Forest_Fifer Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Why not? At the time there was no question that he was able to represent Rangers and the deal was made in good faith. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that he didn't own Rangers when he got the money from Ticketus? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'm assuming that all the players who have taken pay cuts will now have clauses in their contracts that allow them to move for free in the summer? Nah, that's why it took so long to agree the deals. It will be percentage cuts of transfer fees. The administrators were never going to write off 7-9 million worth of assets by freeing them. My guess is that they will have got themselves no more than 25% of any transfer fee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that he didn't own Rangers when he got the money from Ticketus? No, was it not that he did own Rangers. He supplied "proof" of a sum of money, resting in an account, which allowed him to take over the club, for £1. Murzo, and everyone else assumed this was the money he was going to use to clear the bank debt, but he didn't. It was paper money that quietly disappeared once he got his feet under the table. He repaid Lloyds with the "new" money. He was Rangers owner when the deal was signed with Ticketus. I'm certain of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'm assuming that all the players who have taken pay cuts will now have clauses in their contracts that allow them to move for free in the summer? Goodbye then to any transfer fees for Davis, McGregor, etc. I would assume that they will have clause inserted allowing them a signing on fee (of say £300,000 for Davis or McGregor) to cover any shortfall in their wages, should they be sold in the summer for £4 or £5 million. This would simply reduce the amoun that Rangers receive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A few folk are being a bit too pessimistic on here. This deal is just a sticking plaster put over a severed artery. They're still completely in the shit, don't worry about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that he didn't own Rangers when he got the money from Ticketus? How could he have made the deal? Edit: Ah, cheers HB. Edited March 9, 2012 by Baxter Parp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I would assume that they will have clause inserted allowing them a signing on fee (of say £300,000 for Davis or McGregor) to cover any shortfall in their wages, should they be sold in the summer for £4 or £5 million. This would simply reduce the amoun that Rangers receive. This is how I read it, their cut should they be sold, will cover each individuals loss of earnings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenMonster Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 What the SPL could introduce is a "tax" on income, say a 20% tax. This would include income not just from gates but commercial, sponsorship, champions league income, etc. That "tax" would be put into the pot along with any money that the SPL generates itself, eg TV money, sponsorship, etc. That pot then gets distributed relatively equitably amongst the SPL clubs. Any attempt to implement any sort of "tax" that goes against current financial agreements in regards to revenue sharing made by the clubs would almost certainly face a legal challenge by Celtic as a PLC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 So Rangers sold out two games - which most people would expect a club with your fan base to do anyway, especially when one of those games is against Hearts Rangers fans pledged millions to a fund - how much money actually changed hands? It's very easy to say you will give money, much harder to actually get hold of it. The Blue Knights - also known as the consortium headed by two guys who were on the board when David Murray got them in the sh*t. One of whom is being done for tax evasion in South Africa. They sound like great guys Again on the protests? "Travelling" to help Dunfermline. Forgive my cyncism, but I wonder how many of those people will actually be travelling to Fife, and how many are already there. And boycotting Dundee United. Yes, how dare they ask for the money they are owed. And how dare they sell the tickets themselves to make sure they actually get paid. Scum of the highest order! They didn't sell out against Hearts. And at both games, noticeable gaps appeared in the stand from about 65-70 minutes in the game. Pledged Millions? Including pledges from Bobby Sands and Munter McMouthbreather to name just a couple from P&B users? Blue Knights - discredited rogues, at least one of whom would probably have to do board meetings by conference call from a S African prison cell. Dunfermline? Can't see the Pars being too chuffed if any of that lot rock up with their bigot-banners and folk singing. I reckon the stewards would deal with them in short time. Dundee Utd? That's nothing. I have it on good authority that the gers' global support are also planning to boycott