all other members over a 10 year period. They failed to conduct an investigation into the financial affairs of RFC, as is their right, despite the warning signs. They then continued their hear, see and speak no evil approach while a known asset stripper has taken over a member club, who then proceeded to do exactly that.
Stewart Regan, despite making the right noises on his appointment, also sat on his hands while a member club openly ignored their own rules on financial propriety. He failed to investigate and report on the probable deceit in issuing a licence to RFC for European competitions. He failed to properly conduct a fit and proper persons test into the owner of RFC despite the availability of adequate information. Today has the temerity to make a statement on RFC entering administration, yet still feels the need to include a reference to Heart of Midlothian experiencing financial uncertainty in an effort to portray RFC’s demise as a wider issue affecting Scottish Football.
My message to messrs Doncaster, Regan and his sidekick Ogilvie is that you should all hang your heads in shame and resign immediately.’
I stand by the comments I made over two weeks ago and I’m probably even more annoyed by the SPL’s current inaction. The SPL is no more that the umbrella organisation of the clubs themselves. Some clubs have gone public on their difficulties with the RFC situation (Dundee Utd and Dunfermline). That in itself should prompt the SPL Board to act. I have no doubt private discussions are taking place, but it is no surprise that the main stakeholders left out of the discussion are the customers, i.e. the Fans. It’s not good enough. If the SPL collapses following RFC’s demise, then it will be partly of the SPL’s (the clubs’) own making.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 9 424 62262 24 2/3/2012 17:50:0 easyJambo 97 3 “abrahamtoast says: 02/03/2012 at 5:30 pm
Does anyone know what Stewart Regan’s middle name is?
I hope it’s not Roger or Robert or something.
That would make him S.R.Regan, which is an anagram of you know what…
Sorry for the off-topicness, but it may be the key to everything!!!
I don’t know but his middle initial is ‘M’, which means that Stewart M Regan is an anagram of ‘Me Rangers Twat'”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 11 539 62377 39 2/3/2012 21:21:0 easyJambo 97 4 “Magic Circle says: 02/03/2012 at 7:29 pm
EJ, Arts 11 and 13 apply to both the transfer and the registration. It comes to the same point.
Re Art 14, the important point is that the action under this article is initiated by the SPL, not Rangers. I have skimmed over it because, as I said in my post, there’s no suggestion that the SPL intend to initiate this action, either by the Board or in a GM. If they choose to do so, this Article will certainly apply. Since I said in my post that I was not focussing on that article because there is no suggestion that the SPL will initiate a request, I don’t see how you can suggest that I intended to mislead.
Apologies for the length of the post and the fact that I have posted much of this previously.
I’m afraid that we will just have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the articles.
I don’t understand your reference to ‘initiate a request’. Are you suggesting that the transfer and registration of a share, following a sale of the club in administration or the entry into the SPL of a newco be can be achieved without the SPL (either the Board or all clubs) initiating some action in accordance with their own rules. The only situation where there is not active intervention is the normal promotion and relegation process. Even then there is a checkpoint to ensure that the prospective promoted club meets the SPL’s entry criteria, e.g. ground capacity, pitch protection or effectiveness of floodlights.
I’ve set out what I consider to be the relevant parts of the SPL articles to aid people’s understanding
’11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered. ‘
Looks to me like Article 11 is setting a condition of Board consent to the registration process.
’13. The Board shall refuse to register the transfer of a Share:-. ‘
Looks to me like Article 13 sets conditions on the Board registering a share. The Article goes on to list reasons why the Board may not register a share
’14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place. ‘
Looks to me like article 14 is the one which would apply to the transfer of a share from the oldco to a newco either following Administration or Liquidation.
May I also refer you to article 2 where it defines ‘Reserved Matters’
‘Reserved Matters means, except where otherwise expressly and to the extent provided in these Articles, those matters relating to the Company’s affairs which shall not be dealt with by the Board but which shall and may only be determined upon by the Members in General Meeting as follows; ‘
…… and goes on to specify those matters and the level of support required to pass such resolutions,……….including:
‘Special Qualified Resolutions (83%)
(e) any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion/relegation between the League and the SFL); ‘”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 11 541 62379 41 2/3/2012 21:26:0 easyJambo 97 5 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says: 02/03/2012 at 6:43 pm
Tom English still does not grasp the detail of the SPL rules and how they work?
He started off so well too with his comments on liquidation and expulsion from the league if the Hugh Adam allegations are found to be correct, only to let himself down on the SPL rules as you said.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 12 599 62443 49 2/3/2012 23:17:0 easyJambo 97 6 “Magic Circle says: 02/03/2012 at 10:12 pm
If RFC wants to transfer the share and approaches the SPL for consent, Art. 11 and 13 apply.
If the SPL says they’ve had enough, they want Rangers out of the SPL due to administration / whatever else, Art. 14 applies.
If both things happen at the same time, the SPL refuses permission to transfer the share and Art. 14 applies.
My last words on the subject
1. The share is held by the owner or operator of the club. I can accept that Articles 11 and 13 in isolation will apply with regard to an agreed sale of a club e.g. SDM’s sale of his controlling interest to Wavetower. All being well, that should be a rubber stamp exercise.
2. Why would the SPL want RFC or any other club out of the SPL if they were only seeking to exit administration. It is Article 14 that actually facilitates the sale of a club in administration, allowing it to continue as a going concern. If it is liquidated then Article 14 again applies, enabling the transfer of a share either to a team that would otherwise be relegated or to a newco. It enables the member clubs to have a say on whether of not the conditions for exiting Administration or the entry of a newco are acceptable. e.g. such conditions could be an agreed CVA or for a newco’s owner to agree to pay the oldcos debts to other clubs in full etc.
3. It is not the refusal of a transfer / registration that triggers the Article. It is the execution of each of the articles that determines either the acceptance of the transfer / registration or its refusal,”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 13 604 62449 4 2/3/2012 23:24:0 easyJambo 97 7 “guinnessjohn says: 02/03/2012 at 11:06 pm
Thanks for your concern. The thought of a previous incarnation had crossed my mind. However, being the nice guy that I am, I am prepared to inform or debate up to the point where an impasse is reached (which is now 😈 )”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 13 611 62457 11 2/3/2012 23:33:0 easyJambo 97 8 “The wage deferral proposal by the players is an odd one, but not surprising as a ploy to protect players’ interests.
My understanding is that any employee who is due wages becomes a preferred creditor when it comes to the realisation of assets to satisfy creditors, therefore the players would be paid in full before any distribution to unsecured creditors such as HMRC.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 15 702 62555 2 3/3/2012 10:8:0 easyJambo 97 9 “Magic Circle says: 03/03/2012 at 12:33 am
easyJambo says: 02/03/2012 at 11:17 pm
1. The share is held by the owner or operator of the club. I can accept that Articles 11 and 13 in isolation will apply with regard to an agreed sale of a club e.g. SDM’s sale of his controlling interest to Wavetower. All being well, that should be a rubber stamp exercise.
MC: SDM sold the shares in RFC to Wavetower. Art. 11 and 13 did not apply. There was no transfer of ownership of the SPL share ‘ it was and is still owned by RFC.
I think you are wrong again MC. Let’s try Article 6 re ownership of a share
‘6. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a Club and if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.’
NeilR says: 03/03/2012 at 12:20 am
I’m interested in your interpretation of Article 2 (e) as I had a similar discussion with ‘Adam’ some time back.
‘ ‘any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new
members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion / relegation between the League and the SFL)’

The use of the word ‘expansion’ certainly implies that Article applies if the League is becoming larger. It may be poor drafting, but the Article makes the distinction between ‘addition’ (making larger) and ‘admission’ (could make larger or remain the same). Why make that distinction?
As BJMAC67 pointed out, if a club is liquidated then there is no vacancy as there will be no relegation, therefore 2(e) would certainly apply if a newco was to be accommodated in addition to the 12 SPL teams. If a vacancy did become available, I would argue that 2(e) would still apply in terms of expansion by ‘admission’ to restore the numbers from 11 to 12.’
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 17 837 62695 37 3/3/2012 17:41:0 easyJambo 97 10 “Question – What jurisdiction des the SFA have over the SPL. I suspect that the SFA would not be able to tell the SPL to deduct points should Lord Nimmo Smith find that the takover was flawed, e.g. if CW was an unfit person. 😈
What measures can the SFA take? Fines? Withdraw their licence? I think that the withdrawal of the Euro licence for 3 years would be an appropriate sanction for that misdemeanour. The SFA would be seen as taking strong action, but with the knowledge that they probably wouldn’t be able to play in Europe for other reasons. It would be a win/win situation for the SFA
Once the dual contracts situation is investigated and, if RFC are found to be guilty, it would then be appropriate to to withdraw their licence for domestic football, thus they would be expelled from the league.
It leads me to thing that the best course of action for RFC is a quick liquidation and to start again. Even a 3 year period in the SFL sounds an attractive proposition with what could hit them if they survive as the current entity.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 18 893 62753 43 3/3/2012 20:46:0 easyJambo 97 11 “47,276 at Ibrox for today’s game. That’s 3,000 down on the Kinlmarnock game. I’ve a funny feeling that attendances will plummet once the league is decided.
I just don’t see many people willing to pay money to be swallowed up by the administarators or to pay off CW. The proposed £1M a month cuts might have to be extended further.”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 19 930 62791 30 3/3/2012 22:8:0 easyJambo 97 12 “paulmac says: 03/03/2012 at 10:02 pm
Tom Miller is his name and he also came up with another gem of a challenge being ‘Late as a Hearts pay cheque’ which I guess wouldn’t be quite as bad a challenge as ‘Late as the Rangeres PAYE cheque’ 🙂 ”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 24 1200 63063 50 4/3/2012 15:19:0 easyJambo 97 13 “For those who seek to compare the meritocracy of TV money distribution in the EPL with that in the SPL.
Top EPL team gets 1.65 times that of the bottom team
or – Botton team gets 65% of that of the top team
Top SPL team gets 3.78 times that of the bottom team
or – Bottom team gets 26% of that of the top team.
The EPL also accomodates 20 teams to the SPL’s 12 so the difference between the earnings of top and bottom in each league is even more marked. If you used the 12th place side in the EPL, you get the following:
Top EPL team gets 1.28 times that of the 12th team,
or – 12th placed team gets 78% of that of the top team”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 26 1261 63124 11 4/3/2012 19:13:0 easyJambo 97 14 “Barcabhoy says:
04/03/2012 at 6:31 pm
However If Dunfermline finish last in the SPL and Rangers do not go into liquidation before the season finishes, then Dunfermline will be relegated, and will no longer be a member of the SPL.
In those circumstances, there is NO relegated club who would be affected by any other club going into liquidation
A slightly different but equally valid interpretation would be that Dunfermline are relegated and are replaced by Ross County (assuming their ground can be upgraded and/or a temporary ground share is agreed with ICT). RFC are then liquidated and Dunfermline are restored to the SPL. As long as it happens before the start of next season, then it can happen, albeit there may have to be some fixture adjustments and some leeway given to DAFC with regard to U19/U20 League participation.
Should DAFC escape relegation because the SPL denies Ross County a place, then there would be a vacancy should RFC be liquidated. I’d suggest that the 2nd place team in Div 1 (Falkirk?) would have a strong case to take that place, rather than a newco (this could easily end up with a court case and an interim interdict preventing the SPL starting next season).”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 32 1599 63471 49 5/3/2012 14:20:0 easyJambo 97 15 “I’ve been going through the SFA rules to see what I could glean about 3rd party contracts. I haven’t been able to find anything in black and white (or even red white and blue), but Article 46 of the UEFA Licensing Criteris makes reference to company group structures. ‘ Auldheid is probably more familiar with this Article than me, but my interpretation would be that 3rd party contracts are ok within a group structure.

Article 46
The licence applicant must submit the overall legal group structure, presented in a chart, duly approved by management. This chart must include information on any subsidiary, any associated entity and any controlling entity up to the ultimate controlling parent company and ultimate controlling party. Any associated company or subsidiary of such parent must also be disclosed.
The legal group structure must clearly identify the entity which is the member of the Scottish FA and also mention the following for any subsidiary of the licence applicant :
a) name of legal entity
b) type of legal entity
c) information on main activity and any football activity
d) percentage of ownership interest (and, if different, percentage of voting power held)
e) share capital
f) total assets
g) total revenues
h) total equity.
The licence applicant determines the reporting perimeter, i. e. the entity of combination of entities in respect of which financial information (e. g. single entity, consolidated or combined financial statements) has to be provided.
Further requirements in respect of the reporting perimeter are contained in Annex 01 § 01.7 of Part 4.
All compensation paid to players arising from contractual or legal obligations, all costs/proceeds of acquiring/selling a player’s registration and all revenues arising from gate receipts must be accounted for in the books of one of the entities included in the reporting perimeter. ‘
While the 2nd paragraph defines the need to specifically identify the entity that is the SFA member, the last paragraph states that payments to players can be recorded in the books of any of the group companies. That suggests to me that a player contracted to ‘RFC Group’ is acceptable, as long as its accounts and the legal structure of its relationship with RFC PLC are provided to the SFA within the normal deadlines.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 33 1620 63492 20 5/3/2012 14:49:0 easyJambo 97 16 “campsiejoe says: 05/03/2012 at 2:34 pm
I think that you have to remember that this is a manufactured administration. With the Ticketus funds there should have more than enough money to see RFC through this season. The fact that the bulk of that money was used to pay off Lloyds demonstrates that the wellbeing of the club wasn’t CW’s first priority.
Despite the Ticketus fiasco, the non payment of PAYE should then have ensured that there were sufficient funds to see the club through to the end of the season, although HMRC’s push to appoint an administrator put the kybosh on that.
The mooted £4.5M shortfall again shouldn’t have been that difficult to achieve, but every day’s delay in implementing savings adds to the risk.
It should be immaterial to you or I if the Administrators agree to wage cuts or redundancies, as long as the savings are made. You may have a desire to see players go, but if they agree to accept a wage cut then that is their choice.
With regard to DAFC, it is not unusual to administrators to agree to pay all small creditors in full, but only a portion of the large creditors’ debts. However, is does seem an amazing coincidence that the agreement to pay the debt to DAFC came on the day when John Yorkston expressed reservation about voting for a newco following liquidation.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 33 1622 63494 22 5/3/2012 14:55:0 easyJambo 97 17 “scapa says: 05/03/2012 at 2:46 pm
Thanks for the other reference to the ‘third party’, but I think that a legally constituted parent / child company relationship may not be deemed as a third party based on my reading of UEFA Licensing Article 46.”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 33 1642 63515 42 5/3/2012 15:17:0 easyJambo 97 18 “campsiejoe says: 05/03/2012 at 3:04 pm
I agree, but the main point I was trying to make is that there wasn’t a huge gap between total known income and expenditure this season.
I’ve said it before that Administration is just a distraction on the lead up to the main event.
Top of the bill (pun intended) is the Big Tax Case.
The undercard includes:
2nd contracts
SFA/SPL complicity
Criminal investigations
Administration is just a matinee performance.”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 34 1656 63530 6 5/3/2012 15:42:0 easyJambo 97 19 “Mark Barry says: 05/03/2012 at 3:23 pm
easyJambo says:05/03/2012 at 3:17 pm
Top act must Shirley be the 2nd contracts. Can be no way back from there…total humiliation for ‘The Brand’
To carry on the boxing analogy
The ‘Heavyweight’ BTC will probably prove to be a mismatch in HMRC’s favour.
The best entertainment may welll be the ‘Final Eliminator’ 2nd Contracts contest that could see both RFC k.o’d and the SFA disqualified for being party to match fixing.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 34 1700 63575 50 5/3/2012 17:3:0 easyJambo 97 20 “Max B Gold says: 05/03/2012 at 4:15 pm
If the CW £18m ‘loan’ to RFC (IA) that Wavetower lent them from the Ticketus money can be voided then is there only the BTC debt, estimated by RTC to come in at a mere £26m plus the £15m VAT, PAYE & NIC backlog. If so, the debt becomes manageable if a CVA can be agreed.
Say full payment of the £15m right away by the new owners and say the balance over 5 years. Ticketus have already said they are happy to provide finance and the new owners would inherit a club with a drastically reduced cost base which may just about break even.
All of a sudden liquidation is looking less real. Please tell me I’m bang wrong.
Your recollection of what RTC estimated is wrong
On 29th Feb he said Until the Big Tax Case is determined (I expect it to rule against RFC for about £36m) there is almost no chance of a CVA.
Only the principal sum is being considered by the FTT. The appropriate level of Interest will be added to that figure, then a penalty will be applied. The penalty element can still be appealed assuming it hasn’t been appealed already.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 36 1751 63627 1 5/3/2012 18:45:0 easyJambo 97 21 “rangerstaxcase says: 05/03/2012 at 5:57 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I quoted the £36M from your own post on 29th Feb. My assumption was that the the £36M would be your estimate of what the FTT would deem to be liable from the principal sum plus interest.
I am am aware that the penalty figure would be in addition to this.
It might be worth reminding people that the figure the comes out of the FTT will not include the penalty, as I’m sure that some people may see a headline figure of £36M and report it as a partial success for RFC, thinking that the £49M was being ruled upon by the FTT.
Incidentally, the widely reported figure of £49M came from the Bain papers. I’m guessing that this number may not be 100% accurate and should also be increased with the application of further interest.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 36 1777 63653 27 5/3/2012 19:35:0 easyJambo 97 22 “the Don Dionisio says: 05/03/2012 at 7:18 pm
STV seem to think that a 90% vote of members is required to admit a newco and John Yorkston also seems to think he has a vote on the issue.
‘We have a different view if they go into administration and come out of that. But if they go into liquidation, would we vote for them?’
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 38 1851 63727 1 5/3/2012 22:27:0 easyJambo 97 23 “the Don Dionisio says: 05/03/2012 at 7:55 pm
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I do have a life away from the blog ….. honestly 🙂
I don’t think the that ‘bribe’ changes anything for DAFC. They will vote in self interest for something that will guarantee them maybe £1.5M in prize money / gate receipts. I’m sure that the SPL would have given them the money from RFC’s merit payment at the end of the season in any event.
With the regard to my reading of the SPL Articles, I’m settled in my own mind that the clubs need to vote for a newco, rather than just the Board, despite the alternative views posted by NeilR, Magic Circle and some in the media. I am at as loss to understand the purpose of Article 14 if it is not to deal with the insolvency of a member club in circumstances such as these. I believe that the conditions specified in Article 14 ii) have already been met by RFC’s administration. If they are liquidated, then Article 14 i) will also be met. Both conditions require an 83% vote of the clubs to effect the transfer of a share to a new owner.
’14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place.’
Note that it is normally the owner / operator of a club who holds the share, not the club itself. As the operators of the club are now the lesser spotted Duffers, then they come under the jurisdiction and direction of the SPL under the above article.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 39 1909 63788 9 6/3/2012 1:6:0 easyJambo 97 24 “the Don Dionisio says: 05/03/2012 at 10:52 pm
Just back from my local refreshment tent 🙂
A couple of extracts from the SPL articles:
‘Member means a person who or which is the holder of a Share;’
‘6. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a Club and if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.’
The only possible contradictory reference is one of the conditions in Article 13 (which is the one Magic Circle used), where the lack of consent of the Board to a share transfer is given as a reason for not registering the transfer. Article 11 also states that the Board must consent to the ‘registration’ of a share.

