speckled tangerine Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I know this will sound naive, but waht the hell! I saunter down to comet and buy a huge telly on tick. I pay a deposit and `my` telly sits in my front room. I then bump further payments and `my` telly gets taken back to comet by repo men. It`s not actually `my` telly until i`ve paid for it outright. Don`t suppose Hertz can take back Lee Wallace as he`s not been paid for? Or do Rangers sell him, pocket the cash and tell Vlad: `nae luck. that was another company. you`re entitled tae the square root of f**k all!`. ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintee4life Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I know this will sound naive, but waht the hell! I saunter down to comet and buy a huge telly on tick. I pay a deposit and `my` telly sits in my front room. I then bump further payments and `my` telly gets taken back to comet by repo men. It`s not actually `my` telly until i`ve paid for it outright. Don`t suppose Hertz can take back Lee Wallace as he`s not been paid for? Or do Rangers sell him, pocket the cash and tell Vlad: `nae luck. that was another company. you`re entitled tae the square root of f**k all!`. ??? No because hearts agreed to rangers paying it in parts 700k? Up front 500k this summer and 300k July 2013 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Well that's a very defeatist attitude. With Ally McCoist still at the helm of Rangers II: Die Harder I think you can give it a go. No, it's an attitude of "I'd rather re-shape Scottish football without Rangers than have to f**k it up for four years in order that we can go back to everything being just as it was before" This is going to drag on and on and on for several months. Once the gloating's stopped, and it will get boring after a while, I hope people can knock their heads together and work out how to progress our game without Rangers. My ideal scenario would be that Rangers simply disappear and are replaced in the Third Division by Spartans (or Cove, if folk are so attached to the name Rangers). Rangers (and Celtic), to be fair, have systematically organised Scottish footbal in their own narrow self-interest for the last two decades and more (Rangers called for small clubs to be stripped of voting rights in the early 80s because it was, well, too inconvenient for them). That was a straw in the wind for the whole disastrous SPL formation just over a decade later, and a situation where the top league in Scotland has gone from being quite respected to being, basically, a joke everywhere else. Now that's not all the OF's fault- far from it- but the driver of the game towards this faecal plateau of tedium at present has been their self-interest. This is a pretty unique opportunity to break it up for good. I know. I'd have a better chance of calling for the re-formation of the Habsburg Empire. But still. It's nice to dream and maybe good things will come out of it if Whyte gets tangled up in his own complicated ball of tax wool, or preferably is strung up from a lamp-post, on live TV, by an angry mob in Govan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bawdeep Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Make no mistake,Rangers will come out of this pile of shite smelling of roses.....and probably owning the rights to said roses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yeh, there's a 99% chance you're right. What happens if the other 1% chance (Rangers disappearing) happens, though? If football people don't come up with any suggestions then the "Rangers2012" thing becomes a default option, which it shouldn't be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/02/15/rangers-in-crisis-jailed-embezzler-blows-lid-on-the-deals-he-used-to-help-craig-whyte-beat-the-taxman-86908-23749209/ Hold on a moment... I feel sick. I could have told you that was the gig 6 months ago. Proffessional asset stripper is one word, thief, parasite and c**t are others. Whoever made the point about how we as society focus on benefit scrounging was totally right. As wasteful as it is, it's a drop of pish in the ocean compared to how much we lose from 'legal' tax avoidance. We should let these c***s die. We do all right for our size in terms of 'natural resources' in Scottish football, ie fans, young players etc. It didn't take long for these to fall into Rangers lap and it wont take long to fall out of Rangers lap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 A 9 million pound tax bill run up since Whyte took over, he's certainly playing a risky game. Why is that risky? Rangers already owe millions, a few more on top won't make any real difference. I think Whyte's strategy is that right now HMRC doesn't own enough debt to block a CVA. If HMRC can only claim £9M before they get the big tax case heard then Rangers could be carved up before that leaving HMRC trying to get money from a company that no longer has any assets or cash flow while Rangers FC are still playing at the same stadium with the same owner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Is it just me that can't get their head around why Rangers would need to go into Admin now? How much money has Whyte generated since last May and why has he been unable to maintain the day to day running of the club? He allegedly paid off the debt to the bank so there is no external creditor pressure. He sold off the rights to provide catering at Ibrox for a hefty sum (£5m ... can someone confirm). He had access to the 2011/12 season ticket income (30k - 40k season tickets paying their money up front?) He sold 4 years of season tickets for £24m. Reason - to provide working capital while he knocks down their costs. So why, within weeks, is there no working capital? He had access to an additional £9m in tax deducted from salaries etc but which was not paid to HMRC. He sold Jelavic to Everton for £5.5m. This was allegedly less than the offer from West Ham so it is safe to assume that the up front payment terms were better. He's had access to the TV cash from the SPL deal along with money from their brief trek into Europe. He's had access to running capital from walk-up ticket sales, merchandising etc etc. Now, even if they hadn't received all of the Ticketus or Jelavic money, it is in the public