Old Trafford, The Bernabeu, Melbourne Cricket Ground, Flushing Meadows and the dark side of the moon. Because they are the people! :lol: :lol: KTID 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Bear with me on this, for I am a graphic designer, not an accountant, so..... Say Whittaker, Naismith, Davis, and McGregor were on 25k a week. Taking a 75% cut each week saves 18,750 per week, per player. Total wages saved per week for the four of them is therefore 75,000. There's 52 weeks in the year, so 52 x 75,000 = 3,900,000. Divide that by the 12 months of the year equals 325,000 saved per month from Whittaker, Naismith, Davis, and McGregor. Now say Wylde and Celik's combined weekly wages were 14,000. Multiply that by 52 and divide by 12 gives a monthly saving of 60,666 for those two. Now say both Russell and Smith were on 150,000 a year. 300,000 combined divided by 12 gives savings here of 25,000 per month. 325,000 + 60,666 + 25,000 = £410,666 saved each month on the pay cuts so far announced, the two kids walking away, and the two staff members. They need to save one million per' month, and we haven't factored in the administrator's fees, which I believe are enormous, with 8 administrators working. Now, if my back of a fag packet calculations are anywhere near correct, why are the 'big four' player cuts being trumpeted as saving the club, and stopping redundancies, either playing staff, coaching staff, or non-football staff like marketing people, or ticket office staff? Note: Most times when I attempt this sort of thing, I get it wildly wrong, or make a glaring error, so any further input would be welcome! Obviously I am guessing at the wages earned by those so far let go, or offering to take cuts. In doing this though, it was purely because I couldn't understand why the four pay cuts announced today were going to be enough to make everything hunky-dory for everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Grant at STV's done an article on what would happen in the event of a newco being set up. My link I don't think there's much there we haven't already got our heads around, though it's handy to have it all in one place. I didn't realise they could set up a newco mid season right enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A few folk are being a bit too pessimistic on here. This deal is just a sticking plaster put over a severed artery. They're still completely in the shit, don't worry about that. At the moment they are... but the prospective new owners are banking on acquiring a debt free club or one with limited liabilities. This in turn depends on the Ticketus deal being flushed and HMRC agreeing to a CVA. If these are not posiible then liquidation of assets and transfer of the SPL share to newco with the blessing of SFA/SPL/Gilmour,Thompson, Milne, Brown et al is still aconceivable outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aidan-bufc Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I would assume that they will have clause inserted allowing them a signing on fee (of say £300,000 for Davis or McGregor) to cover any shortfall in their wages, should they be sold in the summer for £4 or £5 million. This would simply reduce the amoun that Rangers receive. The thing is, who would pay £4 of £5 million for a player when they could get him at a knock down price because of the clubs situation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 No, was it not that he did own Rangers. He supplied "proof" of a sum of money, resting in an account, which allowed him to take over the club, for £1. Murzo, and everyone else assumed this was the money he was going to use to clear the bank debt, but he didn't. It was paper money that quietly disappeared once he got his feet under the table. He repaid Lloyds with the "new" money. He was Rangers owner when the deal was signed with Ticketus. I'm certain of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Bear with me on this, for I am a graphic designer, not an accountant, so..... Say Whittaker, Naismith, Davis, and McGregor were on 25k a week. Taking a 75% cut each week saves 18,750 per week, per player. Total wages saved per week for the four of them is therefore 75,000. There's 52 weeks in the year, so 52 x 75,000 = 3,900,000. Divide that by the 12 months of the year equals 325,000 saved per month from Whittaker, Naismith, Davis, and McGregor. Now say Wylde and Celik's combined weekly wages were 14,000. Multiply that by 52 and divide by 12 gives a monthly saving of 60,666 for those two. Now say both Russell and Smith were on 150,000 a year. 300,000 combined divided by 12 gives savings here of 25,000 per month. 