13. The Board shall refuse to register the transfer of a Share:-
(iii) except where the transfer arises on promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL, the consent of the Board has not been given to the transfer;
I believe that articles 11 and 13 ordinarily apply when there is a change of ownership that is not connected with an insolvency event.
I also believe that that Board consent would automatically follow a positive vote of the member clubs to the extent that Article 14 would supersede Article 13 in an insolvency situation.
There is also the question of ‘Reserved matters’ which must be put to a vote of the full membership in a General Meeting. Among the reserved matters are ‘the expulsion of is the ‘expansion’ of the league by the addition or admission of new members””
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 39 1910 63789 10 6/3/2012 1:8:0 easyJambo 97 25 “Oops – hit the wrong button – the last sentence should read:- Among the reserved matters are ‘the expulsion of a club from the league (90%) and the ‘expansion’ of the league by the addition or admission of new members’ (83%)”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 42 2081 63963 31 6/3/2012 13:2:0 easyJambo 97 26 “Auldheid says: 06/03/2012 at 11:57 am
Listening to Donacster on Talksport he has not been clear on who actually votes a Newco into the SPL. He said the SPL Board but this has to be questioned and clarified.
Keys and Gray summed it up as Newco starting back in the SPL, they are ignorant of the values issues (being so steeped in the business end it is like explaining a charity flag purchase to a merchant banker) but this whole MSM idea that an SPL parachute is a foregone conclusion has to be challenged at every step.
Clarity from Doncaster would help.
I heard the same exchange, and Doncaster said the rules were clear. I would like to ask him which of the SPL’s articles makes it clear. Obviously what he said this morning is contrary to the interpretation I have given over the last couple of days. I wish the pundits were a bit better clued up in being able to ask the right questions.
Similary with the question of removal of titles posed to Sir Waldo, when they allowed him to talk about the current administration, rather than answer a point about historical irregularities.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 43 2108 63990 8 6/3/2012 13:32:0 easyJambo 97 27 “Looks like STV are contradicting Doncaster’s statement on Board approval for a newco entry.
‘Who decides?
A ‘company in general’ meeting would be held, involving representatives from the remaining 11 member clubs of the league. A qualified resolution would have to be passed via a 90% majority vote, or ten out of 11 clubs, before the matter is referred to the board for a final decision.
The SPL board consists of Ralph Topping (SPL chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). Topping has the casting vote in the event of a split decision.
Providing final approval is granted, the share will be sold to the newco for £1. The old club will immediately cease to be a member of the SPL, and the newco would become a member in its place.

Seems that STV at least believes that Article 14 applies. There is still some ambigity in the rules in that Article 14 requires a Qualified Resolution (90%) while Article 38 which covers the addition or admission of new members requires a Special Qualified Resolution (83%)”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 45 2217 64101 17 6/3/2012 17:29:0 easyJambo 97 28 “Tweet from James Cook – BBC
Graffiti has been daubed on Castle Grant, #Rangers’ owner Craig Whyte’s Moray retreat: ‘Celic (sic) 1888. We shall not be moved.’ #RFC
More spelling lessons required for the GB methinks”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 51 2504 64392 4 7/3/2012 0:49:0 easyJambo 97 29 “I don’t intend to repeat my arguements in favour of Articles 2(e), 14, 38, 66 and Rule H5, but if a vacancy was to become available as a result of the demise of RFC, then there would be no impediment to any other team applying to fill the void. That could mean Dunfermline (relegated), Falkirk (2nd in SFL Div1) competing alongside a newco Govan Taxdodgers FC or even Dukla Pumpherston Sawmill & Tannery for the vacant place.
I wonder who could put up the strongest case of having a valid business case, a history of membership of the SFA and SPL and financial propriety, either an established team or a newco wearing the Emperors New Clothes.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 52 2562 64454 12 7/3/2012 9:42:0 easyJambo 97 30 “I’ve given a bit more thought to what Doncaster said last night and he could technically be right in what he says, but I think we are dealing with semantics. It can be argued that he Board does have the final say under Article 11, but it is not over the transfer of the share, it is only the final step of the process of registering the share.
11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered.
I believe that the transfer of the share is still under control of all member clubs, primarily under Article 14, supported by the Articles on Reserved Matters, 2(e), 38 and 66.
I remain firmly of the view that the clubs will vote on the matter, before the Board rubber stamps the decision by registering the transfer.”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 52 2565 64457 15 7/3/2012 9:49:0 easyJambo 97 31 “tigertim says: 07/03/2012 at 9:30 am
There are a several sanctions that the SFA could (threaten to) take which would force the issue. Withhold payment of grants due to RFC, e.g. for the running of Murray Park. A ban on their participation in next season’s Scottish Cup. Withdraw their licence to play at all.
Spartans were thrown out this season’s Scottish Cup because one player’s contract was signed only once instead of twice. A much more serious sanction would seem appropriate in this case.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 52 2567 64459 17 7/3/2012 9:53:0 easyJambo 97 32 “Dave King now saying that Liquidation is inevitable and he is threatening to sue SDM.
Every day we get a new slant on the mess. It’s breathtaking.”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 52 2576 64469 26 7/3/2012 10:12:0 easyJambo 97 33 “Dave King Statement here
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 55 2721 64614 21 7/3/2012 14:8:0 easyJambo 97 34 “NeilR says: 07/03/2012 at 1:17 pm
We have another ‘unknown’ at this time, but one that should be resolved by 31st March. That is whether or not Ross County will be able to satisfy the SPL with respect to regulations on ground criteria (6,000 seats under cover) or if an acceptable ground share is possible e.g. with ICT.
If Ross County are denied promotion on that basis, then Dunfermline would be reprieved in any event and a subsequent liquidation of RFC would create a vacancy in the SPL.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 56 2795 64692 45 7/3/2012 16:17:0 easyJambo 97 35 “Duff & Duffer (c) Statement
Duff & Phelps, the Administrators of Rangers Football Club, today issued the following statement.
David Whitehouse, Joint Administrator, said: ‘We are announcing today we are accelerating the sale of Rangers Football Club.
‘The Club is in a perilous financial situation and that should not be under-estimated. Regrettably, we have been unable to agree cost-cutting measures with the playing staff on terms that will preserve value in the business. We understand the players’ position as the scale of wage cuts required to achieve these savings without job losses were very substantial indeed.
‘In view of this, we are faced with a situation of making redundancies within the playing staff on such a scale that would materially erode the value of the playing squad. We are striving to strike a balance where cost-cutting measures can be implemented but do not destroy the fabric of the playing squad to the extent that it will inhibit the prospect of a sale.
‘However, no one should be in any doubt that in the absence of sufficient cost-cutting measures or receipt of substantial unplanned income, the Club will not be able to fulfil its fixtures throughout the remainder of the season.
‘As a result, we are expediting the sale process and over the next few days we will be holding discussions with prospective purchasers who have declared their interest. The Manager, Ally McCoist will play an integral part in thesediscussions.
‘If however it becomes apparent that the sale process cannot be accelerated there will be no choice but to implement very severe cost cutting measures at the Club.'”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 56 2798 64695 48 7/3/2012 16:19:0 easyJambo 97 36 “The first suggestion from D & D that they could go out of business before the end of the season”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 57 2824 64722 24 7/3/2012 16:44:0 easyJambo 97 38 “lurchingfrompillartopost says: 07/03/2012 at 4:35 pm
Liquidation is the only option.
It will remove CW, all the current debts, Ticketus, the BTC, the SFA/SPL 2nd contract investigations, the SFA fit and proper investigation, accounts deadlines or disclosures.
I don’t think the MSM and the Bears have realised that 3 years working up the leagues is a small penalty to pay to get rid of all of the above.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 57 2827 64725 27 7/3/2012 16:49:0 easyJambo 97 39 “TW (@tartanwulver) says: 07/03/2012 at 4:38 pm
Savings of £1M a month was achievable by dumping the higher earners immediately. That is what Administrators have to do in order to balance income and expenditure. Once the business is trading on at least a break even basis, they can then look at selling the business with a CVA.
If they can make the business trade without losing money, then they have to pull the plug and realise the assets to pay off creditors.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 58 2854 64752 4 7/3/2012 17:11:0 easyJambo 97 40 “The SPL if RFC’s results are expunged (11 teams and no relegation):
1. Celtic 72
2. Motherwell 51
3. Dundee Utd 40
4. St Johnstone 39
5. Hearts 35
6. Aberdeen 32
7. Kilmarnock 27
8. St Mirren 27
9. Inverness CT 27
10. Hibernian 23
11. Dunfermline 19
Teams losing out are:
Kilmarnock -6
Hearts -4
St Mirren -4
Celtic -3
Aberdeen -1
St Johnstone -1″
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 58 2870 64768 20 7/3/2012 17:24:0 easyJambo 97 41 ” 🙂 I’ll bow to your superior knowledge of insolvency processes, although I am aware that there is no prospect of a CVA in RFC’s case.”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 58 2871 64769 21 7/3/2012 17:25:0 easyJambo 97 42 “The above was a response to Derek ….”

Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 58 2883 64781 33 7/3/2012 17:42:0 easyJambo 97 43 “peterankin says: 07/03/2012 at 5:35 pm
‘If a Company Voluntary Arrangement is not possible for any particular reason, any buyer of the Club and its assets would complete that purchase through a sale by the Administrators allowing the Football Club to continue to operate with the old company then being placed into liquidation prior to dissolution.’
That is the situation with a normal business where a newo would take ownership of the assets and allowing the oldco to be liquidated. However the football club would no longer have a licence as it is not transferable.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 59 2915 64813 15 7/3/2012 18:30:0 easyJambo 97 44 “SFA Article 16

16. It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited save as otherwise provided in this Article 16.
Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as
the Board may think fit.’
UEFA Club Licensing

3.3.1 UEFA Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another.'”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 60 2991 64891 41 7/3/2012 20:15:0 easyJambo 97 45 “There is a lengthy interview with one of the Duffers on Rangers TV (free to view)
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 61 3022 64922 22 7/3/2012 20:55:0 easyJambo 97 46 “the taxman cometh says: 07/03/2012 at 8:16 pm
The season tickets should have been cancelled, RFC should pay their way to the end of the season ‘ they don’t do walking away apparently ‘ 54000 paying customers would do it
Has anyone asked duff n duffer WHY they did not void the season tickets?
The short answer is that they can’t. Around 70% of the tickets are ‘owned’ by Ticketus. If they were not honoured, then Ticketus would have a claim against the administrators. They could void the other 30%, but are probably unable to identify those with Ticketus STs and those with RFC STs. It would cause a bit of animosity in the stands if they tried such a stunt.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 61 3032 64933 32 7/3/2012 21:24:0 easyJambo 97 47 “the taxman cometh says: 07/03/2012 at 9:13 pm
AFAIK 27000 for this season are tcketus and they have been paid in full- June 2011 if they were voided and sold again it would not affect ticketus
Despite all the shenanigans with CW, Ticketus effectively bought the tickets from RFC. Ticketus sold them on to the supporters (via RFC outlets). RFC eventually paid the money received onto Ticketus. It is therefore Ticketus who provide the service (a seat at all home SPL games) to that group of supporters. i.e the contract for delivery of the service is now between Ticketus and the Supporters, and not RFC.”
Time For Leadership at SFA & SPL 61 3041 64942 41 7/3/2012 21:32:0 easyJambo 97 48 “Hugh McEwan says: 07/03/2012 at 9:21 pm
I don’t think that’s right ej
A load of tickets were sold on behalf of Ticketus, who were supposed to get £9.5m
They only got £3.5m, the other £6m was converted to tickets in season 4. ( I am told the discount for those was 50%)
So the administrators can’t cancel them as creditors because those people aren’t actually Rangers’ creditors. If anything they would be Ticketus creditors, but only if the tickets weren’t honoured.
Hugh – you’ve now got me confused. You are agreeing with me.
I was making the same argument as you, only I described it in different terms from youself..”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 9 442 65516 42 8/3/2012 18:18:0 easyJambo 165 1 “The easy option for the SFA is simply to blame Whyte for all the issues that RFC have been charged with. If that is the case then a lifetime ban would be the only practical sanction.
I suspect that the blame will be shared between Whyte and RFC. Certainly if they are found guilty of retaining funds due to DUFC, then they should be banned from next season’s Scottish Cup. Beyond that, the only financial penalty would be the withdrawal of various grants that go the the club for development, which is some ways would defeat the purposes of youth development.
As far as the accounting breaches are concerned, a withdrawal of UEFA or domestic licences for a period would be appropriate.
If (When) RFC go into liquidation, The SFA can be as harsh as they want as there will be no club to suffer the punishment, but it would act as a deterrent to others.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 11 538 65613 38 8/3/2012 20:23:0 easyJambo 165 2 “Re CW having no security – I think that the MSM is again misrepresenting what Paul Clark said in answer to Al Lamont.
I’ve transcribed what he did say, and added my own emphasis where there remains uncertainty.

I think, from what I understand, there is very little benefit that is likely to be made available to Craig Whyte. There’s no obvious signs or information or clarification that we’ve seen that would suggest that he’s actually, personally, put any money into Rangers Football club and therefore, I don’t see at the moment that he has secured creditor status
…………….in all likelihood, while there is a security that remains on the public record, in favour of Craig Whyte, my view is that that security has no value.

i.e. There remains, on public record, a security in favour of Craig Whyte. The Administrators or other parties will have to litigate to have that changed, unless CW accepts either that he no longer has a claim, or for him to voluntarily withdraw it.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 11 549 65624 49 8/3/2012 20:40:0 easyJambo 165 3 “longtimelurker says: 08/03/2012 at 8:30 pm
EJ, does it not just mean that CW doesn’t have secured status but that one of his companies does?
My interpretation is that the Administrators believe the Ticketus funding staisfied the debt owed by RFC to Group/Wavetower in respect of the former Lloyds debt.
The public record remains exactly that, until someone comes up with documentation or a legal ruling that the debt has been satisfied.
I will have to listen again to the ‘red herring’ reference.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 12 570 65645 20 8/3/2012 21:6:0 easyJambo 165 4 “The ‘Red Herring’ quote from Paul Clark

Well, I think that I’ve said previously that it’s a little bit of a red herring because, the big tax case, we still don’t unfortunately know the amount that will become due. We’re still awaiting the decision but the effect is that there will be a compromise or some scheme or deal put in place to settle that and that may be over a period of time. I don’t think the actual extent of it needs deter potential buyers.
…….. so long as an appropriate compromise can be arranged with HMRC there could be, to not necessarily pay the debt in full. I don’t see why that should be an obstacle. So I think that’s something when we get the parties into the final stages that would undoubtedly involve some discussions with HMRC to see how that debt can be dealt with

He is making a very major assumption that HMRC will do a deal. Personally, I think he should be talking to HMRC first, rather than the prospective buyers, to establish what HMRC would agree to, or insist upon. The situation appears to be that a potential buyer will come in with a plan for a CVA to put to creditors. HMRC will block it and then we are back to to the liquidation option. Result – Time and money down the drain.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 12 600 65676 50 8/3/2012 21:47:0 easyJambo 165 5 “VITAL Signs says: 08/03/2012 at 9:27 pm
I’m aware of both sides of the argument as to whether or not CW (‘Group’) retains the secured creditor status and if he does for what sum.
As I said earlier the security remains on public record with no sign of it having been satisfied. My personal belief is that the administrators or another party will have to go to court to get a ruling on whether or not the security has been satisfied and to what extent.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 13 612 65688 12 8/3/2012 21:59:0 easyJambo 165 6 “v says:
08/03/2012 at 9:56 pm
0 0 i Rate This
Does spl membership mean an automatic licence from the sfa?
I think I read that on here a while ago but I may have dreamt it
Well remembered. SPL Rule H13
Membership of League confers Membership of SFA
H13 In accordance with the SFA Articles and to the extent that it is not already a full or associate member of SFA, membership of the League confers registered membership of the SFA.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 13 627 65703 27 8/3/2012 22:24:0 easyJambo 165 7 “StevieBC says: 08/03/2012 at 10:15 pm
I would take it at face value. However I believe that the references to the SFA articles etc mean that any club coming into the SPL without first being a member of the SFA would still have to abide by the SFA’s Articles, Rules, Licensing criteria etc.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 13 641 65717 41 8/3/2012 22:50:0 easyJambo 165 8 “Something that just occurred to me regarding the appointment of the adminstrators.
I recall it being reported that the briefs engaged by RFC had argued that they had the authority of the Floating Charge holder in seeking the appointment of D&P as administrators.
Assuming that it was CW who was claiming to be in possession of the Floating Charge, could he be guilty of an offence of misleading the court if the Floating Charge is subsquently shown to have been satisfied back in May 2011, by way of the Ticketus deal.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 13 646 65722 46 8/3/2012 22:54:0 easyJambo 165 9 “VITAL Signs says: 08/03/2012 at 10:33 pm
I still have an open mind on whether or not the Floating Charge would stand up in court. I’m neither qualified or sufficiently knowledgeable to express an opinion.
However I do agree with your assessment of CW.”

Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 14 652 65728 2 8/3/2012 23:8:0 easyJambo 165 10 “Just watch out for Neil Doncaster saying that admitting Newco RFC to the SPL is in the best interests of the creditors. He will make the argument on the basis that the sale of the oldco’s assets would achieve a much greater sum with SPL membership thrown in than it would if the newco was consigned to applying for SFL membership..”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 16 782 65865 32 9/3/2012 9:31:0 easyJambo 165 11 “All the spin in today’s papers seem to emanate to yesterday’s Al Lamont interview with Paul Clark, whose comments appear to contradict what was told to a London court the day before.
I have a tendency to have more belief in what is told to a judge (CW excepted) than what is told to reporters.
I sense that the remission perceived by many bears this morning will be short lived and they will find that RFC remains terminally ill.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 19 936 66022 36 9/3/2012 13:37:0 easyJambo 165 12 “I think that far too much is being read into what the ’10’ may or may not do at this stage. My personal view is that there are diverse views within the ’10’ and the meeting is simply to get the issues on the table. However, I am disappointed that Celtic either has not been invited or has declined an invitation, as they have to be party to any decisions going forward.
I understand where Paul at CQN is coming from but his article comes across in a very negative way by failing to acknowledge the financial inequalities that currently exist within the Scottish game. It would have helped his argument if he indicated a willingness for Celtic to negotiate a compromise agreement with the other 10 that included the refusal of any direct entry of a newco iton the SPL.
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 19 944 66030 44 9/3/2012 13:51:0 easyJambo 165 13 “I see that both BBC and STV are citing that Article 11 provides the SPL Board with the authority to decide on the admission of a newco in isolation. I can only assume that both organisations have been briefed by the SPL on this as, earlier in the week, STV was reporting that all clubs have a vote.
I still maintain that Article 11 only gives the Board the final say in the ‘registration’ of the transfer, not the transfer itself. Articles 2(e), 14, 38 and 66 all suggest that the Board must refer such decisions to a meeting of all the clubs.”

Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 20 993 66080 43 9/3/2012 15:16:0 easyJambo 165 14 “Auldheid says: 09/03/2012 at 3:06 pm
I’m with you and I won’t be back watching any SPL games if a newco is admitted (with or without entry penalties) …….. and that’s from someone who has had a season ticket for more than 25 years.”
Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 22 1098 66186 48 9/3/2012 17:4:0 easyJambo 165 15 “jocky bhoy says: 09/03/2012 at 4:41 pm
Therein lies the conundrum. Despite only two teams having a chance of winning the league, increased live TV, early kick offs, Friday, Sunday and Monday matches, each ‘diddy’ team still has a core support that continues to attend games in decent numbers. If there is no RFC, will those people suddenly disappear.
If Celtic fans get bored by regular success, or seek pastures new, then so be it. The majority of fans of the ‘diddy’ teams would be glad to see them go.
In the short life of the SPL, (this is the 14th season) 18 teams have participated. Take away the big two and seven different sides out the sixteen would have won the league. (Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen, Motherwell, Dundee Utd, St Johnstone and Livingston).
Now that would be a competitive league, with most teams going into the season, thinking this could be our year. There would be no 20-30 point gap in 1st to 2nd, or 2nd to 3rd. That is the sort of league to which we should aspire and one that would attract more paying customers.”

