Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[kramer]

Come back time for Gio?

I didn't realise he had a record out...any good?

[~~~]

Good old Rangersmedia, never fail to let you down

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=217130

[HTG]

3 issues still. Firstly Rangers are potless. They might sneak out of being potless and shaft absolutely everyone they have had dealings with. Secondly they have cheated if second contacts are established. They might sneak out of that if SPL lacks any balls. Thirdly, their current owner is under investigation (belatedly) within the "fit and proper" rules. I assume their next owner will need to go through these - particularly if heading up a far east syndicate - to ensure that the money trail for the purchase fee is transparent. They might sneak out of that if the SPL lacks balls.

There will need to be a lot of shafting and shiting it for them to come through this unscathed. By unscathed I mean only their reputation in absolute fuckin tatters.

Edited April 17, 2012 by HTG

[PeeTeeJag]

and who paid the players.......that were supposed to pay the tax at source ??

The "bonuses" werent taxed, however HMRC are trying to prove they should have been. For example, a player gets a "bonus" of £1000 per week. However he should have had tax taken off it and only received say £850.

Lets say he plays for the club for 2 years and gets these payments every week. What he received in bonuses would be £104000, but of that he should have paid £12000 in tax which is due to HMRC.

HMRC then should be trying to get the money back from these bonuses.

If my payroll screwed up my wages and I didnt pay any tax for a couple of months do you think when that was discovered the taxman would just right it off. Eh no.

Edited April 17, 2012 by PeeTeeJag

[jagfox]

Word on the grapevine from Singapore, rangers to get beat 12-0 at the weekend. Get yer pounds on

[THE KING]

A loan from a trust is not a contract from Rangers (or anyone else).

the name employee benifit trust would contradict that.

[No8.]

which would be a second contract and contravene the SFA/SPL rules would it not ?!

if so......expulsion I'd say.

The EBTs were loans and not payments.

I am pretty sure it was in the Rangers audited accounts and therefore disclosed to the SFA/SPL

So actually it is not a 2nd payment and does not contavene SFA/SPL rules

[Greenlantern]

The EBTs were loans and not payments.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Can you tell me why a rangers player or board member would need a loan?

[barrysnotter]

The EBTs were loans and not payments.

I am pretty sure it was in the Rangers audited accounts and therefore disclosed to the SFA/SPL

So actually it is not a 2nd payment and does not contavene SFA/SPL rules

In the words of Ed Miliband, "they just don't get it".

When I previously mentioned that the Rangers support's blind "loyalty" was every bit to blame for the current mess it was dismissed as nonsense. Now, 11 months on we still have no.8 displaying those same tendencies, trying to justify something that is so obviously wrong. Even if the Big Hoose was on fire they would tell us it isn't.

[Richie]

Was Bains bonus a loan? What were the t/s of loans? I dont think Rangers would be silly enough to issue loans with no documented arrangement for settlement... Unless they weren't really loans at all.

[Colin M]

Good news for Rangers that they are owed such a lot of money through loans - paying the debt shouldn't be too much of a problem once they're all repaid.

They are being repaid, right?

[Mark Connolly]

Was Bains bonus a loan? What were the t/s of loans? I dont think Rangers would be silly enough to issue loans with no documented arrangement for settlement... Unless they weren't really loans at all.

Exactly. There must have been some kind of documentation regarding the "loan", otherwise they would have been just as well sticking a pile of tenners in the dressing room.

[H_B]

I am incredulous about these Bain allegations.

[Homer Thompson]

What I dont understand, why do these guys want to have a deal with ticketus? They are creditors like everyone else, they should just let them either accept the CVA or take the liquidation and get nothing.

Seems stupid to be offering them 14m or whatever instead of possibly a fraction of that. (which lets face it, they would be forced to accept).

Two reasons, I think

1) Theres a risk they will challenge it in court

2) The could be in a position where they could block the CVA

Are they guaranteed their fee(s)?

I thought I heard somewhere that they will join the queue along with the other creditors and might not receive their full whack.

Pretty sure the administrators get paid out of the pot before the CVA offer is made. Otherwise, why would any administrator take on a job?

I think that the contracts were renegotiated with clauses such as being allowed to leave at the end of the season if a club offers a minimum price.

