MacWatt

HMRC are legally barred from pursuing tax debts where the debtor has become insolvent. If the phoenix company takes overall the assets and has the same Directors then HMRC may issue a personal liability notice to pursue the debt from a particular Director. Not all phoenix companies are rogue companies. Paul Murray is not a Director of Rangers Football Club PLC. So a separate company with separate Directors is home free.

D&P could liquidate the assets prior to liquidating the company. Rangers Newco 2012 (Paul Murray, Dave King or whoever) could buy the assets (Murray Park and Ibrox, players' registrations) without the debts. Paul Murray's group could get a new company set up.... Glasgow Rangers Football Club 2012 PLC? The Newco can apply for Associate Membership of the SFA. Not a problem. They will also have to apply to the SFA for licence. Despite the SFA rules say that 3 years accounts are required they would just say 'Not trading'..... Licence issued. The Newco then applies to the SPL to have the SPL share transferred to the Newco. Requires approval of SPL Board following consideration by the clubs. Money talks and very nervous Chairmen give it the nod...... Share transferred. All of this needs to be carried out before Rangers Football Club PLC is necessarily liquidated. It may be that if the Newco plays at Ibrox they could still get involved in Ticketus litigation. So they may decide to play at Hampden until season 2015-2016 What could emerge is a profitable and substantially debt free Rangers with same ground, strip and history. Simple?

Unless Sky/ESPN claw back half the TV money due to their being 2 less OF games. That might cause a few cash flow problems.

The SPL did indeed discuss rules changes which Doncaster said were about financial fair play in the face of the severe financial challenges being faced by several member clubs. Clubs will vote on the new rules at a general meeting, either in April or July.

It is no coincidence that Doncaster has come out today pointing to the re-admission of Rangers into SPL following a meeting of all 12 clubs yesterday. The SPL clubs will do anything to retain Rangers in SPL and safeguard the TV deal/league sponsorship. If they fail to do this a number of clubs could go to the wall. They also talked about amending their articles to address financial fair play issues. This could include a further points deductions. Some time ago Tom English, I think suggested that the most likely scenrio was the readmission of Rangers with a 10 point deduction at the start of the next three seasons. May not be far off the mark.

The central issue in this case is whether the money received by Rangers’ employees from the EBT were wages for footballing activities. The reality and real substance of the case is that payments from the EBT were in the form of loans The reality is that the players currently still owe the trust and the loans are required to be paid back. Therefore, what Rangers argued at the BTC and which they will tell Doncaster is that the withdrawals from the EBTs are not wages, not contractual, not taxable and not contrary to SPL rules.

As Coyle was willing to take a punt on him, his stock will be fairly high and at the least, a Championship side would be a likely destination.

That would be a nightmare for the SPL clubs trying to set their budgets for the following season. If there is no £13 per season TV money and no £10 million Clydesdale Bank money HJ has suggested that the playing budgets of many clubs may have to cut by 50% in order to balance the books. So uncertainty over the existence of Rangers will be a 'clusterfuck' to be sure.

"Doncaster, though, believes that the extended contract with their broadcast partners (which is due to last until 2017) will not be affected if Rangers are not in the top flight. "What will be in the next contract from the summer to be seen. You do a deal originally in a short-form agreement and then the long-form agreement follows that later on. "That's in process at the moment. What will happen in the future? I never predict anything in football." Neil Doncaster announced in November 2012 to great fanfare that the SPL have agreed 'substantially improved terms' with the broadcasters in a deal which takes effect from the start of next season and runs until 2017. So does he have a deal or not? How does he know what the terms are? "To have Sky and ESPN contracted for five years from 2012 gives our clubs the stability in a difficult economic climate and to plan for the future. "It's a new five-year deal from 2012 to 2017. It's still the same 60 live games that ESPN and Sky show at present but it's improved terms. It's substantially improved terms financially." So basically this 'short form agreement' to which he refers has yet to become a 'long form agreement' which is 'still in process' and which may change. So I will predict something........if there are not 4 OF games per season then the deal will not be worth £80 million.