Rangers Deathwatch Q&A 23 1109 66217 9 9/3/2012 17:14:0 easyJambo 165 16 “New RTC blog up http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/its-a-deal/#respond&#8221;
It’s A Deal 1 29 66233 29 9/3/2012 17:28:0 easyJambo 28 1 “The lesser spotted Campbell Ogilvie is about to break cover.
He is making the semi-final draw for the Scottish Cup on Sunday after the Motherwell v Aberdeen game, along with Andy Watson.”
It’s A Deal 1 46 66254 46 9/3/2012 17:43:0 easyJambo 28 2 “See the report on today’s Port Vale administration http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17213691
HMRC have stuck to their now standard position
‘HMRC told BBC Sport that they would not discuss individual cases, but said all clubs have a responsibility to pay their taxes on time.
‘Any business that regards paying tax as an optional extra after other expenses are met, or that uses tax collected from employees or customers as working capital, is potentially heading for trouble,’ said HMRC.
‘It is only fair to those clubs and to other taxpayers who do meet their obligations that HMRC enforces payment of tax debts owed – and if need be, issues a winding up petition or seeks to appoint an administrator.
‘There is little HMRC can do for a business – be it a football club or not – whose viability is dependent either on not paying the UK taxes to which they are liable, or on special treatment not available to other customers with similar tax affairs.’
It’s A Deal 12 575 66829 25 10/3/2012 21:57:0 easyJambo 28 3 “The full text of Jim Spence’s discussions with unnamed SPL club representatives
‘SPL 10 not pursuing shared gate money
By Jim Spence BBC Scotland
An upcoming meeting of the 10 non-Old Firm Scottish Premier League clubs will not discuss a return to the sharing of gate money.
While a more even distribution of income is on the agenda, the sharing of gate receipts has never been discussed, according to one chairman.
‘That is not what we want,’ he told BBC Scotland.
‘We want money to be distributed better and money going into the division below for the benefit of all.’
Around £1m is the figure the clubs have in mind to pay to the 10 clubs in an SPL2, should such a second tier be established.
Asked why Celtic and Rangers had not been invited to the meeting, the chairman said: ‘It’s not all about Celtic and it’s not all about Rangers.
‘They have wanted out of the league for the last five years.
‘Its not all about them. We need to look after all of us. I want change for the rest of Scottish football to benefit.’
The same source also admitted that he thought that the top league could survive without Rangers, who are currently in administration.
Referring to the SPL’s current television deal and the possibility of only one half of the Old Firm on offer, he said: ‘I think everyone knows that they [Rangers] will exist.’
But he added: ‘All deals are negotiable. I think we can survive with one of them on a lesser TV deal.’
Another SPL source pondered the likelihood of a top flight without Rangers next season.
‘It’s difficult to imagine it,’ he replied. ‘But if they were applying as a ‘newco’ we would need to see a very robust business plan for the future and we would need certain assurances.
‘There would also probably have to be penalties for a few seasons.’ ‘
As I suggested yesterday, it appears that there are diverse views among the 10 and the meeting will allow those view to be aired. However, I wouldn’t expect much in the way of an agreed agenda for change coming out.”
It’s A Deal 18 898 67161 48 11/3/2012 20:34:0 easyJambo 28 4 “the Don Dionisio says:11/03/2012 at 7:52 pm
The confirmation that the properties were owned by RFC PLC was in the first Press Conference. See my post from the time.
It’s A Deal 22 1062 67337 12 12/3/2012 10:41:0 easyJambo 28 5 “I haven’t posted much over the last few days as we appear to be in a phoney war situation, which won’t really erupt until the BTC decision is published. I have however been keeping up to date by reading all the posts and reflecting on some of the pre and post administration postings.
There are many intelligent, knowledgeable or well informed posters on the blog, so much so that I think that it is reasonable to assume that there are some posts coming directly from RFC’s PR team.
Prior to administration the main subject matter was about RFC’s Accounts and how long their cashflow could last. We had ‘Adam’ with his accounting knowledge and ‘Curious Onlooker’ as his sidekick giving us their good bluenose, bad bluenose impressions. Adam certainly did seem to be well informed in the early stages and gave us some alternative cash figures which turned out to be pretty accurate, much more so than those suggested by Phil Mac and others.
It may now be the case that post administration that the Accountancy expertise has now been replaced by Insolvency experts. I have two posters in mind, Vital Signs and Magic Circle, who both joined the debate after the Administrators were put in place in mid February, but quickly established a rapport in support of the Administrators position primarily with regard to the floating charge. It’s a stance that has been reported widely in the MSM, most likely fed by RFC’s PR assuming that it is still in place. This time the personas are a Celtic fan (VS) and a neutral (MC)
The two appear to adopt the same patterns of posting as Adam and Curious Onlooker of back to back blocks of posts but not having direct conversations post by post. Saturday evening was an example when we had (approx times) 7.00-8:00 VS, 8:00-8:30 MC, 8:30-9:00 VS, 9:30-10:00 MC. I’m sure that pattern has been repeated by them previously, but it’s a bit too much bother to check back.
I’ve no issue with either of the two posters and they are free to post as they wish. Their arguments have certainly gained some traction with posters of longer standing. If I am wrong in my assessment of their purpose, then I apologise unreservedly, but I am only expressing my opinion. However I will retain a neutral view of their arguments for the moment.”
It’s A Deal 23 1125 67401 25 12/3/2012 13:40:0 easyJambo 28 6 “Worthington’s statement to the AIM Stock exchange re possible misuse of company funds by RFC
It’s A Deal 23 1150 67427 50 12/3/2012 15:6:0 easyJambo 28 7 “I have no intention of getting into a debate with Magic Circle about his role. He may well be proved correct in his judgement of how things unfold, but I will continue to keep an open mind.
We all have our own desired outcomes and/or agendas. As Magic Circle is entitled to his, I am entitled to mine.”
It’s A Deal 24 1183 67461 33 12/3/2012 16:0:0 easyJambo 28 8 “the hitch22 (@john_mityboosh) says: 12/03/2012 at 3:30 pm
Most players contracts will go to the end of June, so they have the potential to save £3.5M to save over 3.5 months, i.e. at £1M a month.
As you say for 20 players, the average savings would have to be £50K a month. If that was achieved at 75% reductions, then the average monthly wage would be £66.67K or expressed as a weekly wage £15.4K. Is that reasonable? It might just about be possible if there were maybe 25 players and another 5 coaching staff involved in the reductions.
RTC indicated that the wage bill on the footballing side was around £1.75M per month before bonuses, when he first raised the issue of non payment of PAYE late last year. That would give a wage bill of £21M p.a. Divide that by 30 and you get an average £700K per annum or £14K a week.
Given that Jelavic, Wylde and Celik have gone the required level of savings could just about be achieved.”

It’s A Deal 24 1187 67465 37 12/3/2012 16:14:0 easyJambo 28 9 “scapa says: 12/03/2012 at 4:05 pm
I agree. The walk up attendance may well disappear very rapidly once the league is officially won. I don’t know what attendances they are projecting, but a loss of 5K on a crowd could easily cost them around £150K a per game between tickets, programmes and refreshments.”

It’s A Deal 25 1242 67521 42 12/3/2012 19:24:0 easyJambo 28 10 “RTC being fairly explicit in his latest tweet to Tom English 🙂
Rangers Tax-Case‏@rangerstaxcase
@TomEnglishSport If you want a lead on a good story, ask Campbell Ogilvie if he benefited from RFC/MIH EBT & how much he withdrew?”
It’s A Deal 29 1408 67695 8 13/3/2012 10:18:0 easyJambo 28 11 “Re Jabba on Sportsound last night.
The relevant part of the podcast is from 7’05’ to 8’05’
I think that Mark is misrepresenting what Jabba said. He said that you can’t rip apart sporting integrity, but he believes that a decision will be made on financial gounds. He also stated that he thought the a newco should start in Div 3”
It’s A Deal 29 1416 67703 16 13/3/2012 10:35:0 easyJambo 28 12 “Mark Dickson says: 13/03/2012 at 10:25 am
I think that ‘iki’ got it spot on in the post following your’s.”

It’s A Deal 29 1425 67712 25 13/3/2012 10:53:0 easyJambo 28 13 “Interesting series of tweets from Alex Thomson of Channel 4
#rangers SFA say President Campbell Ogilvie is ‘distancing himself from the current Rangers investigation’ but did not explain how.
SFA told #c4news Campbell Ogilvie ‘did not know’ about EBT contract when he was Rangers FC secretary?
When we asked why not – thaty was his job – SFA said they didn’t know.
SFA say their President and fmr Ranger secretary Campbell Ogilvie will not be interviewed by c4news about what he knew…
SFA say their President Campbell Ogilvie ‘has no plans to stand aside from his job pending current Rangers probes…
and one from yesterday:
SPL told me today they won’t publish decision till Tax judge reports – waiting on that – yeah?”
It’s A Deal 29 1431 67718 31 13/3/2012 11:2:0 easyJambo 28 14 “It gets better from Alex Thomson 🙂
Interesting SFA have just accused me of ‘lying’, ‘pig-headedness’ and then put the phone down mid-conversation….
all because I put their own statement back to them that Campbell Ogilvie denied knowing about EBTs at Rangers…
And suggested there might be a perceived conflict of interest in his current position until the investigations are complete”

It’s A Deal 29 1446 67733 46 13/3/2012 11:21:0 easyJambo 28 15 “I think there is a perfect storm brewing and it’s heading in the direction of the SFA and SPL offices. However, it is probably going to take the English based media to expose the corruption or collusion, as no-one in the Scottish media will do so until they see safety in numbers.
Both footballing authorities have had the opportunity to be open and transparent about their concerns and investigations, and to advise on what form sanctions would be appropriate should any allegations be proved.
They have put their collective fingers in their ears and are gailly singing la, la, la, la while their foundations are slowly being undermined. When the perfect storm hits they will be blown away.
Had they moved quickly in response to developing stories, then much of the flak they are now receiving would have been taken by the callaborators in this, e.g. SDM, CW, CO etc.
Regan and Doncaster personally may survive this, but the organisations were governing will have no credibility going forward.”
It’s A Deal 30 1457 67744 7 13/3/2012 11:30:0 easyJambo 28 16 “It’s my guess that Alex Thomson has been talking to the SFA’s PR man, Daryl Broadfoot. I could be wrong though. …………..
Daryl says ‘Stewart, Campbell ….. lets get these wagons circled’ 🙂 ”
It’s A Deal 30 1472 67759 22 13/3/2012 11:37:0 easyJambo 28 17 “Johnboy says: 13/03/2012 at 11:27 am
I’ve discussed this previously and from discussions I’ve had on the subject with senior employees at Hearts, I’m certain that Hearts haven’t used EBTs, but may have been guilty of making offshore payments to some players. If that is what did happen, my guess would be that it occurred with the multitude of loan deals between Kaunas and Hearts in the early Vlad years.
There are all sorts of questions to be asked of Hearts and I’m sure they will be in due course about the possiblity of players having two contracts, not being registered to pay tax in the UK, or the legal and footballing controls on making offshore payments.”
It’s A Deal 30 1477 67764 27 13/3/2012 11:46:0 easyJambo 28 18 “Night Terror says: 13/03/2012 at 11:36 am
Anyone liking James Traynor yet?
Go easy with such comments please. You don’t have to like someone to agree with him. 🙂
I think it is becoming abundantly clear that Traynor is coming round to the thinking of most people on this blog. He has either been just slow on the uptake or more likely constrained by concerns about the circulation figures of his newspaper”
It’s A Deal 33 1624 67915 24 13/3/2012 16:38:0 easyJambo 28 19 “Aberdeen fans (Dons Supporters Trust) making it clear what they think about what is going on.
‘March 12, 2012 AFCRoss News,Trust Updates / News
Fans will be well aware of the current financial problems suffered by Rangers FC in the last few weeks. DST consider it pertinent to offer their views on this matter.
DST’s stance on the matter is uncompromising. The sporting integrity of Scottish Football is critical. We want our club to take the moral high ground by insisting that all member clubs play by the rules, comply with the law of the land as well as the game, and fulfil their obligations to other clubs and to society as a whole. DST fully believes in these principles and is sure that all right minded supporters will feel likewise. We wish to send a clear message to the board and management of AFC that we will not condone any departure from these principles, and that they should not be party to any future arrangement which allows a club to renege on its legal and moral obligations.
Rangers led most of the top Scottish clubs into ruinous debt by their unsustainable overspending from the Souness years onwards, and the creation and structure of the SPL has institutionalised the unfair distribution of wealth within our game. Now is the time to challenge the OF’s stranglehold#to ensure a more equitable league structure and format.
The OF need the rest of Scottish football much more than we need them. Without a league of opponents to compete with, they cannot survive. The media argument that the OF subsidise the other teams and keep them afloat is spurious. The reverse is in fact true, since they get a totally disproportionate share of the money in the game. This unfair subsidy must cease immediately.
This is watershed for Scottish football. DST believes that the supporters of AFC and supporters of every SPL club should now send a strong and clear message to their club’s directors that we expect and demand change to the structure of the game as a whole. It is in every club’s interest (including the OF) to level the financial playing field, and to have 2/3rd majority voting in the SPL.
Clubs must also find ways of improving the product on the park by increasing variety, competition and entertainment, thus providing better value for money.
DST will continue to monitor events and will be collecting comments from members soon. ‘”
It’s A Deal 40 1983 68284 33 14/3/2012 12:12:0 easyJambo 28 20 “I know it’s difficult but we all need to take a chill pill until the FTT decision is published. There are enough side attractions like the Fighting Fund and Alex Thomson’s investigations to keep us amused for the time being.
SDM says that there were no dual contracts. He has to say that, otherwise it is an admission of 1) The EBT payments were contractual and 2) that the 2nd contract was never forwarded to the SPL/SFA. He is only interested in preserving his increasingly tarnished image.
It is also no surprise that the SPL will wait for the FTT ruling. If the SPL ruled in advance of the FTT ruling that there were either no 2nd contracts supplied by RFC or that EBT payments were not contractual, they would look pretty stupid if the FTT then rules that the payments were indeed contractual.”
It’s A Deal 45 2242 68546 42 14/3/2012 20:38:0 easyJambo 28 21 “Just for reference when the Sportsound podcast for this evening is available, here is a transcript of what Chic Dung said last night in conversation with Jim Spence.
‘Starts at 27’15’
JS What exactly is CO being accused of?
CY Well I think the whispered campaign is because he was company secretary, indeed a director of Rangers at one point that he would be culpable and not in the full knowledge. I guess the suggestion is the he knew the EBTs were being taken out and they were being taken out for reasons to evade tax, not to manage tax but to evade tax
JS There are suggestions that he benefited.
CY No I don’t think there is, is there? Is there suggestions that he benefited ?
JS What I’m saying, that’s what I’m saying, are there suggestions that he benefited?
CY Well if there are, em I don’t think, if there are I don’t know about that and he certainly, he wasn’t involved in EBTs if that’s what you’re suggesting. I assumed this was about his knowledge of what was happening with the players in a way to secure players that were high profile players that would come to Ibrox for huge wages. I do not, to my knowledge, think that CO received EBTs if that’s what you’re suggesting.