domain that they are going to receive it. So who would be putting pressure on Rangers? If you didn't have immediate access to £9m to pay the tax due, surely those offering credit to the club would know that in the short term Rangers were awash with money because they've just generated huge sums through the rights issues to season tickets and pies along with the sale of Jelavic. In the face of all of that, why has he chosen to say that the club simply cannot pay its day to day running costs (which include tax and VAT)? WHERE IS THE MONEY? Surely the SPL and others who might have reason to sympathise with the plight of Rangers can see that this tactical administration has arisen because he has sold off a pile of silver, put the money out of reach and informed everyone that Rangers can't afford to be Rangers. In the meantime, he's continued to blame the previous regime. But nothing of what is happening now seems to reflect the pre-Whyte period. Once the banks were happy, he should have had a free run at getting his house in order as long as his new creditors (i.e. him through his holding company!!!) didn't turn up and put the screws on him. There ought to be no sympathy for Rangers given the behaviour that has led to this point. There has been no decision on the big tax case. What happened to Rangers being confident of winning it? Because if they do, the worst you can say about Murray's time at Rangers is that they were running with an £18m debt after 20 years. And that they'd just about halved the debt in 3 or 4 years without embarassing Rangers. Having run the debt up, that sounds like prudent mgt to me. I don't think you can say the same about Whyte. He will almost certainly be exposed in the administration process. But that won't get the money back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintie1977 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 This obviously has many twists and turns before any kind of outcome is reached. Whatever scheme Whyte has devised to get out of this, he will be investigated at every turn (rightly) to make sure it is legal. His 'strategy' with previous organisations were under the radar because no-one knew these companies even existed and this will not be the case with Rangers. I would like to know what the situation will be at the if the outcome of the £75m tax case goes against Rangers (whether during or if they come out of administration) and what Whyte/the club would have to do to rectify this? Any HMRC statement on the subject would be appreciated. What this has highlighted due to the profile of the case is how often organisations get away with duping the public purse out of billions of pounds - the owners of said companies are still driving about in Bentley's and mugs like us have to attempt to make up the shortfall. I have the same pit of the stomach sick feeling about this as I did with the banks. I feel it's time for a law change..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mojo Rising Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Right here's what I think will happen (I'm by no means an expert so someone tell me if what I think is nonsense or not)... rangers will get wound up with Whyte as the secured creditor getting almost all of the revenue. A phoenix club will get set up, probably "Glasgow rangers". Even though the former club would cease i think there would be a campaign to allow "new rangers" to take the league place of "old rangers". Even though in an ideal world, every club in the spl would be glad to see the back of rangers, in the short term I think some clubs might think they need rangers if their absence led to tv deals, sponsorship deals, etc getting ripped up. Some clubs may not have the short term finances to weather the storm of a rangersless league. So my question is: "would your team vote rangers in?" (not "would you want your team to vote rangers in?"). As far as I'm aware, it would require 11 votes in favour but I genuinely believe they'd have a good chance of getting the votes they'd need. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Romanov would be pishing himself as he voted no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 If your asking do you believe the chairman of each club would vote a new Rangers into the SPL, I think the answer would be yes. The fans of said club though, I think they might have a different answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts0Celtic4 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Hearts Dundee Utd Celtic Aberdeen would all vote no the rest would vote yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Hearts Dundee Utd Celtic Aberdeen would all vote no the rest would vote yes. Celtic would be the first to vote yes. In fact, they'd be most likely to propose it Edited February 15, 2012 by The Old Northerner -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Voting no would be an opportunity to show a set of stones, implement a long-term strategy, be ambitious and regain some power from the duopoly old firm. We'll vote yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts0Celtic4 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Celtic would be the first to vote yes. In fact, they'd be most likely to propose it I'd wager you £100 they will vote no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mojo Rising Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 <br />Romanov would be pishing himself as he voted no.<br /><br /><br /><br />Yeah, Hearts and Celtic are the main two I'd have my doubts about. Hearts because romanov is a loose cannon and might vote no even if it was financially beneficial. Celtic because they'd probably feel they could cope short term and because of a fear of the reaction from their own supporters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Sadly I believe our board would vote yes, although with this fan ownership thing, we may have a little more say on the matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 ...which will never come, as these are precisely the kind of dicks that fund the Tory party's re-election campaigns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I'd wager you £100 they will vote no. Name your preferred ESCROW and you're on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.