So the current TV deal requires 4 OF games but he 'believes' the new one doesn't. Firstly, does he not know the terms of the deal? Has he not read it? I would be very suprised if it doesn't have at least some renegotiaion clause allowing Sky to withdraw/dramatically reduce if the 4 main attractions do not materialise. So he is at the very least being disingenuous to imply that there will not be less tv money for SPL clubs if there are no OF games.

The Swiss Football Association (SFV) docked Sion 36 points for fielding ineligible players. The SFV were threatened with expulsion from all competitions by FIFA if they failed to punish Sion, who were kicked out of the Europa League by UEFA for fielding players they had signed during a transfer ban. FIFA warned there would be a blanket ban on Swiss football at both club and national level if no action was taken against Sion by January 13 2012. Sion were docked three points for each of the 12 Swiss league and cup matches in which any of the six ineligible players appeared. So, if for example Rangers had 22 ineligiible players making any appearance in 50 league or cup games per season over 20 years they would be docked 52,800 points. On the other hand the contract letter produced by the Sun may be a fake/not stand up in court/be the only evidence anyone can produce and Rangers Newco will be back in the SPL next season as if very little had happened.

Although Yorkston is making noises about Rangers newco not being allowed into the SPL, this may be a negotiating position.It looks like the 6 man SPL Board has the power to allow the SPL shares to be transferred to a new club. I think that SPL Chairmen will not want to lose the TV deal and jeopardise a new League sponsorship deal. However, I do not think that this decision will take place in a vacuum and SPL clubs may want other issues such as financial fair play/ penalties, division of TV/sponsorship money, voting arrangements(league size?) also looked at. There remains another problem for a newco and that is membership of the SFA. Under SFA Articles of Association, new clubs or associations are required to apply for associate membership first. Only after having been associate members for 5 years are they allowed to become full members. This rule would have to be changed to allow a newly formedclub or association into the SPL or SFL.

Neil Doncaster was quoted at the time (21 November 2011) that the new sky deal was signed that.......... "One of the conditions of this deal as with all major sponsorships is that Celtic and Rangers remain in the league. It is also a condition that they play each other four times a season. That's been with us for the entirety of the current deal and before that with Setanta." The SPL (i.e. all of the SPL clubs) entered into the deal on these condtions on the basis that Sky would not have signed up to the £80 million without it. If the SPL cannot meet these condtions I would imagine that Sky can withdraw or renegotiate. So it will be legal and as the league has never produced a situation where 4 OF games have not been played would be seen as the reasonable actions of a reasonable man if it were ever challenged. Who would challenge it though? Not any of the clubs who signed up to it. Presumably as suggested by Doncaster the Clydesdale Bank £10 million a year sponsorship and any new one for next season after CB deal expires will have similar terms

Whyte is a secured creditor. He will be repaid his debt out of the proceeds of sale of the secured assets in priority to ordinary unsecured creditors. The adminstrators are therfore acting in the interests of Whyte.

The original interior is also coverted by the listing..........wood and stained glass doors to vestibule and RFC floor mosaic. 2 Doric columns and 2 pilasters with disc frieze capitals carry landing. Dark wood panelled walls and simple plaster cornices, stair with wrought-iron and wood banister. 1st floor large corniced door to Director's room. Most rooms have wood panelling and some original light fittings. It is highly unlikely that planning permission would be forthcoming for the redevelopment of either Ibrox or Murray Park. The highest value acheiveable would therefore be as a football ground and football training ground respectively.

HMRC went to court to block the appointment of Hacker Young as administrators to Portsmouth FC. Hacker Young were at the same time administrators for the parent company CSI and they had had previous roles with the various Portsmouth Football Clubs. This it was argued would present issues of conflict. PKF was appointed instead. Now given Duff & Phelps had a prior relationship with Rangers Directors this adds grist to the mill of those who are questioning how effective D&F areat reducing Rangers outgoings in the best interest of the creditors.

Not all publications or blogs are so happy to see Rangers demise. The Edinburgh Journal today reported that for the good of Scottish Football Rangers survival is essential..."We are all Rangers now!" This thread in particular is full of very angry young men. Some are very angry and very drunk. The indifferent and sober ones probably can't be arsed. I would not assume that the wailing and gnashing of teeth and anguished rantings that we witness on this site are necessarily representative of the population as whole many of whom will not have the slightest interest in whether Rangers survive or not.

HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions. The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC's clampdown in December 2010.

As some will know there is an alternative take on the EBTs and the BTC which could still be won by Rangers. EBTs have been used by over 5,000 businesses in the UK and some english clubs until they became illegal in December 2010. At the FTT, Rangers argued that the EBTs were correctly administered and that the club met all their legal responsibilities and complied with all tax laws. They weren't as has been suggested written into the players' contracts of employment. They were totally separate and administered offshore in Guernsey. The letters to players referred to by the Sun (and which SFA would have had to rightly investigate if they amounted to a contract of which they were not aware) may not exist. The Sun getting a story wrong?

According to the English League Managers Association several foreign-owned English Premier League clubs wanted to scrap relegation in order to protect thier investments, It was thought that even if the required 14 clubs voted for no relegation the FA would veto it. It is likely that the SFA would do the same

I think all this wishful thinking about Ranger's demise is wide of the mark. It may be morally wrong for Rangers to be readmitted into the SPL in some form but financially I would think that it would be a dead cert. I would tend to see Geoff Brown's sentiments as typical of how most SPL Chairmen will be feeling. He thinks that many already cash-strapped SPL sides would face serious, and in some cases fatal, consequences if the Ibrox club goes into liquidation. The TV deal would be lost and would the SPL get the (£10 million?) a year from the replacement for the Clydesdale Bank sponsorship/prize money which is about to end? Irn Bru only gives £1 million to the SFL. As HJ has said in a league without Rangers clubs are looking at a 30% fall in turnover and a 50% cut in their wages bill. Many decent SPL and First Division players are presently finding life in the Championship, First, Second and even the Conference more lucrative than here under the present financial set-up. You may find a situation where most Conference clubs are offering more in wages than many SPL clubs. Now emigration to the English Leagues may not suit every half decent player in Scotland but it will be attractive to quite a few.

I think that the situation can best be summed up in the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld as follows............. There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” Thank you Roddy Forsyth.

Clubs do have to have annual financial statements but interestingly............. "where a licensee becomes insolvent but enters administration during the season, for so long as the purpose of the administration is to rescue the club and its business, the licence should not be withdrawn" The three year thing relates to the Financial Fair Play regulations on clubs running up debts and clubs are required to limit losses up until 2015.............. "Football clubs wishing to take part in the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League must balance their football-related expenditure over a three-year period up to the 2014/15 season. The 2011/2012 season is the first season which counts towards the 2014/15 assessment; however clubs will be allowed to make a loss of 45m euros (£39.4m) over the three years, falling to 30m euros from 2015/16 It is not until 2018 that clubs will be expected to bring their annual losses below £8.8m on 2010 exchange rates."

From the information trickling out it seems clear that there should have been no sound reason for Rangers to go into administration. Future ticket sales mortgaged = £24.4million. Money withheld from the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in VAT and PAYE payments since May last year, when Mr Whyte took over, had been used as a "funding tool". Mr Whitehouse said: "The reason it hasn't been paid is that it wasn't sent. = £9 million Working capital required to be held in an Collyeer whatsit account (until 30 June 2012) under terms of the Share Purchase Agreement between Murray MHL Ltd. Wavetower Ltd. and Liberty Capital Ltd. = £5 million + £1.7 million. Sale of pie stalls = £5 million Sale of Jela vic (first stage payment) = £3 million Total of capital available = £48.1 million. That should have been enough to keep Rangers trading for the first year?

First thought was........that's a bit unbalanced of STV with two Celtic minded guests. It was obviously a cunning ploy by STV to embarrass Celtic by producing some semi-literate bearded bhoy out of whose mouth came a stream of invective aimed mainly at the beardless Michael Kelly. From the mouth of the bearded came a thesaurus of words not neccesarily in any particular order. It was possible to discern that his recipe for Celtic to survive post Rangers was to join the English Premiership. There 's a new idea! Kelly having been subject to such a personal attack by the bearded one looked as if he was going to explode. Congratulations STV.