Basically he either contradicted or corrected himself in his last comment by first saying that CO wasn’t involved, then stated that he didn’t think he had benefited. Either way it gives him a get out from accusations that he changed his position between last night and this evening.”
It’s A Deal 45 2247 68551 47 14/3/2012 20:44:0 easyJambo 28 22 “Tonights dSportsound discussions
Courtesy of Celtic research.”
It’s A Deal 46 2263 68567 13 14/3/2012 21:23:0 easyJambo 28 23 “Question for RTC – I’ve just revisited the ‘letter of intent’ that was published in the Sun on Sunday. The opening paragraph reads as follows:
‘I confirm that the Board of Rangers Football Club (The Club) will recommend to the trustees of the (redacted) Remuneration Trust (redacted) to include you as a protector of a sub-trust and to fund this sub-trust with net totals as follows:’
We have previously made the assumption that the payments into the trusts were ‘Gross’, therefore the tax payable was calculated on that figure. If, as the letter suggests, that payments into the trust were ‘Net’ (of tax & NI?) then is there a possibility that the core tax liability could end up being well in excess of the £24M previously intimated?”
It’s A Deal 53 2629 68940 29 15/3/2012 16:31:0 easyJambo (@EC_Jambo) 445 1 “Night Terror and General Tilly
I made reference to the conversation re ownership of the ground in this earlier post.
Illegal Use of EBTs & Other Issues 9 426 69618 26 16/3/2012 17:50:0 easyJambo 145 1 “Some observations on the ‘Floating Charge’ that may become topical again in the next few days.
When RFC plc’s legal team sought to have their chosen administrators appointed on 14th Feb, it was reported that they claimed to have the authority of the holder of the floating charge. (Goup?, Liberty Capital?, Ticketus?)
At the end of October, a Form 466 was lodged by RFC plc at Companies House in connection with a change in the priority of the floating charge, whereby Close Leasing’s fixed charge was given a First Ranking priority. The interesting point from that form was that Liberty Capital Ltd was named as one of the parties giving their consent to the change. Paul McConville made reference to this in a blog in early February, but we never established any significance of Liberty being named on the form.
My third point is probably more directed to ‘the Don’ and Onandx3 who highlighted the advantages to CW of having a receiver appointed rather than administrators. It therefore remains a mystery to me why CW didn’t seek the appointment of a Receiver, who could already have acted to take ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park to satisfy the Floating Charge. Could that have been done with some impunity and thus avoid the current Duffers challenges to the validity of the Floating Charge?
I guess my overriding question is whether or not ‘Group’ has retained full control over the Floating Charge. I am generally more comfortable when discussing factual sources, e.g. Companies House submissions, but I can’t work out whether or not we have the full picture on the ownership of the Floating Charge.”
Illegal Use of EBTs & Other Issues 10 453 69645 3 16/3/2012 18:27:0 easyJambo 145 2 “Andy says: 16/03/2012 at 6:20 pm
and HMRC have not made any indication of a deal
Nor did he expect them to do so at this time.
It should also put to bed some of the wilder theories espoused in the MSM about HMRC being ready to do a deal”
Illegal Use of EBTs & Other Issues 10 486 69679 36 16/3/2012 19:29:0 easyJambo 145 3 “The key point from the Duffers statement is (as RTC has already tweeted)
‘However, it is evident from our preliminary assessment of the expressions of interest and indicative bids that prospective purchasers are looking for clarity on certain issues at the earliest possible opportunity prior to submitting more detailed formal bids.
i.e. they haven’t a clue about how to handle the BTC, the Ticketus deal and the value attached to the Floating Charge.”
Illegal Use of EBTs & Other Issues 10 487 69680 37 16/3/2012 19:33:0 easyJambo 145 4 “Participants in Monday’s 5Live debate on RFC (According to) Douglas Fraser‏@BBCDouglsFraser
BBC 5Live: #Rangers audience discussion. Team line-up: Goram, Hateley, Nevin, G McLeish & Wishart. Monday 19th, 7-9pm. Pearce Inst, Govan
With that line up, it’s hardly worth the bother. There will be little debate, only agreement that WATP and the whole world needs RFC 😦 ”
Illegal Use of EBTs & Other Issues 11 505 69698 5 16/3/2012 20:21:0 easyJambo 145 5 “Night Terror says: 16/03/2012 at 8:11 pm
That 5 Live panel. Dear oh dear.
Still ‘ that’s an hour I can spend constructively by actively avoiding something on the Rangers meltdown. Children ‘ you will eat on Monday
Fortunately I will be out the country for a few days, so I can gladly miss it.
I’m guessing that the ‘G McLeish’ is actually Henry McLeish. You would have thought that the BBC would have tried to get some balance with someone like Mark Daly or Neil Patey to guide them and perhaps a Celtic or other club’s fans’ representative to give a view on RFC’s behaviour over the last 25 years.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 24 1198 71480 48 21/3/2012 20:43:0 easyJambo 267 1 “Ticketus – Tocketus ! 🙂 ”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 25 1209 71491 9 21/3/2012 21:8:0 easyJambo 267 2 “There’s Only One Willie Miller says: 21/03/2012 at 8:56 pm
I think that Celtic may have missed a trick here and if they are seen to be attempting to dictate terms to the rest of the SPL, then they risk losing a lot more than they might done, had they sought to compromise earlier.
Celtic should have recognised the underlying desire for change and offered changes to the TV distribution and voting structure, in exchange for an agreed position on the treatment of any newco RFC.
By seeking to justify the current arrangements by their own and RFC’s position as the major contributors to SPL revenues, it completely misses the point that while the big two have the biggest turnovers it is the same two teams that primarily benefit from those higher revenues, and not the other 10.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 25 1235 71519 35 21/3/2012 22:16:0 easyJambo 267 3 “RanchoFranco says: 21/03/2012 at 9:51 pm
Just when were Celtic supposed to have said as much?
Perhaps you can provide direct quotes.
I didn’t say that Celtic made any quotes. However, I believe they have missed an opportunity to agree a course of action with the rest of the SPL teams that would be in everone’s better (not best) interests.
However this comment came from Jim Spence:
‘Sources close to the Parkhead club argue that the Old Firm contribute around 85% of the SPL’s revenue, while they are disappointed by the other clubs getting together without consulting them.’
Contrast that with Peter Lawwell’s insistence that Celtic didn’t need Rangers.
Either Celtic don’t need RFC, or they do need them to help protect their dominant financial and voting position in the SPL. They can’t have it both ways.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 26 1251 71535 1 21/3/2012 23:2:0 easyJambo 267 4 “Not The Huddle Malcontent says: 21/03/2012 at 10:30 pm
CMC says: 21/03/2012 at 10:35 pm
Private Land says: 21/03/2012 at 10:37 pm
I’ve no doubt that there is some posturing going on.
I’m just surprised that Celtic have held their own counsel while these meetings were first mooted and have subsequently taken place. If I was Peter Lawwell, I would have sought to have exerted some influence in any decision making process, e.g. in one to one meetings.
It may be that such meetings are already taking place, but if Jim Spence is accurately reporting the views of the various SPL chairmen, then we could end up with a major schism between Celtic and the ‘diddy’ teams, which won’t help anyone.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 36 1785 72082 35 23/3/2012 14:34:0 easyJambo 267 5 “Hearts have now gone public on their desire to see a change in the SPL voting structure.
Apologies for just the link only. The website content is secured against copy and paste.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 37 1821 72118 21 23/3/2012 15:3:0 easyJambo 267 6 “My reading of the position is that the Administrators cannot sell STs at the moment without passing the funds onto Ticketus-Tocketus as the current deal is still in place.
However as Mark Dickson posted earlier, if the general guidance given by Lord Hodge was that where company is insolvent administrator may decline to perform contract if that is the best interests of the creditors, then that sounds as if there is scope for the Duffers to do exactly that.
What I don’t know is whether the Duffers themselves (or indeed RFC(IA)) would then be open to legal action to be taken against them by Ticketus for breach of contract.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 37 1835 72132 35 23/3/2012 15:11:0 easyJambo 267 7 “Tweets from Douglas Fraser on Ticketus-Tocketus position
Ticketus statement on Hodge #Rangers ruling: creditors cannot argue they’d do better by tearing up Ticketus deal, given Blue Knights offer
Ticketus implicit message on #Rangers: if you tear up our deal, we’ll delay with long legal challenges & the club’s losing value with delays
Ticketus on #Rangers: ‘we will do everything necessary to defend our position to ensure our contract is honoured’ ie assume legal challenges”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 37 1842 72139 42 23/3/2012 15:16:0 easyJambo 267 8 “Ticketus statement in full
‘Ticketus responds to Lord Hodge ruling. http://twitter.com/search?q=%23Rangers http://t.co/RfFCSdXp&mdash; Chris McLaughlin (@BBCchrismclaug) http://twitter.com/#!/BBCchrismclaug/status/183209347747295232&#8217;
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 39 1906 72205 6 23/3/2012 16:46:0 easyJambo 267 9 “Also from the Judgement
[15] The Agency Agreement is an agreement by which Ticketus, on the basis that it was owner of the season tickets which were the subject of the STA (‘the STA tickets’), appointed Rangers as its non-exclusive agent in the promotion and worldwide sale of the STA tickets. It obliged Rangers to sell the STA tickets in priority over other season tickets (clause 4.1). It imposed on Rangers the obligation to pay the proceeds of the sale of the STA tickets into a designated account with Bank of Scotland plc for the sole benefit of Ticketus (clauses 3.1.17 and 5). Rangers gave Ticketus a non-exclusive royalty-free licence to use its intellectual property for the purpose of promoting and selling the STA tickets (clause 11). English law also governs the Agency Agreement and the Courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction over it (Clause 30).
The bit in bold creates a problem for the administrators if they seek to sell STs for next season. Any funds received would be ring-fenced for the benefit of Ticketus”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 39 1913 72212 13 23/3/2012 16:58:0 easyJambo 267 10 “the taxman cometh says: 23/03/2012 at 4:50 pm
Does this mean that when D&P cancel the ticketus contract that it would not be in ticketus’ interests to sue, that the judge says that in the event of the admins not honouring the contract at that time ticketus become an ordinary creditor?
The problem with that is, as the judge pointed out, administrators have to act in the interests of all creditors. With Ticketus as an integral part of a potential BK bid, it would seem more likely that the BK bid would be in the best interests of more of the creditors than any other.
I think that the administrators will have a problem showing otherwise”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 39 1921 72220 21 23/3/2012 17:15:0 easyJambo 267 11 “I think that D&P will say that they are happy with the decision as it confirms that they have not been prevented from breaking the contract.
However, two problems from them
1) The Administrators will have to prove that such an act will provide a better return to creditors. That might not be so easy if the biggest creditor (currently Ticketus) is shafted.
2) Ticketus have said that they will take (legal) action to protect their interests”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 39 1929 72228 29 23/3/2012 17:25:0 easyJambo 267 12 “the taxman cometh says: 23/03/2012 at 5:20 pm
I think that Ticketus could delay resolution of the whole processes by challenging any assertion that to break the contract was in the best interests of all the creditors.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 39 1932 72231 32 23/3/2012 17:31:0 easyJambo 267 13 “I think that the key point from the D&P statement is about the lack of enough information on the competing bids for Lord Hodge to make a decision.
‘Lord Hodge has also referred to the various applications we made to the court. Initially, we did ask for guidance on the immediate termination of the Ticketus contract. We fully accept this guidance could not be given without disclosing the details of bids for the Club in open court.
My reading of the above is that, at present, D&P are unable/unwilling to show to acknowledge that the BK bid is currently the best on the table. That may change over the next few days though.”
Campbell Ogilvie: His responsibilities in his own words 45 2218 72524 18 24/3/2012 18:0:0 easyJambo 267 14 “OnandOnandOnand says: 24/03/2012 at 5:34 pm
Am in London in the company of friends in the legal trade. Am hearing that the High Court case was abandoned by the Adminstrators yesterday. Seems an incredible story goes along with this but l can’t check the facts yet. Collyer Bristow insurance about to take a major hit. Apologies if already posted
This sounds very ominous for the actions of someone – Gary Withey perhaps?”
Not Long To Go 1 27 72569 27 24/3/2012 19:27:0 easyJambo 26 1 “I’ve posted a series of Onandx3 posts at the end of the last Blog post, which will give us a meaty start to this one. I wonder how long it will take SMSM journos to pick up on this little gem
(and chapeau to Onandx3)
OnandOnandOnand says: 24/03/2012 at 5:34 pm
Am in London in the company of friends in the legal trade. Am hearing that the High Court case was abandoned by the Adminstrators yesterday. Seems an incredible story goes along with this but l can’t check the facts yet. Collyer Bristow insurance about to take a major hit. Apologies if already posted
OnandOnandOnand says: 24/03/2012 at 6:04 pm
Yes, it’s the £3.6m case. Seems Gary Withey may have given formal undertakings about holding money that wasn’t there. Well worth a journo making enquiries. I’m assured that it was the administrators who ‘vacated’ the case, an English legal term. sum involved is over £10m and the £3.6m being handed back to the rightfull owners who had been misled.
OnandOnandOnand says: 24/03/2012 at 6:30 pm
No , it was pension fund trustees. shades of that Private Eye article
OnandOnandOnand says: 24/03/2012 at 6:33 pm
I won’t be able to get much more on this until the courts open Monday. Might be able to get hold of some documentary evidence then too.
OnandOnandOnand says: 24/03/2012 at 7:02 pm
I’m also told that Ticketus never laid claim to the money nor, more interestingly, did Wavetower, even although it was in a Wavetower account. All very strange. CB have appoonted Clyde &Co to represent them, they are big hitters in professional negligence cases.”
Not Long To Go 2 54 72597 4 24/3/2012 19:44:0 easyJambo 26 2 “Paul McConville says: 24/03/2012 at 7:39 pm
I was away for four days last weekend and it took me more than a day to catch up, such is the number of posts these days. 🙂 ”
Not Long To Go 12 581 73160 31 26/3/2012 19:36:0 easyJambo 26 3 “TheIceman says: 26/03/2012 at 4:13 pm
Hugh McEwan says: 26/03/2012 at 5:31 pm
I would break down the indebtetness league table of the SPL teams as follows:
Heavily in debt
Hearts (UBIG)
Rangers(IA) (CW?/Ticketus/HMRC)
Dunfermline (Gavin Masterton)
Kilmarnock (Bank loan)
Aberdeen (Bank Loan)
Moderately in debt (manangeable?)
Hibs (Bank Loan/Tom Farmer – getting worse)
Dundee Utd (Bank Loan – getting better)
Celtic (Bank Loan – stable )
Little or no debt
St Mirren
Insufficient info on St Johnstone, but I expect that they are in the low risk group.”
Not Long To Go 13 611 73191 11 26/3/2012 21:30:0 easyJambo 26 4 “The retired taxman says:26/03/2012 at 5:03 pm
tigertim says: 26/03/2012 at 8:48 pm
From Killie’s 2011 accounts:
Bank Overdraft £2.698M (secured)
Bank Loan £5.914M (secured)
Other Loans £1.060M
By my calculation that is £9.672M against a total turnover between the football club and the hotel of £7.134M (the foootball club’s turnover was £4.91M)
They have a moratorium on capital repayments towards their Bank loan, but should be helped this season by their League Cup performances and income.”
Not Long To Go 13 615 73195 15 26/3/2012 21:48:0 easyJambo 26 5 “WOTTPI says: 26/03/2012 at 9:29 pm
Barcabhoy says: 26/03/2012 at 8:44 pm
Hud oan a minute big man!!
Where did all this ‘creditors in the unaudited accounts’ come from. That seems news to me, although I am prepared to be put right. Just can’t recall it being mentioned in any other recent posts.
If there are creditors out there seeking £48-68m before we even start why was action not taken before the HMRC stepped in?
Confused even more than before!!
The creditors figures in the (unaudited) 2011 accounts is only broken down as £49M being due within 1 year and £20M due in more than one year. There is no breakdown of what makes up this figure although we can guess at some of the numbers.
In the ‘within a year’ figure there will be a minimum £18M due to CW, probably around £16M to ST holders (reduces as the season progresses) and taxes / NIC payments and other trade creditors (Rates, police, transfer fees etc)
In the £20M ‘more than a year’ figure, there will be a lease creditor of £3.6M+, Multi year season ticket holders, deferred income (e.g. for JJB & Tenants deals), and deferred grants from the Rangers Development fund and others.”
Not Long To Go 13 642 73222 42 26/3/2012 22:46:0 easyJambo 26 6 “OnandOnandOnand says: 26/03/2012 at 10:31 pm
Re your earlier post. Lets’ assume that the Administrators are successful in getting the £9.5M that was promised in the SPA from the insurers. Under the terms of the SPA, the bulk of that was repayable should RFC suffer an insolvency event.
Would the insurers automatically become creditors of RFC as a result? If not it would appear that the administrators had got something for nothing with no liability to pay it back from whence it came.”
Not Long To Go 14 653 73233 3 26/3/2012 23:2:0 easyJambo 26 7 “OnandOnandOnand says: 26/03/2012 at 10:53 pm
Thanks for responding anyway. I just hope that the FTT decision comes out very soon and allows everone to focus on the major issue, rather than some of the peripheral ones that we are seeing at the moment.”
Not Long To Go 18 855 73443 5 27/3/2012 17:11:0 easyJambo 26 8 “Slimshady says: 27/03/2012 at 12:36 pm
Just for clarity on the Pars – East End Park Ltd (£5.826M debt) is a wholly owned subsidary of Charlestown Holdings Ltd (£2.413M debt). Charlestown Holdings is 100% owned by Gavin Masterton.”
Not Long To Go 18 869 73457 19 27/3/2012 17:55:0 easyJambo 26 9 “Jane Lewis‏@JaneLewisSport
BBC Scotland has learned that the #Rangers administrators will NOT back the other ten #SPL clubs over changes to current voting structure.
I wonder how the GoT will respond to that. 🙂 Hopefully they will rerpond by wishing them well in Div 3.”
Not Long To Go 18 871 73459 21 27/3/2012 17:56:0 easyJambo 26 10 “tut tut ……. rerpond = respond”
Not Long To Go 22 1074 73665 24 28/3/2012 11:54:0 easyJambo 26 11 “I didn’t really want to get into the debate about the GoT and their relationship with Celtic and Rangers, but I thought that this post on a Hearts messageboard reflects the views held by the majority of GoT supporters.
‘The TV money is, to some degree, a red herring. It’s not about ensuring the OF stay wealthy, although a split pot of £5mil is certainly nice. It’s about keeping the rest of the league in an equilibrium of pishness whilst they get champions league money, which dwarfs other teams budgets. By ensuring that the rest of the league maintain a hand to mouth existence they give everyone the impression that they’re only alive due to the OF’s largesse, whereas the truth is they’re hoovering up a disproportionate percentage of the TV deal not because they need it, but because to do it differently, fairly, would lead to something the OF have absolutely no interest in. A degree of competition.
Having ten times as many season ticket holders as most other clubs isnt enough. Earning more from taking a humping in the champions league than most clubs make in a year isnt enough. Having the authorities complicit in their dodgy dealings isnt enough. Having the media fawn over them in some incestuous, symbiotic relationship isnt enough. No, just to ensure everyone else has to live in an equal squalor and be thankful they ensure that there is a bigger gap in the TV income between 2nd and 3rd than 3rd and 12th – a bigger gap between 2nd and 3rd than 3rd and 12th! They continue to stack everything in their favour and expect us to be grateful.
**** ’em.

From a personal viewpoint, there are many posters on this board who have expressed critical views of Tory government policies past and present, but seem to be capitalist in the extreme when it comes to any thought about redistribution of wealth within Scottish football.
Just sayin’ like! 🙂 ”
Not Long To Go 25 1246 73843 46 28/3/2012 19:38:0 easyJambo 26 12 “RFF to pay outstanding £22,000 to Dunfermline”
Not Long To Go 25 1249 73846 49 28/3/2012 19:41:0 easyJambo 26 13 “RFF not prepared to pay those bad people at Dundee Utd though.”
Not Long To Go 26 1254 73851 4 28/3/2012 20:7:0 easyJambo 26 14 “Trimm Trab says: 28/03/2012 at 7:58 pm
‘RFF not prepared to pay those bad people at Dundee Utd though’
Just when Rangers need all the friends they can get! I hope Thomson responds correctly by making sure NewCo Rangers dont have the chance to do United out of money for atleast 3 seasons.
I hope that the SFA do the right thing by banning RFC(IA) from next season’s Scottish Cup. The Cup tie against United was on 5th Feb, i.e. 9 days before they entered administration, so they had enough time to pay United their share of the gate.”
Not Long To Go 26 1262 73859 12 28/3/2012 20:47:0 easyJambo 26 15 “CE says: 28/03/2012 at 8:42 pm
From John Barnes – RFFF statement ‘Consideration was also given to using some more of the funds to pay off money owed to Dundee United.But that was rejected as there were strong views that, in recent times, Dundee United had treated Rangers and their fans with disdain.’ Rangers fans were angry last season when Dundee United levied an extra charge on Rangers ticket holders if they wished to attend an abandoned game at Tannadice.'”
Not Long To Go 26 1266 73863 16 28/3/2012 20:58:0 easyJambo 26 16 “tigertim says: 28/03/2012 at 8:51 pm
From what has been said, I would assume that the £22K is the final instalment.
The RFFF have previously stated that they were prepared to make payments towards anything that they thought appropriate, including players wages.
Effectively it allows the Administrators to remove a creditor without falling foul of any other creditor claiming that they were treated unfavourably.”
Not Long To Go 26 1270 73867 20 28/3/2012 21:11:0 easyJambo 26 17 “Big disciplinary day for RFC(IA) tomorrow with the SFA looking at CW’s ‘Fit and Proper’ indiscretions and the Dundee United situation and the SPL Board looking at player contracts and registrations.”
Not Long To Go 26 1272 73869 22 28/3/2012 21:19:0 easyJambo 26 18 “nowoldandgrumpy says: 28/03/2012 at 9:14 pm
I guess that RFC(IA) paid the first instalment and RFFF the second.
It’s immaterial who pays …. as long as the recipient accepts it. If some 3rd party benfactor was to pay £50M to HMRC on behalf of RFC(IA), I don’t think HMRC would say no either.”
Not Long To Go 29 1433 74036 33 29/3/2012 12:34:0 easyJambo 26 19 “The Arab Trust’s statement in response to RFFF
‘After being asked by several media outlets for comment, here is ArabTRUST’s response to several reports from last night and this morning in relation to a statement made by Rangers Fans Fighting Fund Chairman Andrew McCormick.
‘We fail to see why the current situation at Rangers should be used, by some, to fuel divisions between rival sets of supporters. This cannot be good for the game.
However, with regard to the comments in respect of the abandoned match at Tannadice, the Club advised that the decision to charge less than half price admission to both home and away fans for the replayed match referred to was due to extenuating circumstances, particularly the police and stewarding costs associated with any match involving an Old Firm club. Any residual amount over and above the operational costs of staging the match was reported as donated to the United for Kids appeal.
‘Far from being ‘disdainful’, the Club’s actions were supported by the SPL and, indeed, in the Sheriff Court when challenged by one Rangers supporters’ club. However in view of the Fighting Fund’s stated reason for not paying Dundee United, it is somewhat ironic that their funds, donated by supporters, are now being used to settle the amount owed by their club for tickets which they, the supporters, had already paid for.
The football authorities must now take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the rules of their competitions, including those involving financial fair play and settlement, are fully complied with to avoid further disputes and unnecessary tension between fans.’
Derek Robertson, ArabTRUST Chairman'”
Not Long To Go 29 1437 74040 37 29/3/2012 12:42:0 easyJambo 26 20 “Night Terror says: 29/03/2012 at 12:36 pm
The main problem with that type of set up, is that the split comes too early in the season, e.g. in Dec/Jan, thus denying the opportunity for a couple of teams to make a push for an EL place in the latter part of the season.”
Not Long To Go 29 1442 74045 42 29/3/2012 12:50:0 easyJambo 26 21 “Night Terror says: 29/03/2012 at 12:45 pm
I’m in favour of a 16/18 team league playing everyone twice, but I do think a 14 team league with a 6/8 split is better than what we currently have. There are arguments to be had for and against all configurations, so it is unlikely that we will satisfy all vested interests.”
Not Long To Go 37 1806 74427 6 30/3/2012 14:57:0 easyJambo 26 22 “The numbers quoted in the Herald article go some way to highlight the dilema faced by the Administrators following Lord Hodge’s advice last week.
Lord Hodge said that the Administrators had the power to rip up the Ticketus deal, but only if it was in the interests of ALL creditors. Ignoring the big tax case, the C9S and BK bids work out to be comparable in terms of a return to creditors. However I would argue that the BK bid overall is a better deal as Ticketus hold in excess of 50% of the debt under consideration and would be better served by the BK bid. It is also clear that Ticketus could block the C9S CVA as things stand.
I’m also interested that the creditors bill (excluding the BTC) comes to around £23M. We know that HMRC petitioned for £9M at the time of administration but could be owed anything up to £15M. The Rangers Bond holders are also due £7.7M. That doesn’t leave much scope for any other creditors, such as Hearts, Dundee Utd, Glasgow CC, Stathclyde Police et al. Something doesn’t add up.”