325,000 + 60,666 + 25,000 = £410,666 saved each month on the pay cuts so far announced, the two kids walking away, and the two staff members. They need to save one million per' month, and we haven't factored in the administrator's fees, which I believe are enormous, with 8 administrators working. Now, if my back of a fag packet calculations are anywhere near correct, why are the 'big four' player cuts being trumpeted as saving the club, and stopping redundancies, either playing staff, coaching staff, or non-football staff like marketing people, or ticket office staff? Note: Most times when I attempt this sort of thing, I get it wildly wrong, or make a glaring error, so any further input would be welcome! Obviously I am guessing at the wages earned by those so far let go, or offering to take cuts. In doing this though, it was purely because I couldn't understand why the four pay cuts announced today were going to be enough to make everything hunky-dory for everyone else. All players are taking a wage cut, not just those 4. Administrator's fees will be added to the pot at the end - which might be the end of the process, or might be.... THE END 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) No, was it not that he did own Rangers. He supplied "proof" of a sum of money, resting in an account, which allowed him to take over the club, for £1. Murzo, and everyone else assumed this was the money he was going to use to clear the bank debt, but he didn't. It was paper money that quietly disappeared once he got his feet under the table. He repaid Lloyds with the "new" money. He was Rangers owner when the deal was signed with Ticketus. I'm certain of that. It's been claimed that the Ticketus money went into his account at Collyer Bristow a month before he bought the club. Edited March 9, 2012 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I fucking telt ye's it wis they kafflic basturds that wis behind it all! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Either Whyte was able to represent Rangers PLC or he wasn't. If he wasn't, Ticketus get their money back, the bank pays their money back. If he was, then the deals still stand. SImple. They didn't give the money to Rangers PLC. They gave it to Whyte's holding company, which then passed it to Rangers to pay the bank. No way will the bank pay that money back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 So Rangers sold out two games - which most people would expect a club with your fan base to do anyway, especially when one of those games is against Hearts Rangers fans pledged millions to a fund - how much money actually changed hands? It's very easy to say you will give money, much harder to actually get hold of it. The Blue Knights - also known as the consortium headed by two guys who were on the board when David Murray got them in the sh*t. One of whom is being done for tax evasion in South Africa. They sound like great guys Again on the protests? "Travelling" to help Dunfermline. Forgive my cyncism, but I wonder how many of those people will actually be travelling to Fife, and how many are already there. And boycotting Dundee United. Yes, how dare they ask for the money they are owed. And how dare they sell the tickets themselves to make sure they actually get paid. Scum of the highest order! You asked a question..Itried to answer it for you. Just to pick you up on a few points..The Hearts game was only around 48,000 compared to 50,000 versus Killie The fund is a nonsense..i agree..but at the moment we do not have anywhere for the money to go. Once there is a new board it will be entirely up to them if they wish a share issue or to get the support involved in some way. I believe the RST membership has gone through the roof. That maybe explains how Dingwall can afford a new suit everytime he is on the TV Paul Murray was not on the old board that got us 'in the shit' as you put it. He joined the board at a later satge..2007ish i think...and he was part of the board that managed to half our bank debt while also bringing success on the park. Dave King is a different matter. There are a couple of support buses leaving the Glasgow area for Dunfermline and it has been welcomed by John Yorkston who has been kept informed from the start United never sold the tickets themself...I was offered mine direct from the Ibrox ticket office as were all others on the cccs. I am going to the game. The time to boycott United was the re-arranged game we were charged for. That was a couple of years ago...Time to move on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Why not? At the time there was no question that he was able to represent Rangers and the deal was made in good faith. But, isnt the whole point of this that the administrators are now claiming the deal isnt legit? If that is the case, on what grounds what Ticketus get their money back? No, was it not that he did own Rangers. He supplied "proof" of a sum of money, resting in an account, which allowed him to take over the club, for £1. Murzo, and everyone else assumed this was the money he was going to use to clear the bank debt, but he didn't. It was paper money that quietly disappeared once he got his feet under the table. He repaid Lloyds with the "new" money. He was Rangers owner when the deal was signed with Ticketus. I'm certain of that. So, on what grounds are D&P claiming they can get out of it? 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.