But were the wages not deferred, meaning that the players would still be looking for their full wages to be re-imbursed at a later date? It could be that in the contracts the player gets a cut of the deal equivalent to what they were owed in deferred wages.

As a side note, if a company in administration was owed money by another person or company, wouldnt the administrators be looking to get that money back so as to help reduce the debt? If then the EBTs are loans and in effect the club is owed money back from these loans to players etc, shouldn't H&D be trying to call in these debts?

The players would go onto the list of creditors for any deferred wages.

[HeartsparkDollarsign]

The EBTs were loans and not payments.

I am pretty sure it was in the Rangers audited accounts and therefore disclosed to the SFA/SPL

So actually it is not a 2nd payment and does not contavene SFA/SPL rules

Quite right, there's nothing to hide. And the reason they were shredding all that documentation was because they had just got a new pet hamster at Ibrox and they needed something to line the cage.

[BinoBalls]

Think there was a Dundee United fan who made a similar point above, but the nonsense being spouted by Chick Young about not punishing the fans but punishing those who got them into this mess really pisses me off.

You can't really separate those who were in charge with the club. As such, you have to punish the club who at the end of the day benefitted endlessly over those years thanks to non payment of tax, alleged tax evasion and the running up of enormous debts that could never be paid.

Chick will default to the most popular, superficial line on anything: livi, gretna, rangers.

He is quite happy (presumably) for rangers fans to feel the benefit of the success they got while cheating, yet angry that they are being "punished" when justice comes calling. No one is fining rangers fans or taking them to court. All thats happening is sporting fairness is being (slightly) redressed.

It beggars belief that chick cannot see this.

Actually no, it doesn't.

[Colin M]

Pretty sure the administrators get paid out of the pot before the CVA offer is made. Otherwise, why would any administrator take on a job?

Fairly sure that's correct - the administrators provide a bill for their services which has to be "agreed" by the creditors. I don't think there's much scope for negotiation on that front. It is then paid in full before anything goes on the CVA.

[eightmile]

The EBTs were loans and not payments.

I am pretty sure it was in the Rangers audited accounts and therefore disclosed to the SFA/SPL

So actually it is not a 2nd payment and does not contavene SFA/SPL rules

HMRC have already decided that the EBT was being inapproriately administered and are seeking the Tribunal to

reject Rangers' appeal. If players were sytematically being paid through a loan mechanism via EBTs and that the

payment was agreed and expected as part of the player's overall remuneration package, then the tribunal will find against

Rangers. At that stage the SPL/SFA/UEFA will have three key areas of concern - inappropriate payment systems that lacked transparency

over many seasons, numerous players whose contract of remunerations were not wholly regisitered with the association, and finacial

activity that would probably fall foul of Financial Fair Play criteria. One is bad enough all three is a disaster for a financially crippled club

lurching form one fiasco to another.

.

Curtains.

[TheTaxMan]

Hope the post office insist on cash, fair amount of money for 40,000 second class stamps.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/04/18/rangers-in-crisis-season-ticket-turmoil-for-ibrox-fans-with-club-stuck-in-limbo-86908-23828866/

[archie guevara]

I have to admit to a growing interest in what is in those revised player contracts that were agreed a few weeks back. I suppose like most football fans I had thought that a new owner would come in, clear the decks as far as debt is concerned and then start again with broadly the same players, maybe on lower wages and with some of them going off in a huff to other clubs. They might even have sold some of the better ones that are under contract.

What we were told at the time was that the players had agreed to wage cuts for the rest of the season and that some players would be allowed to leave in the summer if certain conditions were not fulfilled. My link

Well, it's pretty close to the end of the season now and there's no sign of the mess being sorted out by Duff and Duffer. So what happens?

Do the players wages automatically go back up, meaning that they could be made redundant to reduce costs? Is it a rolling situation based on exiting administration and they stay on reduced wages meantime?

If they remain in administration then the transfer embargo presumably remains, so if players leave they can't be replaced. That adds up to the prospect of youngsters and fringe players suddenly becoming part of the first team squad next season with no MacGregor, Naismith, Davis etc. That's as good as a ten point reduction even if they manage to escape administration before next season starts.