Not Long To Go 37 1809 74430 9 30/3/2012 15:5:0 easyJambo 26 23 “Off topic – but bad news about Stiliyan Petrov being diagnosed with Acute Leukaemia”
Not Long To Go 38 1866 74492 16 30/3/2012 19:3:0 easyJambo 26 24 “Tweets from Alex T
New RFC director named as requesting £200,000 from his EBT
RFC legend John Greig was in the scheme
Not a single EBT loan in the RFC scheme has yet been paid back
The focus of tax probe revealed
Inventor of EBTs says he told SDM’s company to do one thing – RFC went off and did another”

Not Long To Go 38 1873 74499 23 30/3/2012 19:14:0 easyJambo 26 25 “Channel 4’s news article http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-payments-that-may-lead-to-rangers-downfall
As Rangers faces potential liquidation, Alex Thomson reveals the extent of transactions and payments made from offshore accounts that have so interested the taxman.
Celtic fans might want to cover their ears for this next bit, but Rangers are – arguably – the biggest club in Scotland and without question one of the biggest in the UK. Their fan base unquestionably global, and loyal. But right now that very loyalty must surely be stretched to near breaking point.
For Rangers FC is staring into the abyss of potential liquidation. If they fail to win their current appeal to a tax tribunal a bill of almost £50m from the taxman awaits.
The club – already in administration due to accrued debts away from all this, is something of a financial and footballing car-crash. Points have been deducted. The championship is heading to Parkhead and Celtic, and that is it for football this season pretty much.
But it could be a great deal more serious than that. Rangers does not have a buyer at the moment, let alone someone willing to stump up £50m which currently just ain’t in Ibrox, search where you will.
No sign of that Gulf sheikh or Russian billionaire oligarch coming up the Clyde bearing gifts and buying the club, either.
To find out how they got into this state it might be useful to go to that well-known Glasgow suburb – Weybridge, Surrey. Here, in a gated community, lives none other than Paul Baxendale-Walker, the man who claims to have invented the employee benefits trust (EBT): the financial arrangement which might spell doom soon for Rangers.
Surrey might not be the obvious place – Mr Baxendale-Walker not the obvious person. A former solicitor, now struck off, he still advises upon taxation issues whilst also running an adult TV channel.
So what of the EBT?
Paul Baxendale-Walker told us this: ‘Somebody obviously advised Rangers on the constitution of this employee benefits trust. And what that somebody would have to have done is refer to my book or at least referred to the principles in it. And then Rangers as a company went and did something else. This is why there is a tax case.’
He says he merely introduced the EBT concept to Murray International Holdings (MIH) – Sir David Murray’s company, who owned Rangers from 1988 to 2011.
The legality of the EBT
The EBT is perfectly legal. Several thousand firms use them across the UK. But equally those firms have recently been contacted by HMRC to effectively say; ‘please come in and see us for a cuppa and the nicely-nicely – before we come round to your front door and do nasty-nasty.’
Why? Because the taxman reckons they are really about tax avoidance and possibly even evasion, slipping the wrong side of the law.
Basically what they do is allow highly-paid staff to get money in loans from an offshore trust based in a tax haven, instead of getting it PAYE with 50 per cent income tax.
In his letter, Martin Bain says it was suggested to him that ‘…any pay rise I got should be paid through the trust, obviously as a discretionary bonus as it cannot be contractual.’
Of course the loan must be paid back in time – but how much time? In some quarters they’re dubbed ‘lend and forget’ deals.
So to Rangers. Well we know a little bit more after the latest turn in the Channel 4 News investigation into the club’s finances.
Their EBT was set up by Murray International Holdings. And we can now reveal that according to MIH’s Finance Director Mike McGill, not one of these loans has yet been paid back.
‘I do not believe that any loans have as yet been repaid,’ he told us.
We asked when or if these loans would ever be repaid and he emailed back: ‘We do not consider it appropriate to make any further comment at this juncture.'”
Not Long To Go 38 1884 74510 34 30/3/2012 19:32:0 easyJambo 26 26 “Now I wonder who could have provided Alex Thomson with copies of such documents and correspondence? 😉 ”
Not Long To Go 38 1895 74522 45 30/3/2012 19:39:0 easyJambo 26 27 “tenerifetim says: 30/03/2012 at 7:33 pm
easyJambo says:
30/03/2012 at 7:32 pm
I bet you it was Adam´s bird in the office ! Adam?…. Adam?…..
Nah can’t be her. She’s too busy tonight trying to get the 2011 accounts audited for tomorrow’s deadline 🙂 ”
Evading Avoidance 8 352 75220 2 1/4/2012 10:26:0 easyJambo 146 1 “Paul McConville says: 01/04/2012 at 10:18 am
ItaliaBhoy says: 01/04/2012 at 9:40 am
From the SPL’s rules:
Membership of League confers Membership of SFA
H13 In accordance with the SFA Articles and to the extent that it is not already a full or associate member of SFA, membership of the League confers registered membership of the SFA.”
We don’t do walking away either 2 79 75707 29 3/4/2012 10:27:0 easyJambo 53 1 “Hoopy 7 says:03/04/2012 at 9:35 am
With or without liquidation in the near future, Rangers appear to be going to finish second in the SPL. This entitles them to some £900,000. Is this paid out at the end of the season or is it just after the split.?
Either way it would make sense to withhold this payment. If it were paid whilst in administration it would give the administrators some more working capital, however what would be the point in paying this to them if there is still the chance of points being deducted or a fine being imposed.
Surely the money should be held for this purpose.
Alternatively, and probably more morally correct, should this money not go to creditors?
Could the revenue arrest the monies to secure some payment?
In any event payment should not be made.
I’m sure that the SPL could withhold any money due pending completion of their investigations into RFC(IA). That would also allow them to divert the funds to Hearts, who will be due the next instalment on the Wallace transfer at the end of the season, which is allowed under SPL rules.”
We don’t do walking away either 2 88 75716 38 3/4/2012 11:0:0 easyJambo 53 2 “WOTTPI says:03/04/2012 at 10:50 am
You can deduct VAT from those figures so the net value to Hearts for two games against Rangers is around £90K, which is also the value of moving up one place in the SPL.”

We don’t do walking away either 3 101 75729 1 3/4/2012 11:41:0 easyJambo 53 3 “Mark Dickson says:03/04/2012 at 11:32 am
There must be a limit on the number of Company names in use. 🙂
Surely Merchant Capital Group cannot be linked with CW……it can’t be ….. can it?”

We don’t do walking away either 3 110 75739 10 3/4/2012 12:20:0 easyJambo 53 4 “‘Group’ have just lodged an MG01s (signed by CW) at Companies House with a debenture in favour of Liberty Corporate. I will upload it to Scribd shortly to let our financial experts work out what it means”
We don’t do walking away either 3 112 75741 12 3/4/2012 12:24:0 easyJambo 53 5 “Link to ‘Group’ MG01s http://www.scribd.com/doc/87794805/RFC-Group-MG01s-21-03-12&#8221;
We don’t do walking away either 3 121 75750 21 3/4/2012 12:34:0 easyJambo 53 6 “Re the MG01s, my interpretation is that Group has pledged all its assets to Liberty Corporate Ltd.
I can only guess that CW intends that Group will be wound up in the wake of RFC(IA)’s liquidation and any money that comes in from RFC(IA) will simply be forwarded to Liberty Corporate Ltd.”
We don’t do walking away either 3 131 75760 31 3/4/2012 12:48:0 easyJambo 53 7 “BartinMain says: 03/04/2012 at 12:36 pm
EJ that link just comes up as barely decipherable mumbo jumbo, perhaps something to do with the format
I’m guessing you are reading it on a (not so) smartphone or similar.
The key elements are:
Description: Debenture
Amount secured: All monies due or about to become due from the company to the chargee on any account whatsoever
Mortgagee(s) or person(s) entitled to the charge: Liberty Corporate Ltd
Short Particulars: Fixed and floating charges over the undertaking and all property and assets present and future including goodwill, bookdebts, uncalled capital, buildings, fixtures, fixed plant and machinery”
We don’t do walking away either 3 147 75777 47 3/4/2012 13:16:0 easyJambo 53 8 “Slimshady says : 03/04/2012 at 1:05 pm
The confusion re ownwership of Liberty Capital is down to Liberty Capital PLC (not CW) being a real subsidiary of Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC, but Liberty Capital Ltd is not.
I think someone has made an incorrect ownership link to the PLC version.”

We don’t do walking away either 4 161 75792 11 3/4/2012 13:37:0 easyJambo 53 9 “The Capital Shopping Centres connection, to quote the Duffers is a ‘red herring’. It was first raised in the MSM in the lead up to the takeover. It is also possibly where CW’s ‘Billionaire’ wealth came from.
It was the result of confusion caused by CW’s penchant for naming companies with similar names to successful ones. Liberty Capital PLC, which is a subsidiary of Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC, has nothing whatsoever to do with CW.”

We don’t do walking away either 5 242 75875 42 3/4/2012 16:10:0 easyJambo 53 10 “duggie73 says: 03/04/2012 at 3:55 pm
Sorry, can’t access EJ’s upload…
The new charge to Liberty Corporate Ltd (aka Thomas Whyte).
Was this created by Whyte Jr or the administrators?
Duggie – It was by CW. ‘Group’ are not in administration therefore the administrators can’t do anything about it”
We don’t do walking away either 5 244 75877 44 3/4/2012 16:12:0 easyJambo 53 11 “loamfeet says: 03/04/2012 at 4:07 pm
Did BBC’s Chris McGlaughlin just tweet ‘no surrender’ at RTC and then delete it?
You mean this tweet
Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismcIaug
Retweeted by Rangers Tax-Case”

We don’t do walking away either 6 264 75898 14 3/4/2012 16:53:0 easyJambo 53 12 “Be in no doubt, CW will sell his shares ……… to anyone daft enough to pay a few £M for them.”

We don’t do walking away either 9 434 76081 34 3/4/2012 22:55:0 easyJambo 53 13 “Interested Observer says: 03/04/2012 at 10:21 pm
I also listened to Sportsound tonight and I thought that the most interesting discussion was about Ralph Topping asking the GoT to think again about about forcing a vote on the voting structure.
I thought both Jim Spence and Michael Grant made a decent effort of supporting the ten’s right to ask for the matter to be debated and questioned the impartiality of Topping and the rest of the SPL Board.
We don’t do walking away either 12 576 76228 26 4/4/2012 10:33:0 easyJambo 53 14 “Leeds United (Leeds City Holdings) have just issued their accounts for 2011. There are a couple of interesting snippets buried in the notes to the accounts, that may be applicable to RFC(IA).
1) A Contingent Liability of £4.75M to be paid to the liquidator of Leeds United AFC should they be promoted to the EPL before 2017/18 as part of the sale agreement in May 2007
2) A Post Balance Sheet Event – LUFC Ltd entered an agreement whereby it sold season tickets for both the 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons for a sum of £5M
The first point confirms the liquidation of the Leeds oldco and the potential for liabilities to be carried forward to a newco (in return for retaining their league status)
The second point just gives me a sense of déjà vu”

We don’t do walking away either 14 668 76322 18 4/4/2012 14:31:0 easyJambo 53 15 “john clarke says: 04/04/2012 at 2:01 pm
RTC made some comments on the valuation of the club to a prospective buyer in his blogpost in October.
See also the comment below from the same blogpost when RTC responds to BRTH
We don’t do walking away either 15 737 76394 37 4/4/2012 17:34:0 easyJambo 53 16 “BBC have Neil Patey on Sportsound at 6:10pm tonight so it will be good to get some sensible and informed comment for a change.”

We don’t do walking away either 16 752 76412 2 4/4/2012 18:3:0 easyJambo 53 17 “Chris McLaughlin‏@BBCchrismclaug
4 bids for #Rangers according to administrators including bid from Germany.”

We don’t do walking away either 24 1186 76867 36 5/4/2012 17:40:0 easyJambo 53 18 “Damn!
I’ve been out all day and come back to the first real piece of meat on the bones of the Administration process.
My last guess of their total indebtedness was £126M, so I feel somewhat vindicated.
I’ll read through the document during the even, but I’m sure other posters will start ripping the (piss out of the) administrators report, before me.”

We don’t do walking away either 25 1230 76912 30 5/4/2012 18:48:0 easyJambo 53 19 “Auldheid says:05/04/2012 at 6:40 pm
Unsecured creditors
Trade & Expense Creditors (5,544,508)
Football Related Creditors (1,063,082)
HM Revenue & Customs (14,372,042)
Ticketus (26,700,000)
Employees TBC
Debenture Holders (7,736,000)
Total (55,415,632)
Based on the above, HMRC have 25.9% of the unsecured debt, therefore could block a CVA without including the Big tax case
Include the tax case and HMRC will blow them out the water.”
We don’t do walking away either 26 1276 76962 26 5/4/2012 19:48:0 easyJambo 53 20 “Henry Clarson says: 05/04/2012 at 7:41 pm
I picked up on that too and asked the same question a few weeks ago as to whether or not HMRC were treating the amounts paid into the EBTs as Gross or Net of Tax and NI
The Martin Bain papers similarly suggested that the bill was £35M with Interest and penalies of £14M. RTC’s thought at the time was that this was a mistake or misunderstanding on the part of Bain or his legal team.”
We don’t do walking away either 26 1295 76982 45 5/4/2012 20:18:0 easyJambo 53 21 “gunnerb says: 05/04/2012 at 8:14 pm
Who are premier property and what kinf of charge do they hold ?
Would you believe that they are a subsidiary of MIH? It is a Standard Security”
We don’t do walking away either 27 1310 76997 10 5/4/2012 20:50:0 easyJambo 53 22 “JakeC says: 05/04/2012 at 8:25 pm
D.M. Hall did the valuations in 2003 and 2008”
We don’t do walking away either 27 1315 77002 15 5/4/2012 21:4:0 easyJambo 53 23 “nipples says: 05/04/2012 at 8:52 pm
Raising £5M and having to payback £9.3M in two or three years time is a desperate deal.”

We don’t do walking away either 27 1318 77005 18 5/4/2012 21:6:0 easyJambo 53 24 “I’m guessing (hoping) that RTC’s absence from the blog this evening is due to him writing up his next blogpost in response to today’s revelations. 🙂 ”

We don’t do walking away either 27 1330 77017 30 5/4/2012 21:24:0 easyJambo 53 25 “stunney says: 05/04/2012 at 9:18 pm
Portsmouth was closest with £105M in 2010
Here is a table of recent English admininstrations and how much HMRC has ‘lost’

…… and thanks all for the responses re RTC’s earlier tweets.”
Quick Recap 2 72 77264 22 6/4/2012 9:55:0 easyJambo 43 1 “stunney says: 06/04/2012 at 9:09 am
I find it really puzzling that the Administrators still haven’t determined the legal status of the floating and fixed charges over Rangers assets, given that they’re inviting offers for the purchase of said assets. How can a prospective purchaser make an offer without that information?
I must presume, then, that any such offers are but conditional at this stage.
That is the biggest question that jumps out at me from the report. It seems inconceivable that MCR / D&P were unaware of the status of the ‘Group’ securities given their ongoing advisory role from before the takeover right through to the Admininistration process.
All offers will be heavily caveated until the full extent of the liabilities, both secured and unsecured, is known.”
Quick Recap 2 76 77269 26 6/4/2012 10:1:0 easyJambo 43 2 “Hugh McEwan says: 06/04/2012 at 9:48 am
Why are Ticketus listed as a creditor.
As I understood it Lord Hodge said that they would be an unsecured creditor, if and when Rangers broke their contract. Does them being included mean that the administrators have declared that they do not recognise the contract, or in some other way have broken it.
Whatever their official status, I think that they are best described as a creditor as they will be due to receive a payment of around £9M in the summer and two further payments in 2013 and 2014.
I would have expected D&P to state in the creditors report if they had already broken the contract.”
Quick Recap 2 80 77273 30 6/4/2012 10:5:0 easyJambo 43 3 “Auldheid says:06/04/2012 at 10:01 am
I watched it thanks. As you say it is a must watch as it gave what seemed to be the most honest assessment of the current situation that we have seen in the broadcast media. (In my opinion of course)”
Quick Recap 14 699 77944 49 8/4/2012 17:40:0 easyJambo 43 4 “A bit off topic but what’s happening within the SFA just now as another referee decides he’s had enough…… or is it that he is no longer getting enough brown envelopes 🙂
‘Charlie Richmond has quit after 10 years as a Category One referee, having become unhappy at the Scottish Football Association hierarchy.
The 43-year-old made the decision after officiating at Saturday’s 3-1 win for First Division leaders Ross County away to Livingston.
He has become disillusioned after feeling overlooked for Scottish Premier League matches for most of the season.
Richmond has not yet told the SFA officially of his decision.
But it is believed that the Fifa-list referee will do that on Tuesday, when the Scottish governing body’s offices open again after the Easter holiday.
He becomes the latest Category One referee to retire, Steve Conroy having announced his departure last month after the 45-year-old was overlooked for SPL fixtures for three months.
Richmond, an affable figure well liked by the players, took charge of his first SPL match at Livingston in 2002 and has handled fixtures in the Champions League and Uefa Cup.
Officiating at the same venue brought his top-flight career full circle and he felt it was time to announce his departure.
Although he may wish to continue as a referee at amateur or some other lower level, he is unwilling to continue at a senior level for the few remaining games of the season.
Quick Recap 17 848 78107 48 9/4/2012 17:52:0 easyJambo 43 5 “Now Douglas Fraser has a dig at SDM, MIH and RFC
‘Unwrapping the Murray mint
A 42-hour power cut while I was on a Hebridean holiday last week may have been the reason Sir David Murray couldn’t reach me to offer his customary spin on his latest set of company accounts.
Others – either better connected by Scottish Hydro’s technicians, or part of the metals-to-property magnate’s favoured circle – were honoured with a highly selective release of statistics.
Operating profit in the black, with Murray International Holdings (MIH) making £11m last year.
A £59m write-off on the sale of Rangers, demonstrating just how much the former owner and chairman had given the football club.
A swap of £118m debt for equity with Lloyds Banking Group which didn’t even dilute the Murray family’s 70% voting power over MIH.
Unsurprisingly, that wasn’t quite the full story. Sir David omitted to point out that most measures of profit and loss were drenched in red ink.
On group turnover of £395m, loss before tax was £87m. That compares with a £69m loss last year.
And yes, most of the most recent loss was explained by writing off almost all of a £60m loan to Rangers from MIH’s sports subsidiary, along with reduced valuations on property and a £13m hit on the goodwill reckoning of the MIH metals business.
The chairman also seemed to forget to mention that the metals division, the foundation on which his once mighty company was built, is up for sale, in parts or as a whole.
Notoriously complex
That much came out after the selective briefing, with the release by Companies House of the private company’s accounts for the year to June 2011. And on closer reading to end off said Hebridean holiday, the full picture gets ever more interesting.
It shows the 10 months of the financial year in which Rangers FC was under the control of MIH delivered £8.7m in profit. Some £4m of that came from profit on player sales.
In the previous full financial year, the club delivered MIH some £5m profit. Not such a costly farewell after all.
It turns out not all of MIH’s metals business could be fully signed off by auditors as a conventional going concern, triggering an ’emphasis of matter paragraph’ which highlights unusual levels of uncertainty about the outcome of the current business review.
And Lloyds Banking Group is putting a stop to Sir David’s notoriously complex cross-subsidies of MIH’s divisions.
The healthier bits – providing metal to the oil and gas sector, and in outsourcing business services – are no longer to cross-guarantee the main metals business or commercial property. Or, indeed, Rangers Football Club.
‘For sale’ signs
Lloyds has kept MIH alive, as a means of recovering as much as possible of the £759m debt it built up through Bank of Scotland’s breathtakingly generous corporate division boss, Peter Cummings.
The company is best known to most people as having owned Rangers, but that was a relatively small part of a business that had the misfortune of focusing on metal sales to the construction industry and on commercial property, both of which suffered the worst of the downturn.
But to keep MIH going, it’s clear from the past two years of accounts that the bank is dispensing some harsh medicine.
This is not to be interpreted as pressure from the bank, spins Sir David. But it’s hard to believe this was the path the chairman would have chosen if the bank were leaving him to his own devices.
MIH’s asset management division has been divested. It dropped its mining interests. Rangers had to go too, of which more later.
The commercial property portfolio and development land is being given time for prices to rise before getting flogged off.
The London market has offered better prices than elsewhere, helping MIH to raise £315m in assets so far, including £68m in the most recent financial year.
All this appeared until last year to be a strategy to protect the core metals business. But disappointing prices and trading figures mean that even that now has the ‘for sale’ sign up.
We’re now told, via the old Ibrox-style briefings, that a buyer has been lined up to take on half the metals business. Let’s hope it’s not Craig Whyte.
Meanwhile, costs have been slashed, with staff numbers down by nearly 850 to 2660, some with those divestments.
Since March, far more jobs are being transferred to a rival outsourcing company since MIH’s Response subsidiary lost the Sky TV contract, its biggest.
In the 2010-11 financial year, total staff wages and salaries fell from £85m to £60m. It’s hitting the pay packet of the highest paid director.
Let’s assume that’s Sir David himself, seeing his wage packet thinning somewhat from £1.014m to £793,000.
Duped and staggered
On Rangers, the MIH chairman’s statement with his annual accounts says nothing about the pressure he may or may not have been under from Lloyds Banking Group to sell to Craig Whyte in May last year.
Before then, he had said he was delaying a sale until he had found a worthy buyer who would act in the interests of the club. There wasn’t a long queue.
The subsequent unfolding of events has probably tarnished Sir David Murray’s reputation more than anything, which he acknowledges.
He’s already said he feels he was ‘duped’ by Craig Whyte. His statement goes further, saying the sale has caused ‘profound regret that we sold the club to Craig Whyte and Wavetower [the financier’s then investment vehicle]’.
Sir David says Rangers’ former directors provided Craig Whyte with confidential information which he used to carry out the transaction to buy the club.
He doesn’t quite spell out that trust was betrayed. But with the new owners having obligations and responsibilities to carry out: ‘They patently failed to do so’.
‘Particularly disturbing’
Sir David now says he’s ‘gravely disappointed and staggered’ at the revelations that have come out since the start of this year, including the news that Ticketus provided the funds with which to buy Rangers in exchange for future season ticket sales.
The failure to account for £9.5m from that funding is ‘particularly disturbing’ when there were ‘independent confirmations’ provided last 3 January that the promises given by Craig Whyte last May would still be adhered to.
‘Not unsubstantial documentations’ have been handed to the administrators.
What Sir David does not address is the criticism of the potential tax liabilities Rangers still faces as a result of the Employee Benefit Trusts through which he paid players to avoid tax.
That pre-dates any involvement of Craig Whyte, and still awaits the ruling of a tax tribunal.
Whatever has happened since May 2011, when Mr Whyte got 85% of Rangers shares for only £1, that tax bill alone has the weight to sink Rangers.
And it seems from the MIH accounts that the ruling may also come back to bite the parent company as well. It ‘continues to defend [the] tax query’.
But while it’s still being contested, and with professional advice, the directors of Murray International Holdings don’t feel it necessary to spell out in their accounts the size of the bill they’ll face if the ruling goes against them.

Quick Recap 22 1092 78367 42 10/4/2012 17:20:0 easyJambo 43 6 “Chris McLaughlin‏@BBCchrismclaug
CW also says he has no intention of coming to Glasgow to answer #SFA charges. He says process is ‘farcical’. #Rangers
I guess CW doesn’t see himself in a future role with RFC(IA) or newco RFC 🙂
Time to show some cojones Mr Regan and start issuing some bans, withdrawal of licences etc..”

Quick Recap 22 1095 78370 45 10/4/2012 17:31:0 easyJambo 43 7 “garry88 says: 10/04/2012 at 5:24 pm
You are right about fears of about the authorities being exposed in the BTC result. However it’s actually the best time for the authorities to put the boot in, particularly if RFC is about to be liqidated. If they wish to be seen as exercising ‘strong’ governance, then they can strip trophies with impunity and dish out lifetime footballing bans to a range of people who are no longer connected with the game. Campbell Ogilvie is the one who is most at risk of losing out in all of this.”
Quick Recap 23 1120 78397 20 10/4/2012 19:38:0 easyJambo 43 8 “If you didn’t listen to Charlie Richmond on Sportsound tonight, then I’d suggest that you listen to the podcast later. He certainly had a go at the jobs for the boys mentality within the refereeing heirarchy and went as far as to name George Cummings and Jim McCluskey as being complicit within that.
If Richmond is right then I don’t think that it would take a great leap of faith to believe that the referees could go a step further and deliberately favour a particular team in their decision maing.”
Quick Recap 23 1121 78398 21 10/4/2012 19:39:0 easyJambo 43 9 “oops! maing = making”

Quick Recap 26 1284 78574 34 11/4/2012 13:53:0 easyJambo 43 10 “A footnote to referees progression, or otherwise. Kevin Clancy (28) is Scotland’s youngest and latest FIFA/UEFA referee appointment. He was fast-tracked through the system. All sounds good so far. But you may be asking, who?
Q. How many SPL games has he refereed?
A. Just the one, St Johnstone v Inverness C.T. last Saturday (7th April)
I have no idea how good Kevin is as a referee as I haven’t seen him as yet, but he has only refereed 25 senior games and youth international matches and managed to dish out 9 red cards and 85 yellows in the process. He may be a good ref and worthy of fast-tracking, but I would have thought that fast-tracking would have involved him doing more SPL matches before he would be considered for international appointments.
Something doesn’t quite add up.
P.S. He was in one of my local pubs the other night along with a few other refs celebrating his first SPL game.”
Quick Recap 29 1421 78723 21 11/4/2012 17:59:0 easyJambo 43 11 “As the new rules are currently proposed, if RFC(IA/Liquidated) fail to pay Hearts the next £500K instalment for the Wallace transfer due in June and Hearts subsequently go into administration, then Hearts would start next season on, at best, -16 points (being a penalty of one third of points gained this season thus far), while newco RFC start on -10, despite their former incarnation causing Hearts to go over the edge.
Why do I find myself both laughing and crying simultaneously at the sheer incredulity of it all?”
Quick Recap 31 1542 78863 42 11/4/2012 21:14:0 easyJambo 43 12 “duggie73 says: 11/04/2012 at 8:49 pm
I accept what wou say about the the proposed rule changes in that they will ensure that the newco option is not without cost, but my issue is more to do with the the fact that it implicitly accepts that a newco scenario is a feasible option for a team continuing to play in the SPL following the liquidation of its predecessor.
I’d rather that the SPL reinforced the rules to explicitly EXCLUDE the possibility of a newco being given an option to continue to play in the SPL. The only possible exception I would make is where a club is the victim of an unconnected business failure (i.e non football related) of its parent company.”

Quick Recap 36 1794 79159 44 12/4/2012 11:11:0 easyJambo 43 13 “I’ve softened my view on the proposals a lttle having had a some time to consider them through.
Introducing a penalty for a newco entry to the SPL is not what I want because it implicitly allows failing teams an escape route. However the financial penalties are probably sufficient to discourage most teams from going down that route. The 3 year cost will probably work out at somewhere between £1.8M and £6M depending on how successful the newco is in the league.
I actually think that the 3 current bidders for RFC may baulk at the possibility of such a penalty, thus making a newco RFC’s future in the SPL less certain.
The big problem now, as Pal McC pointed out in his blog, is the possibility of a legal challenge to such penalties by a newco RFC particularly if the investors/owners have no direct connection with the previous owners. It is that situation that I have difficulty in reconciling.
The other resolutions about greater points penalties for insolvency, clarifying the rules on insolvency and introducing sanctions for non payment of taxes or wages seem sensible.
However, I’m certaint that the changes to the articles/rules have only come about in reaction to the RFC(IA) situation and highlight that the existing rules are open to alternative interpretations which could be challenged in a court of law. The proposal that they be implemented as early as 14th May also suggests that the SPL Board share that thought.”
Quick Recap 37 1801 79166 1 12/4/2012 11:23:0 easyJambo 43 14 “Trimm Trab says: 12/04/2012 at 11:19 am
You are 100% correct. It is not fair. As I said in a post last night, I think that the SPL should have clarified the rules to ensure that any club going into liquidation is immediately expelled from the league. (full stop)”
Quick Recap 39 1902 79271 2 12/4/2012 16:2:0 easyJambo 43 15 “Chris, DeRichleau, The Sage of G42.
The ‘Club’ doesn’t hold the SPL share. It is a person, normally the ‘Owner’ or Chairman’.
The ‘Member’ who holds the SPL share in respect of RFC was Craig Whyte. That share is now under the stewardship of the Administrators.
There is only one Article that relates to the transfer of a share of a club in Administration and that is Article 14. The conditions for Article 14 being invoked have already been met, therefore one could reasonably assume that it will be executed.
There are also a number of other articles that appear to require the full membership to vote on the admission of a newco. These are 2e, 14(i), 14 (ii), 38, and 66.
Should a club choose to take the matter to court, my view would be that the cumulative weight of Articles 2e, 14(i), 14(ii), 38 and 66 would outweigh that of Article 11.
There is no mention in Article 14 of the Board ‘ordering’ or ‘forcing’ anything. The verb used is ‘shall’ in relation to the administrator/liquidator transferring the share to the proposed trasferee on receipt of a notice from the board following the passing of a ‘Qualified Resolution’ by the members.”
Quick Recap 39 1933 79302 33 12/4/2012 18:45:0 easyJambo 43 16 “NeilR says: 12/04/2012 at 4:21 pm
I concur that the articles as they stand aren’t fit for purpose.
With regard to the ‘person’ issue the articles use several definitions that could work both ways:
Article 2: Member means a person who or which is the holder of a Share;
Article 3: A reference in these Articles to a person includes a body corporate and an unincorporated body of persons,
Article 6: A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a Club and if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.”
Quick Recap 40 1973 79343 23 12/4/2012 19:53:0 easyJambo 43 17 “My last word on Article 14
I think we can all agree that most transfers of SPL shares result from the agreed sale of an SPL club to another buyer, e.g. Vlad buying Hearts from Chris Robinson or indeed Craig Whye buying out SDM. In such circumstances I can see that Articles 11 and 13(iii) would apply and that Board approval is sufficient.
However, if all decisions on the transfer of an SPL share are solely taken by the SPL Board, then what is the purpose of Article 14? Why was it written? Under what circumstances would it be used, if not to deal specifically with an SPL share transfer involving the sale of a club and/or its assets in administration or liquidation?
I don’t know the history of the article, but I suspect that it may have been written either in the wake of either Motherwell’s administration in 2002 or Gretna’s demise in 2008, specifically to document how a club’s SPL share is dealt with in an insolvency process. I do know that the SPL’s articles were amended in light of Motherwell escaping any sporting sanctions in 2002, but I don’t know if that re-write included Article 14.
I’m sure that the SPL’s secretary would be meticulous in their minute taking around the time of the Article being written and that the minutes would confirm its purpose once and for all …… or maybe not!”
Quick Recap 40 1984 79355 34 12/4/2012 20:15:0 easyJambo 43 18 “TheBlackKnight TBK says: 12/04/2012 at 8:01 pm
easyJambo on 12/04/2012 at 7:53 pm
EJ, you raise a point in which I was hoping to avoid (reason being ‘ accused of paranoia etc).
TBK – You ARE para…. parano… paranormal 🙂 ”
Quick Recap 43 2108 79483 8 13/4/2012 1:16:0 easyJambo 43 19 “Sorry guys
SPL Rule H13
Membership of League confers Membership of SFA
H13 In accordance with the SFA Articles and to the extent that it is not already a full or associate member of SFA, membership of the League confers registered membership of the SFA.”
Quick Recap 45 2231 79615 31 13/4/2012 14:3:0 easyJambo 43 20 “Hector tells Port Vale administrators what they can do with their CVA

Port Vale: HMRC set to reject CVA deal
Friday, April 13, 2012
THE taxman looks certain to vote against a proposed deal to pay off Vale’s creditors ‘ but their opposition won’t be enough to derail the takeover.
HM Revenue & Customs are owed £189,965 by Vale, making them the third largest creditor of the club, which entered administration in March.
Vale’s administrator, Begbies Traynor, has set out a Company Voluntary Arrangement which will be voted on by creditors at a meeting on April 26.
The arrangement requires approval from 75 per cent of the value of the club’s £2.69m debt to be passed. But only those creditors who vote will be counted in the calculations.
If approved it will clear the path for Lancashire businessman Keith Ryder to complete his £1.4m takeover.
However, the deal involves unsecured creditors, like HMRC, receiving 3p for each £1 they are owed, which would pocket them just £5,700.
All football creditors, including players who have wage arrears, are paid in full, which reduces the available cash for other parties.
A Revenue and Customs spokesman said: ‘HMRC has a long-standing policy that we will not support a CVA which seeks to give preference to one class of unsecured creditor over another.
‘HMRC has challenged the operation of the football creditor rule in the High Court, since this rule seeks to give an advantage to unsecured football creditors over other non-football unsecured creditors.
‘The practical application of the so-called ‘football creditor rule’ can mean that the risk of revenue losses in the football sector can be particularly high.
‘HMRC’s view is that the rule is unfair, unlawful and unacceptable which is why we are challenging it in the courts.’
If the CVA is not approved by creditors, Ryder could still complete his deal, although Vale could be hit with a further deduction of between 15 and 20 points if they exit administration without an agreement in place.
However, it is the approval of Vale’s largest creditor, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which holds the key to the green light being given.
They are owed £1.859m, giving them a 69 per cent share of the debt, compared to HMRC’s seven per cent.
The city council have yet to reveal whether they will back the proposals, although it is believed the club are confident they will support the agreement.
HMRC has twice failed in legal battles to have the football creditor rule overturned and are now awaiting a third verdict following the latest High Court hearing in November.
The rule also includes settling outstanding payments to other clubs and the Football League.
Port Vale’s football creditors bill will be a minimum of £97,726, but could rise to as much as £300,000 if Vale secure a loan off the Professional Footballers’ Association to help pay players’ wages over the next three months.
Quick Recap 46 2283 79667 33 13/4/2012 17:8:0 easyJambo 43 21 “Having read through AT’s latest blog, I’m afraid that it’s his poorest effort to date. There is nothing new in it. He repeats what Salmond said on Jan 11th and makes reference to the FOI response which is already in the public domain. Other than that, its all inference of some wrongdoing on the part of the government without any evidence to back it up.
…… and I’m not an SNP voter.”
Quick Recap 46 2292 79676 42 13/4/2012 17:33:0 easyJambo 43 22 “Auldheid says: 13/04/2012 at 5:16 pm
Personally I don’t think it was a political error, although there are many who will see it that way. I think that AT accepts that in his penultimate paragraph
‘So Alex Salmond’s damned whatever he does. Fail to act and you look like you don’t care. Act and you’ve the minefield of national and international football politics to contend with.
Either way, I think the political aspect has already been done to death, on here and elsewhere. Roll on the FTT decision.'”
Quick Recap 46 2293 79677 43 13/4/2012 17:35:0 easyJambo 43 23 “Another holding statement from D&P
‘ Duff & Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today.
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: ‘Following discussions with three parties bidding to purchase the football club, we can confirm that all three parties have informed us today they wish to remain in the sale process.
‘However, following the information supplied by us to bidders in relation to proposed new rules on penalties for insolvent clubs within the SPL, there have been changes made to the conditions attached to bids.
‘Among the new conditions are requests from parties who now, before committing further, wish access to the football authorities in order to seek greater clarity on the proposed rule changes. We hope to provide Rangers supporters with a further update next week and will continue to make every effort to reach the point where a preferred bidder can be announced.
‘We are keen to conclude an offer as soon as possible and certainly we would hope that this does not mean that finalisation is delayed until April 30, 2012.’
Quick Recap 47 2307 79691 7 13/4/2012 18:23:0 easyJambo 43 24 “The Sage of G42 says: 13/04/2012 at 5:42 pm
I’m sure that ATs blogs are now mostly read by followers of RTC and other football blogs and messageboards. The number of AT’s followers on Twitter shot up only after he first reported on RFC(IA) around 8th March.
That said, I’m delighted to see him asking difficult questions of the various authorities, but there doesn’t have to be a conspiracy behind every action by a government, SFA or SPL official in connection with RFC.”
Quick Recap 50 2462 79848 12 14/4/2012 9:20:0 easyJambo 43 25 “TheBlackKnight TBK says: 14/04/2012 at 3:19 am
Does anyone have a link to that excellent post from I think either Trimm or Taysider? It had over 300 thumbs up when I last looked.
Over 500 now 🙂 ”
Balance of Probabilities 5 247 80496 47 16/4/2012 18:43:0 easyJambo 118 1 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says: 16/04/2012 at 2:37 pm
Cracking post BRTH. Right up there with one of the best posted since the blog started.
I can empathise with your views on Gavin Masterton CBE as being the common link in the financial difficulties across Scottish football. I worked for BoS from 1975 until 2000 then HBOS from 2003-2008. It was the same person who changed BoS from being a low risk, prudent financial institution under the control of Sir Bruce Pattullo into a risk taking, profit seeking, bonus culture organisation the epitomises all that is wrong with both the banking system and the Scottish football economy.”
Balance of Probabilities 6 282 80533 32 16/4/2012 19:23:0 easyJambo 118 2 “TheBlackKnight TBK says: 16/04/2012 at 7:06 pm
TBK – I honestly don’t know the answer to your question. The SFA are members of UEFA so I suspect that they are have the power to determine how Scottish football is set up. The SFA have obviously agreed previously that the SPL should be set up as the elite league within Scotland, albeit subsevient to the SFA, so I would expect that they could insist on change if they see fit.
I don’t know how the SFA could be displaced as Scotland’s UEFA representatives short of a breakaway company seeking recognition from UEFA.
I’m sure I’m preaching to the converted, but Scotland is a small country and doesn’t need more than one govering body to run the game. My personal view is that the SFA should limit itself to the professional game (inculding its youth development), and leave the amateur, junior and other affiliated leagues to their own devices.”

Balance of Probabilities 7 310 80562 10 16/4/2012 20:3:0 easyJambo 118 3 “TheBlackKnight TBK says: 16/04/2012 at 7:41 pm
In light of Celtic and RFC(IA)’s apparent reluctance to agree changes the voting structure, I see it more as an opportunist power grab to reduce the influence of, or to isolate, Celtic and RFC(IA) in any future setup.
I don’t see anything (yet) in the proposals that assumes an accommodation for a newco RFC into the top level of a new league setup. My gut feeling is that there is actually a hardening of attitudes in most clubs against a newco, possibly in response to the various surveys and other communications between fans goups and their respective clubs.
I deliberately didn’t post on the blog yesterday to avoid being drawn into any ‘dodgy’ arguments. I’ll keep it that way 😉 ”

Balance of Probabilities 8 353 80607 3 16/4/2012 21:4:0 easyJambo 118 4 “Latest D&P offering
‘Duff and Phelps, Administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement.
David Whitehouse, joint administrator, said: ‘It is disappointing the Blue Knights are withdrawing at this stage, particularly in the view of the fact that last week it was made clear to them and Ticketus that their indicative bid placed them in a strong position.
‘We were therefore surprised that their offer to pay an exclusivity fee was withdrawn and although discussions over the exclusivity fee continued over the weekend, no agreement was reached.
‘At all stages of the process, The Blue Knights/Ticketus bid has been given the most serious consideration by us as administrators, particularly due to the fact that it was being encouraged by supporters’ groups.
‘We are aware that Ticketus has also been, at their own instigation, in parallel discussion with one of the other bidders over the last few weeks and it remains to be seen whether these discussions will be taken forward.
‘We can reassure supporters of the Club that we look forward to making an announcement on a preferred bidder later this week, assuming no further hurdles are placed in our path.
‘While we as administrators have a statutory duty to look after the interests of creditors and keep the business going, it is of paramount importance that the bid which is taken forward is the best on offer for Rangers Football Club.’

Balance of Probabilities 8 384 80640 34 16/4/2012 21:37:0 easyJambo 118 5 “Allyjambo Taxpayer says: 16/04/2012 at 9:18 pm
Maybe not. I was in I.T. initially at Robertson Ave then Sighthill.”
Balance of Probabilities 12 587 80855 37 17/4/2012 12:12:0 easyJambo 118 6 “WOTTPI says: 17/04/2012 at 11:13 am
From the definition of a contract in the SPL Rules, it suggests that there is a standard form to player contracts as determined by the SPL.
‘Contract of Service means a contract of service for a Player in the standard form of the League and/or SFL and references to any particular type of Contract of Service shall be construed accordingly;’
I don’t know if that means that there is an actual form or that contracts must be written in a similar format. My guess would be the latter, with consistent references to contract duration, basic wage, bonuses (for appearances / win / draw / goals scored / clean sheets / league position / cup progression etc), signing on fees, pension contributions etc.”
Balance of Probabilities 13 609 80878 9 17/4/2012 13:4:0 easyJambo 118 7 “strandsky says: 17/04/2012 at 11:53 am
BRTH – another thought provoking post as always. This time, it triggers memories from my youth more than anything else. Apologies RTC for reminiscing 🙂
Having originally been from that locale, I followed both Cowdenbeath and Dunfermline as a youh and watched Gordon McDougall (car no. 41) perform on the track at Central Park most Sundays.
At school, I was a contemporary of Jim Leishman, Dick and Ian Campbell, and Doug Rougvie and played in various school or other teams with them.
Your mention of the Callaghan brothers also reminds me of watching my local junior side Lochore Welfare in the early 60s, when Tom ‘Tid’ Callaghan featured as did others who made it in the senior ranks like Ian Porterfield, Willie Johnston, Alec Edwards and Arthur Mann.
Back to the thrust of your post about McDougall / Yorkston / Masterton. I think that the film name of the ‘Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ pretty well sums up their respective contributions to Scottish Football.”
Balance of Probabilities 13 637 80906 37 17/4/2012 14:8:0 easyJambo 118 8 “Ianc says: 17/04/2012 at 2:01 pm
Current Directors:
Sasin Monvoisin
Pintongta Shinawatra
Dr Thaksin Shinawatra
Panthongtae Shinawatra”
Balance of Probabilities 16 756 81028 6 17/4/2012 19:48:0 easyJambo 118 9 “Shock Horror Gasp ! 🙂
The Rangers FC Group PLC annual accounts are overdue at Companies House. (as of today)
Accounting Reference Date: 30/04
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 16/04/2012 OVERDUE”
Balance of Probabilities 21 1039 81316 39 18/4/2012 19:12:0 easyJambo 118 10 “STV article on D&P taking action against ‘Group’

Rangers administrators sue Craig Whyte’s company in £25m legal action
Duff and Phelps confirmed the legal action was against both Rangers FC Group and Collyer Bristow.
By Mike Farrell 18 April 2012 18:30 GMT
Rangers: Duff and Phelps are suing the club’s parent company owned by Craig Whyte. Pic: © SNS Group
Rangers administrators are suing Craig Whyte’s company and his lawyers for more than £25m in damages in relation to his takeover of the club.
Duff and Phelps have launched the legal action on behalf of Rangers and confirmed it is against Rangers FC Group Ltd, the club’s parent company owned by Mr Whyte.
Rangers FC Group, formerly Wavetower, bought Sir David Murray’s 85.3% stake in Rangers for a nominal £1 last May.
It was widely publicised on Tuesday that Collyer Bristow faced the £25m claim from the administrators, but on Wednesday Duff and Phelps confirmed the action also extended to Rangers FC Group.
A Duff and Phelps spokesman said: ‘I can confirm that the action for damages raised in the High Court in London is against both Collyer Bristow and Rangers FC Group.’
Collyer Bristow has already described the ‘consequential loss’ claim for in excess of £25m as ‘highly speculative’ and confirmed it will be contesting the action ‘in the strongest possible terms’.
Mr Whyte’s British Virgin Islands registered company, Liberty Capital Limited, wholly owns Rangers FC Group. When it was established, the only other directors of Group were Phillip Betts ‘ who has since resigned form his position ‘ and Andrew Ellis, who claimed Mr Whyte had ‘duped’ him during the takeover.
This court action launched by administrators acting on behalf of the club came after they had entered into a five-way legal battle last month over £3.6m that had been seized from a Collyer Bristow account.
HM Revenue and Customs, London ticketing agency Ticketus and two businesses connected to Mr Whyte had all laid claim to part of the cash in proceedings at the High Court in London. This is being dealt with separately from the £25m damages action.
During court proceedings last month, counsel for Duff and Phelps said they had expected to find closer to £9.5m in the legal firm’s seized account.
Former partner at Collyer Bristow Gary Withey, who helped to broker Mr Whyte’s takeover of Rangers, left the company in early March citing ‘family and personal reasons’.

Balance of Probabilities 28 1351 81635 1 19/4/2012 18:3:0 easyJambo 118 11 “steve-b says: 19/04/2012 at 5:45 pm
with newco will HMRC ban the use of ‘rangers’ in their new name?
Maybe not, but the West Stand at Hampen will probably be renamed the ‘HMRC end’.”
Bear With Me 8 391 82180 41 20/4/2012 18:27:0 easyJambo 186 1 “STV news saying that Miller will be given ‘preferred bidder status on Monday if no better offer is received WTF?
If an alternative insolvency company is being sounded out then I think it is likely that D&P have lost out on Resolution 3 which proposed that in the event of liquidation being inevitable then D&P would be appointed as Liquidators”
Bear With Me 13 623 82424 23 21/4/2012 10:40:0 easyJambo 186 2 “What does Millers bid of £11.2M (£10.7M if you exclude the D&P deposit) for the key assets of RFC(IA) do for the solvency of other SPL clubs?
Asset values from the balance sheets of various clubs:
Aberdeen £18.7M
Hibernian £24.3M
Celtic £64.7M
Hearts £18.7M
Kilmarnock £15.2M
If Miller’s bid for a club, a football stadium and other associated assets is realistic then it suggests that most if not all the clubs above may be technically insolvent.”
Bear With Me 14 667 82472 17 21/4/2012 13:53:0 easyJambo 186 3 “If Sky are concerned about the loss of RFC live games, then they could replace them with streams from the Court of Session now that live tv is allowed in court. 🙂
We could see D&P v Ticketus, CW v D&P, HMRC v SDM, D&P v BDO, SFA v CW etc., all of which would attract decent audiences.”

Bear With Me 14 671 82476 21 21/4/2012 13:56:0 easyJambo 186 4 “Anyway, it’s time to head off toTynecastle to see RFC(1872/3) for the last time. 😉 ”
Bear With Me 20 968 82781 18 22/4/2012 16:6:0 easyJambo 186 5 “OnandOnandOnand says:22/04/2012 at 4:03 pm
Bear With Me 24 1156 82980 6 23/4/2012 10:26:0 easyJambo 186 6 “Parson St. Bhoy says: 23/04/2012 at 10:17 am
In addition, no-one in the MSM, or even the commentator on live BBC radio mentioned that fans of RFC(IA) in administration let off two smoke bombs in the Roseburn Stand after the opening goal.
Maybe I was just seeing things. 😦 ”
Bear With Me 24 1160 82984 10 23/4/2012 10:32:0 easyJambo 186 7 “You could be right timtim 🙂
BBC now confirming no preferred bidder today
Rangers: Paul Murray’s Blue Knights and Bill Miller delay bids
By Chris McLaughlin Senior Football Reporter,
BBC Scotland Rangers’ administrators hoping to name the preferred bidder believe there will be no announcement on Monday.
Duff & Phelps told BBC Scotland they have not received a ‘deliverable’ bid.
Full article http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17811695&#8221;
Bear With Me 24 1192 83016 42 23/4/2012 11:43:0 easyJambo 186 8 “Alex Thomson seems to be confirming the BDO appointment in his latest tweets
alex thomson‏@alextomo
RFC Admins say they’re not aware that BDO accountants have been approached to handle liquudation….
My source wd defo know if they had been”

Bear With Me 25 1204 83028 4 23/4/2012 12:4:0 easyJambo 186 9 “Not The Huddle Malcontent says: 23/04/2012 at 11:56 am
I think I may have misinterpreted his tweets. I now think he is saying that the Admins would know if BDO had been approached and his source would be able to confirm it.
His latest tweet
‘Well aware this could be creditors move but Admins wd know of it'”
Bear With Me 26 1274 83101 24 23/4/2012 15:49:0 easyJambo 186 10 “Latest D&P statement
‘Administration Statement
Mon, Apr 23, 2012
DUFF AND PHELPS, the administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today.
David Whitehouse, joint administrator, said: ‘We have continued intensive discussions with interested parties over the weekend.
‘The Blue Knights and Bill Miller have asked for a further short period of time to finalise their plans for the club prior to any announcement on a preferred bidder.
‘At this stage neither party has currently made an offer that is capable of acceptance by the administrators and we can only move forward when we have an offer on the table that can be concluded following a period of final due diligence.
‘In broad terms, the Blue Knights are trying to resolve issues regarding the structure of their proposed funding partnership with Ticketus as well as conducting further analysis of player contracts.
‘The proposed bid from Mr Bill Miller is, as he made clear on Friday, subject to specific conditions.
‘Both bidders have raised with us their strong desire to attain greater clarity on potential footballing sanctions the club may face and these remain issues to be resolved.
‘We believe that both bidding parties have the best interests of the club in mind and, frustrating as though it is for fans, it is better that these complex issues are addressed now rather than later.
‘It is imperative that whichever offer is taken forward can be delivered. For the avoidance of doubt, neither bid involves liquidation.’
Paul Murray, of the Blue Knights, said: ‘Frustrating though this is for everyone with the interests of the club at heart, the Blue Knights are supportive of the administration process and we think it is right the administrators are giving parties left in the race the opportunity to finalise their plans.’
Ally McCoist said: ‘It has been a frustrating time for everyone associated with the club but I would ask our fans to stick with us for a few more days as we should have a clearer idea of where we are.
‘The administrators are working hard behind the scenes in very difficult and complex circumstances to ensure the future of Rangers Football Club.’
Andy Kerr, President of the Rangers Supporters Assembly, added: ‘Our fans are frustrated by the further delay but hopefully the issues can be resolved in the next few days.
‘I’m sure every effort is being made to make progress and it is vitally important that we have clarification soon. It would be helpful if supporters allow Duff and Phelps to get on with their work at this crucial time.’
David Whitehouse added: ‘Because of what has happened at Rangers, the football authorities too have a difficult task as there are many unprecedented issues to deal with.
‘This is a complicated administration due to recent and historical events at Ibrox and while everyone wants to see a solution brought about quickly there is a need to grasp the reality of the situation.
‘It is all very well for some parties to talk in terms of delivering a Company Voluntary Arrangement. That is an administrator’s primary objective.
‘However, that can only be delivered successfully if it is agreeable to creditors and it is fair to say that certain bids that have been submitted may not have been approved by creditors.
‘It is deeply regrettable that some parties have continued to present their bid as being a solution when it clearly was not the case.
‘In terms of timing, we believe that should an unconditional bid be made that would meet creditors’ approval and a CVA process could begin, the club could emerge from administration within a period of two months and certainly prior to the commencement of next season.
‘If we proceed with an offer that is based on a sale of the business and assets, then we would expect the football club share to be transferred within a matter of weeks, with a preference of prior to the end of the current season.
‘We fully understand and share the frustration of the fans. However, we cannot ignore the fact that while they wish to see an exit from administration there is a not a bid on the table now that will deliver that.
‘Everyone should also bear in mind that if that is not achievable then we have to look at all options to keep the club going.
‘What would be the worst outcome is neither party deciding they wish to carry on. It is therefore not in the club’s interest for people – failed bidders and concerned supporters – to be generating hostility to bidders who are trying to secure the club’s future.’

Bear With Me 26 1277 83104 27 23/4/2012 15:54:0 easyJambo 186 11 “More smoke and mirrors from D&P
”It is imperative that whichever offer is taken forward can be delivered. For the avoidance of doubt, neither bid involves liquidation.”
I guess that Paul Clark means that liquidation isn’t liquidation if it means transferring the assets to an ‘incubator company'”
Bear With Me 26 1285 83113 35 23/4/2012 16:6:0 easyJambo 186 12 “So reading between the lines.
The administrators still haven’t received an acceptable bid.
The bidders proposed solutions ……aren’t!
There is every chance of the bidders ……… walking away.”
Bear With Me 26 1299 83127 49 23/4/2012 16:32:0 easyJambo 186 13 “OnandOnandOnand says: 23/04/2012 at 4:07 pm
I guess you mean this post from 8th June. (it was one of the first posts I saved from the blog as I felt it might be relevant down the line)
Your description of the ‘incubator’ deal is the the clearest description I’ve read, so I thank you for that.
‘ the Don Dionisio says: 08/06/2011 at 1:59 pm
‘he will then persuade the Receiver to transfer the assets to him as part of an offset arrangement’. What is your authority for that proposition, and how sure are you about the offset arrangement?
This is hugely important, because in my experience in a previous life, the position was as follows at least in relation to private companies, albeit I recognise we are dealing with a listed plc here.
To facilitate a sale, a new subsidiary of the failed group may be set up by the Receiver and the relevant assets ‘hived down’ to the new company. The new company will have a low share capital and the consideration for the assets hived down will be left outstanding and perhaps undetermined for the time being. If a purchaser agrees to buy the business he will purchase the share capital of Newco for a nominal amount and provide funds to satisfy the debt to the former parent. The debt will at this stage be crystallised as the amount the buyer has agreed to pay for the business.
Through the hiving down procedure, the buyer can buy a business which starts with a clean sheet and the liabilities and commitments of which can be precisely assessed.
To my mind, this could be the key to avoiding any question of administration/ liquidation, as no unsecured creditor will get anything given the figures. There would be no point to admin/liquidation unless I am missing something.
There has to be a ‘sale’ however for ‘hive down’ to work, and hence my query to Onand.
However, from memory, and it’s a vague memory, the Receiver’s preference in ranking still comes after that of any creditor who has already executed diligence prior to the Receiver’s appointment. The Receiver can still sell, with the authority of court, free of the burden of that creditor’s diligence, but ‘subject to such order as the Court sees fit”(i.e presumably the creditor executing diligence gets some sort of pound of flesh, as he was in first!)
Therefore, it seems to me that HMRC ‘and I hope they are listening’ should immediately lodge Inhibitions against both Ibrox Park and Murray Park preventing the sales of those heritable properties, as soon as they win the tax case, if that happens.
Any views out there, as this is getting complicated??
Bear With Me 29 1406 83239 6 23/4/2012 20:54:0 easyJambo 186 14 “jim spence‏@bbcjimspence
judicial panel hearing into Craig Whyte and Rangers still ongoing at Hampden
Seems a bit late. Does Vincent Lunney get paid overtime? They can only be discussing the level of sanctions against CW and RFC(IA), otherwise there would be no need for any further delay.”

Bear With Me 30 1454 83290 4 23/4/2012 22:38:0 easyJambo 186 15 “SFA Ruling published
‘Disciplinary Proceedings Outcome
Monday, 23 April 2012
A Judicial Panel Tribunal convened to hear the cases against Rangers FC and Craig Whyte today concluded their findings and set out the following outcomes:.
Name: Craig Whyte, Director, Rangers FC
Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rules 66, 71 and 105
Outcomes: .
The Tribunal found Craig Whyte guilty under Rule 66 and fined him £50,000..
The Tribunal returned a Not Proven verdict in respect of Rule 71..
The Tribunal found Craig Whyte guilty on three separate counts under Rule 105 and fined him £50,000 in respect of each breach..
The above sanctions shall be paid within 30 days, with interest of 4% per annum over the base lending rate of Bank of Scotland plc from the date of determination until paid..
Under Articles 94.1 and 95, the Tribunal expelled Craig Whyte for life from any participation in Association Football in Scotland..
Name: Rangers FC
Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rules 1, 2, 14, 66, 71 and 325
Outcomes: .
The Tribunal returned a verdict of Not Proven in respect of Rule 1..
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 2 and imposed the maximum fine of £10,000 payable within 12 months..
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 14 and imposed the maximum fine of £50,000 payable within 12 months.
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 66 and imposed the maximum fine of £100,000 payable within 12 months. In addition, the Tribunal imposed a prohibition in terms of Article 94.1 and 95 of the Articles of Association, prohibiting Rangers FC for a period of 12 months from the date of determination from seeking registration with the Scottish FA of any player not currently with the club, excluding any player under the age of 18 years..
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 71 and imposed a censure..
The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty of two breaches in respect of Rule 325 and imposed further censure..
Notes for Editors:.
The Judicial Panel Tribunal shall issue a note of reasons in early course..
Both Rangers FC and Craig Whyte have a right of appeal against findings of guilt and any sanction imposed, within three days of receipt of note of reasons..
Explanatory Notes: .
Rule 1 (b): All members shall:
(b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.
Rule 14 (g): Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated, or a fine may be issued, in any of the following circumstances:-
(g) where a full member or an associate member suffers or is subject to an insolvency event.
Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute..
Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football and shall not act in any manner which is improper..
Rule 105: Any Party who is subject to a Direction from a Tribunal must follow that Direction as so Directed by the Tribunal. Any Party who fails to do so, may be found to be in breach of this rule..
Rule 325: Failing to pay to [Dundee United FC] on the day of the match monies due under Rule 46 c (3) and e of the Scottish FA Cup Competition Rules; being [Dundee United’s] share of receipts for the match; and by failing to pay to the Scottish FA within three days monies due under Rule 46 c (1) of the Scottish FA’s Cup Competition Rules; being the Scottish FA’s levy on admission charges for the above match..
Article 94.1: The Judicial Panel shall have the power to fine, suspend, or expel or in relevant cases to eject from the Challenge Cup Competition or apply such other sanction as is provided for in the Judicial Panel Protocol any recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA who, in its opinion, in any way brings the game in to disrepute or is likely to bring the game into disrepute or on any other grounds it considers sufficient and of which, subject to the rights of appeal, it shall be the sole judge..
Article 95: The Judicial Panel shall have jurisdiction subject to the terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol to deal with any alleged infringement of any provision of these Articles. A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA if found to have infringed the Articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup competition, to any combination of these penalties, or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate, including such other sanctions as are contained within the Judicial Panel Protocol in order to deal justly with the case in question.'”
Bear With Me 30 1456 83292 6 23/4/2012 22:43:0 easyJambo 186 16 “If I’ve read it right, a total £160K fine and a 12 month ban on signing players, Only a censure for not paying Dundee Utd their share of the cup gate money”

Bear With Me 30 1459 83295 9 23/4/2012 22:46:0 easyJambo 186 17 “£200k fine for Craig Whyte and a lifetime ban from Scottish football. I think the SFA will see SFA of that money. 🙂 ”
Bear With Me 38 1852 83702 2 24/4/2012 15:54:0 easyJambo 186 18 “I think D&P are deliberately missing the point here. The sanctions are the result of actions taken/not taken by the club BEFORE they went into administration. i.e. they would have suffered these sanctions regardless.”
Bear With Me 51 2512 84414 12 25/4/2012 22:28:0 easyJambo 186 19 “I’m not one to post video clips, but this one from a Hearts site seemed appropriate:
Apologies if it has been posted previously. (I tend to ignore video clips 🙂 )
Rumours 2 94 86438 44 30/4/2012 10:5:0 easyJambo 45 1 “‘rangerstaxcase says: 30/04/2012 at 8:45 am
Where do we get the idea that the SPL has the authority to deduct money owed to other clubs?
Money owed directly to the SPL? Possibly. (Even then I am not certain).
Football creditors in Scotland are unsecured- just like Ticketus and HMRC. The money should go into a pot where all unsecured creditors are treated pari passu.’
RTC – The SPL Rules give the following guidance
‘Defaulting Clubs
C9.1 If any Club defaults in making payment of any sum or sums due to the Company and/or to another Club the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, under these Rules, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any debt due by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.
C9.2 If, in the opinion of the Board, there are grounds to believe that a Club may not fulfil or be able, on the basis of information available to the Board, to fulfil all or any of its fixture obligations in Official Matches in the course of a Season then the Board may withhold, retain and/or defer payment of any sums which would otherwise be payable and/or be expected to be paid by the Company to such Club until such time as the Board is satisfied that such fixture obligations have or will be fulfilled.’
What I don’t know is whether or not D&P would win a legal challenge to have any retained or redirected funds released to them.”
Rumours 3 138 86488 38 30/4/2012 12:0:0 easyJambo 45 2 “Tyke Bhoy says: 30/04/2012 at 11:31 am
I think your calculation is the wrong way round. Results against a defaulting club would be ‘Expunged’, therefore you should remove any points gained against RFC(IL) and adjust the number of games played.”
Rumours 3 144 86494 44 30/4/2012 12:2:0 easyJambo 45 3 “SPL FPP meeting adjourned Clubs want more ‘clarity’ 😦 ”
Rumours 4 188 86540 38 30/4/2012 13:20:0 easyJambo 45 4 “Fritz A. Grandold (@fritzagrandold) says: 30/04/2012 at 12:54 pm
The SPL proposals were delayed by one club, Doncaster said so in the press conference. The other 11 were happy to proceed.
Who would that club be and why?
I think your interpretation of what was said is wrong Fritz.
One (unnamed) club proposed an adjournment. The other 11 supported the proposal.”
Rumours 12 559 86940 9 1/5/2012 11:38:0 easyJambo 45 5 “The longer this saga continues, then the chances are that most clubs will have started their season ticket renewal programmes. I think this could work to the SPL’s (ND’s) advantage in that fewer fans will end up ‘walking away’ as early purchase discounts are snapped up.
I know that both Hearts and Hibs are already well into their renewals, with Hibs in particular using the promise of Cup Final tickets to attract extra sales.
From a Hearts point of view they were looking for ealrly sales to fund their well known cashflow problems. However, they implemented a ‘dynamic pricing’ model which has caused a lot of negative reaction from the fans (prices went up £100 on the opening day), which, although initial sales were good, it may ultimately backfire on them. I personally have not renewed and the cut off date to retain my own seat has already passed. I know several fans who have renewed, but intend to boycott any future RFC(newco) games, which may be more of an indication of fans still being fans of their club no matter what.
What is the situation with other clubs Season Ticket renewals?”
Rumours 21 1047 87465 47 2/5/2012 14:54:0 easyJambo 45 6 “TheBlackKnight TBK says: 02/05/2012 at 2:20 pm
MG02 logged with Companies House. Unclear what for.
TBK the MG02s was just an administrative catch-up to confirm the discharge of a an old BoS security from 2004 relating to a bridging loan of €1.333M and a letter of credit. The administrators made reference to it in their Creditors report on 5th April.”
Rumours 33 1647 88125 47 3/5/2012 19:20:0 easyJambo 45 7 “Whitehouse’s claim the HMRC and Ticketus have supported or favoured the Miller bid is just more smoke and mirrors. What he means is that HMRC and Ticketus voted in the 20th April creditor vote in favour of D&P continuing their role in the Admin process, which included giving them the authority to sell RFC(IA) assets.”
Rumours 43 2124 88669 24 4/5/2012 21:20:0 easyJambo 45 8 “http://t.co/EKCcRy5G&#8221;
Rumours 43 2126 88671 26 4/5/2012 21:23:0 easyJambo 45 9 “Excellent piece by the 200% blogger, with added satire. Basically, it ridicules Neil Doncaster’s arguments from earlier this week.
Rumours 43 2145 88692 45 4/5/2012 23:5:0 easyJambo 45 10 “frank’s boy says: 04/05/2012 at 10:45 pm
Of the SPL posters out there who have copies of their club’s annual accounts, how many SPL clubs bank with LBG ?
Aberdeen BoS
Celtic Co-Op
Dundee Utd BoS
Dunfermline BoS
Hearts offshore
Hibernian BoS
ICT ??? – Don’t have an overdraft
Kilmarnock BoS
Motherwell ???
RFC(IA) ex BoS
St Johnstone ???
St Mirren Clydesdale”

Miller Industries 7 303 89120 3 6/5/2012 0:48:0 easyJambo 127 1 “RTC revealing more players with EBTs
2003 Scottish Cup final v Dundee
Klos, Ricksen, Moore, Amoruso, Numan, Ferguson, Malcolm, McCann, De Boer, Mols, Arveladze
Dec 2002 v Celtic
Klos Ross Moore Amoruso Numan Ricksen Ferguson McCann R De Boer Mols Averladze
Subs: Hughes McGregor Cannigia Malcolm Lovenkrands”

Miller Industries 7 312 89131 12 6/5/2012 1:10:0 easyJambo 127 2 “BillyBhoy68 says: 06/05/2012 at 12:28 am
Rangers FC Acquisitions Limited Newinc Document 4/5/2012
This looks like a much more authentic RFC(IA) Newco registration than those previously submitted from address in housing estate. Is there any way of determining who made the request to the company formation agent who actually set up the company?.”
Miller Industries 19 916 89839 16 7/5/2012 17:27:0 easyJambo 127 3 “The lack of leadership and indecision within the SPL is astounding.
The simple option they had was to do nothing. The onus is actually on D&P to act, not the SPL.
One of the SPL member clubs is in administration. Rather than seek assurances from the administrators about the future of the club as a going concern or exiting administration with a CVA, they have been scrambling around looking at ways to amend their rules and articles to find ways to punish / not punish and accommodate / not accommodate RFC in whatever guise they may exist in the future.
Two key things they could have done.
1) Put out a statement re the dual contracts that no decision would be made before the FTT reports. State that some information had been obtained from the Administrators, but further key information was expected from the FTT report about the nature of payments paid to players through an EBT.
2) Set a date, e.g. mid June (or in advance of the date that next season’s fixtures are due to be announced) by which time the Administrators or new owner will have to provide evidence that RFC(IA) will continue as a going concern, either with a plan of continuing into the new season still in administration, or having exited administration with a CVA, or having submitted a request for a newco to accepted. Failure to meet the deadline without such assurances or a plan would result in RFC being expelled from the SPL and applications would be invited from other clubs on an invitation would go out to either Dunfermline/Hibs (if relegated) or Dundee.
That would leave the SPL with a single decision to make. i.e. on the application of a newco if one was received. That decision would either be a rejection, acceptance with conditions, acceptance without conditions.
Miller Industries 22 1092 90054 42 7/5/2012 23:20:0 easyJambo 127 4 “Goosy says: 07/05/2012 at 10:43 pm
Stein`s captain was Jim Leishman whose inate sincerity was visible to all. For years Jim was cheered to the rafters every time Dumfermline came to Parkhead. He often had to take a bow to quieten the crowd
I think your mind is playing tricks with you. Stein left Dunfermline in 1964 when Leishman was only 10 or 11. Leishman joined Dunfermline in 1970.
The team that beat Valencia was: Herriot; Callaghan, Cunningham; Thomson, McLean, Miller; Edwards, Peebles, Smith, Sinclair, Melrose.”
Miller Industries 22 1095 90058 45 7/5/2012 23:24:0 easyJambo 127 5 “Smartie1947 says: 07/05/2012 at 11:15 pm – To quick for me.
I played in school teams with Leishman, Dick Campbell and his twin Ian. All with connections to the Pars.”
Miller Industries 42 2067 91173 17 9/5/2012 22:15:0 easyJambo 127 6 “john clarke says:09/05/2012 at 9:59 pm
There are various ‘Data Mining’ software tools that could do such an analysis. However the problem would be to get all the data in one place.
I’m sure there are a number of free text analysis tools that would do keyword frequency and the like, but again you will be limited by how much text you could copy/paste as input.”
Miller Industries 42 2078 91186 28 9/5/2012 22:37:0 easyJambo 127 7 “john clarke says: 09/05/2012 at 9:59 pm
I selected an online text analysis tool at random http://voyeur.hermeneuti.ca/
and gave the source input as input as the last 11 pages of this Blogpost and it came up with the following:
There are 11 documents in this corpus with a total of 68,341 words and 6,340 unique words.
Longest documents (by words ): (8,363), (7,750). Shortest documents: (3,409), (4,679). All…
Highest vocabulary density (): (352.6), (315.9). Lowest density: (244.5), (254.8). All…
Most frequent words in the corpus: the (3,204), to (1,953), a (1,795), of (1,601), and (1,318). More…
Words with notable peaks in frequency across the corpus: comments (), bill (), my (), why (), whyte (). More…
Distinctive words (compared to the rest of the corpus)
: hmrc (14), derek (6), analysis (6), text (4), data (5).
: th (15), date (9), guilfoyle (8), st (9), hand (8).
: taxlawplebeian (14), teams (11), without (21), two (12), miserable (7).
: ticketus (23), ibrox (22), fail (9), there’s (8), secured (7).
: ticket (11), tigertim (10), ticketus (17), revenue (8), weeminger (6).”
Miller Industries 57 2822 92022 22 11/5/2012 13:3:0 easyJambo 127 8 “I’ve skim read the full SFA Note of Reasons document.
My overall view is unchanged in that I believe that the 12 month signing ban was reasonalble and proportionate. I was somewhat surprised that a greater penaly was not applied with respect to failing to pay Dundee Utd and the SFA, monies due from the Scottish Cup tie on 5th Feb (i.e. before they went into admin.)
There appears to have been 2 capital injections, one of £200K and one of £800K, which probably came from the Ticketus money.
There is strong implied criticism of financial controller Ken Olverton and other board members for having failed to act when they knew full well that taxes were not being pain and statutory accounts were not being submitted.”
Miller Industries 57 2829 92029 29 11/5/2012 13:15:0 easyJambo 127 9 “The other point I picked up on was several references to Tesco v Nattrass(1972) which I assume relates to corporate liability for the actions of an individual. I’ll wait for Paul McC’s of the reasons for more information”
Miller Industries 57 2831 92031 31 11/5/2012 13:17:0 easyJambo 127 10 “Thate should have read ‘I’ll wait for Paul McC’s review of the reasons for more information'”
Miller Industries 98 4900 94398 50 15/5/2012 22:4:0 easyJambo 127 11 “VITAL Signs says: 15/05/2012 at 7:30 pm
The sanctions listed in the Judicial Protocol are guidelines
From the document:
8. Jurisdiction and Powers
8.1 Power of Tribunal to consider and determine disciplinary and regulatory matters
8.1.1 A Tribunal may consider and determine any alleged breach of the Disciplinary Rules and/or the Articles, and may impose such sanction(s) or other Determination as are provided for in respect of such Disciplinary Rules and/or Articles, or as may otherwise be appropriate in the circumstances.
11. Sanctions
11.1 The Disciplinary Rules provide a Scale of Sanctions to be imposed in respect of breaches of those rules, and the maximum limit of such sanctions.
11.2 When issuing a Determination, the Tribunal may apply such number or combination of sanctions as specified in the Articles, the Disciplinary Rules or this Protocol, and specify such time limit for compliance with each sanction as it considers appropriate.”
Miller Industries 107 5319 94834 19 16/5/2012 23:12:0 easyJambo 127 12 “One thing I’m not clear about with the Transfer embargo, is when it starts given that RFC(IA) already have signing restrictions because of already being in Admin. I would have hoped that it would apply for two full Transfer windows following their exit from Administration (either with a CVA or through the sale of the business to a newco)
I can see similar arguments to those that Neil Lennon and Sion applied (one successful, one unsuccessful) regarding concurrency of bans.”
Miller Industries 107 5323 94838 23 16/5/2012 23:16:0 easyJambo 127 13 “‘
scapa says: 16/05/2012 at 11:10 pm
Some detail on next weeks must see programme by Mr Daly
……………… This is a programme based on dozens of secret emails, letters and documents which uncover the truth behind the tax scheme which threatens the club’s very existence, …………..’

RTC – Have you been feeding any info to Mark Daly by any chance ??????? 🙂 ”
Miller Industries 114 5685 95238 35 17/5/2012 18:21:0 easyJambo 127 14 “‘
Paulie Walnuts says: 17/05/2012 at 5:12 pm
If he has been taking interest from May last, it might not be a question of racking up a paper debt so as to put himself in pole position for the assets on liquidation, but rather a case of his sucking cash out month by month through Wavetower, on to Liberty in the BVI and thereafter who knows where. He might just be saying ‘I’ve ripped out £5 or £6m here. Wavetower will be insolvent in a few weeks. Perhaps followed by Liberty. Catch me if you can. And as he said to the SFA ‘Good luck in collecting the money’.

I think you are right with your theory that CW may already have taken around £5M out the club.
Using the back of a fag packet, an expected trading loss of £10M, plus some figures from the Creditors report in April you can easily come up with a £5M surplus that has ‘disappeared’.
I have ignored the disputed funds in the Collyer Bristow account as that is matched by the additional funding obtained from other ‘investors’ at the time of the takeover.
£35M – estimated turnover is a seson with no UEFA income
£20M – initial Ticketus payment in May 11
£5M – second Ticketus payment in Sep 11
Total £60M
£29M – Operating costs (£45M normal exp. less £14M unpaid taxes and £2M unpaid bills)
£18M – Lloyds
£8M – Ticketus (£3M in June 11 and £5M in Sept 11)
Total £55M’

Miller Industries 118 5888 95489 38 18/5/2012 9:34:0 easyJambo 127 15 “Goosy says: 18/05/2012 at 9:10 am
Has a technical expert paid by the SFA read the surveyors report into asbestos in the Big Hoose?
Before any Newclub gets a licence it needs a safe stadium
The stadium asbestos issue is completely overblown. The are hvndreds of thousands of buildings with asbestos throughout Britain, that are used perfectly safely on a daily basis. The problem with asbestos only comes when you try to remove, replace or repair it, in which case it needs careful controls on its handling.
Asbestos in a stadium will not prevent a safety certificate being granted. Just ask Hearts.”
Miller Industries 132 6553 96340 46 20/5/2012 12:52:0 easyJambo 127 16 “I seem to have lost my last post, a bit like my ‘lost’ last 24 hours. Just catching up, so thanks everyone for the good wishes. Pity the game wasn’t a good spectacle, but you can’t expect any more is only one team turns up. 🙂
Back on topic. Not a lot of new info in the past couple of days. I guess we will have to look forward to Mark Daly’s latest expose on Wednesday or the SPL meeting at the end of the month as the next key dates.
I’ll stick to the chill pills and see what unfolds, while I relax in a mood of quiet satisfaction after yesterday.”
Doncaster Dooms SPL 4 186 97256 36 22/5/2012 20:46:0 easyJambo 128 1 “RTC – I’m interested in your apparent change of tack on revealing information on the individuals involved in the EBT case.
You have now effectively outed around 30 players and a couple of former directors as recipients of EBTs.
Is it through your frustration with the drawn out FTT and Admin processes, or is it the emergence of worthy TV journos in Alex Thomson and Mark Daly that has empowered you to go that bit further? Indeed, have you collaborated with either or both of them, or do we have to wait for the book? 🙂 ”
Doncaster Dooms SPL 4 189 97260 39 22/5/2012 20:56:0 easyJambo 128 2 “RTC – a further observation. While you have become, understandably, more antagonistic towards Doncaster’s role in all this, it is noticeable that you have generally been more positive about Stewart Regan’s role and his appreciation of the issues, paticularly following your Twitter exchanges. To quote a former bidder for RFC(IA), have you received ‘assurances’ from Regan and the SFA?”
Doncaster Dooms SPL 4 197 97268 47 22/5/2012 21:7:0 easyJambo 128 3 “yojimbo56 says: 22/05/2012 at 9:00 pm
Thanks re the cup.
While you and I and many others probably feel that they have the answers to my questions, it would be good to get confirmation. I think that a public confirmation that multiple journalists and bloggers are working together to get to the truth could go a long way to bring about a quicker collapse of this house of cards.”

Doncaster Dooms SPL 14 665 97767 15 23/5/2012 19:28:0 easyJambo 128 4 “Duff & Phelps knew ……… I’m sure I’ve heard something similar before. 🙂 ”
Doncaster Dooms SPL 15 738 97840 38 23/5/2012 20:0:0 easyJambo 128 5 “Well done RTC. I’ll buy you a pint of your favoured tipple whenever i meet you.
I take it that I will recognise you as the person who will be wearing a cracked RFC Crest. 🙂 ”

Doncaster Dooms SPL 16 757 97859 7 23/5/2012 20:14:0 easyJambo 128 6 “RTC – as Dick Ermery may have said ‘ooh you are awful, but I like you'”
Doncaster Dooms SPL 19 924 98033 24 23/5/2012 21:45:0 easyJambo 128 7 “Blog Prize
This year’s Blog Prize judges chose Rangers Tax-Case, as the Blog Prize winner. Rangers Tax-Case says s/he are using their 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.’ The winning posts investigate the financial scandal surrounding Rangers Football Club.
This year’s Blog Prize judges were Suzanne Moore (journalist, The Guardian and the Mail on Sunday), Hopi Sen (blogger, previously shortlisted and longlisted for the Orwell Prize) and Sean Dodson (Guardian contributor and senior lecturer of journalism at Leeds Metropolitan University).
The judges said: ‘The 2012 Blog Prize showed that not only could blogs comment on current events, they could drive stories forward. Rangers Tax-Case takes what might be a dry topic ‘ the tax affairs of a sports team ‘ and shows how a striving for transitory success has severely distorted sporting, legal and ethical boundaries. Displaying focused contempt for those who evade difficult truths, and beating almost every Scottish football journalist to the real story ‘ Rangers Tax-Case shows how expertise and incisive writing can expose the hypocrisies the powerful use to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. It is a worthy winner which not only proves that independent blogging is as healthy as it ever was, but also offers a mirror in which our times are reflected.'”

Doncaster Dooms SPL 21 1033 98147 33 23/5/2012 22:44:0 easyJambo 128 8 “scapa says: 23/05/2012 at 10:36 pm
‘Discussions are already underway with our solicitors with a view to bringing legal proceedings against the BBC’
That sounds a bit familiar does it not? I wonder how CW’s action against the Beeb is progressing?”
Doncaster Dooms SPL 22 1075 98189 25 23/5/2012 23:9:0 easyJambo 128 9 “paulmac says: 23/05/2012 at 10:59 pm
As with the October programme, the BBC (and Mark Daly) have relied on physical records to show a conflict of interest (i.e. the emails), so I can’t see any prospect of P!sh & Phlaps being successful in any legal action.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s