Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[hellbhoy]

OOOOOOOO just noticed ! 150 pages to go till 1690 har har

[Florentine_Pogen]

They have more chance of getting blood from a welly.

If someone with a barrel of blood used some of it to fill a welly boot, it would follow that getting blood from a welly was child's play.

[HibeeJibee]

Wait until all the evidence is collated with dates. Once it is proven exactly when the illegal use of EBT's / dual contracts / unpaid VAT & PAYE & NI used as cashflow / non-payment of transfer fees / unique 'funding' arrangements with BoS - all of these aspects will be shown that RFC enjoyed a massive unfair and illegal advantage over other clubs and any trophys and titles won during these periods should be summarily struck from the record book.

We've all laughed in the past at stories about Real Madrid being Franco's team of choice and being funded partly through secret govt. cash. Similarly Moscow Dynamo / Dynamo Berlin during the Communist era.

How will history view Minty's RFC once all the dirty wee facts are fully aired ?

I'd break this into 3 aspects.

Freely given debt is just that. Having debt wasn't... and still isn't... forbidden. Whatever debts Rangers took on from BoS MIM etc likely isn't going to prejudice historical titles. Other clubs have big or odd debt structures.

Dues run-up under Whyte... unpaid NI, PAYE, etc. which caused administration... are the subject of the existing tribunals. However, in practical terms no titles were won during this period anyway, IIRC.

The main controversy honours-wise are the EBTs and whether [1] they amount to 2nd contracts + [2] if so what any punishment should be. However even then EBTs didn't gave a "massive" advantage (appears to have facilitated ~5-6% extra spending)... though, importantly, it doesn't have to be "massive" to be wrong and thus to be punishable.

Things hang on whether EBTs were 2nd contracts > if so how serious is that > if serious then what's the sanction.

It would presumably require EGMs and suchlike to strip titles.

Edited June 5, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Granny Danger]

What I can't understand about the whole Ticketus thing is how could they have been so naive?

Maybe other people weren't too interested in carrying out due diligence on Whyte but these guys have been doing this sort of financing for years; they're meant to be the professionals. How the hell did they allow themselves to be conned like this?

I wonder if a few P45s have been handed out.

[THE KING]

What I can't understand about the whole Ticketus thing is how could they have been so naive?

Maybe other people weren't too interested in carrying out due diligence on Whyte but these guys have been doing this sort of financing for years; they're meant to be the professionals. How the hell did they allow themselves to be conned like this?

I wonder if a few P45s have been handed out.

Very few businesses bother with due diligence once the see the £ signs theyre hooked, rangers fans are creaming their pants trying to blame the SFA for not doing due diligence on Whyte can you imagine if they done due diligence on minty back when the trophies and big names where rolling in?

[blanco]

The longer this drags on the more likely that they will survive with light punishments. We are now 16 weeks into this shambles and what has happened? They have lost no players as yet.

Just remember that the big earners have 25% release clauses and they'll probably start to jump ship very soon, and won't have any money to sign anybody regardless of what CG says.

The CVA looks like it will be accepted.

Only according to haudit and daudit. By all accounts HMRC won't entertain them because it's related to tax avoidance and the fact they plan to pay off footballing debts.

As far as the duel contracts are concerned, the fixtures will have been published, so the SFA/SPL will decide on a suspended sentence.

If they are found guilty of having dual contracts and therefore systematically cheating over 10 years they'll need a hell of a better excuse than the fixtures being published to avoid being relegated.

Lets not forget, they will be debt free and back in a STRONGER position than at any time since SDM took over all those years ago! Remember also that the European ban is only for next season. All in all, it looks like Whyte/H&D/Green have played a blinder, as they rightly gambled on the spineless ineptitude of the suits in Scottish football. Sad, pathetic but oh so predictable!

Let's not forget that they'll have another shyster who's just out to make a quick buck in charge, and that's not even taking into account his "mystery investors".

Rangers will be feeling the ramifications of this administration for years to come and it won't be long until the orcs are harking back to the good old days under minty moonbeams.

[Jambos]

If they did get stripped of any titles and cups, I cant see them being awared to the runners up, they might go down the Serie A route when Juve was found guilty of cheating

http://en.wikipedia....Serie_A_scandal

Lets hope so. A League Cup will do nicely. Would make up for the misery of that day for me...95 I think.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Jambos

[Mixuismagic]

What I can't understand about the whole Ticketus thing is how could they have been so naive?

Maybe other people weren't too interested in carrying out due diligence on Whyte but these guys have been doing this sort of financing for years; they're meant to be the professionals. How the hell did they allow themselves to be conned like this?

I wonder if a few P45s have been handed out.

As a bank manager for over 20 years I have failed to understand why Ticketus would advance the vast amount they did without a considerable amount of security/collateral. Even if the advance had been to RFC itself they would have needed to have a fall-back position in place, probably a standard security over the property of the club which at that time was held by Lloyds. Instead they make the loan to Whyte. Why?

[Monkey Tennis]

The main controversy honours-wise are the EBTs and whether [1] they amount to 2nd contracts + [2] if so what any punishment should be. However even then EBTs didn't gave a "massive" advantage (appears to have facilitated ~5-6% extra spending)... though, importantly, it doesn't have to be "massive" to be wrong and thus to be punishable.

Things hang on whether EBTs were 2nd contracts > if so how serious is that > if serious then what's the sanction.

It would presumably require EGMs and suchlike to strip titles.

This is the bit I'm asking about.

I'm not really debating whether or not 2nd contracts were operated. I'm leaping ahead and saying: assuming they were, what do you honestly think would happen?

As you say, the advantages weren't huge, but neither were those achieved by clubs who committed clerical errors when fielding teams in cup-ties. Such teams have received a range of sanctions, but their offences are treated seriously.

2nd contracts would however amount, pretty much by definition, to systematic cheating in several competitions over many years. Would it not be inconceivable for them to retain honours won on such terms?

We often hear that if 2nd contracts are proven, Rangers "could even" be stripped of honours. I understand why it's couched that way - we're simply not at that stage yet. If proven though, can there really be any alternative outcome?

[madeirabhoy]

I'd break this into 3 aspects.

Freely given debt is just that. Having debt wasn't... and still isn't... forbidden. Whatever debts Rangers took on from BoS MIM etc likely isn't going to prejudice historical titles. Other clubs have big or odd debt structures.

Dues run-up under Whyte... unpaid NI, PAYE, etc. which caused administration... are the subject of the existing tribunals. However, in practical terms no titles were won during this period anyway, IIRC.

The main controversy honours-wise are the EBTs and whether [1] they amount to 2nd contracts + [2] if so what any punishment should be. However even then EBTs didn't gave a "massive" advantage (appears to have facilitated ~5-6% extra spending)... though, importantly, it doesn't have to be "massive" to be wrong and thus to be punishable.

Things hang on whether EBTs were 2nd contracts > if so how serious is that > if serious then what's the sanction.

It would presumably require EGMs and suchlike to strip titles.

can i ask why you think it allowed only 5-6% extra spending and why this wasnt a massive advantage?

to my mind, you cant factor in the 'total' spend as rangers didnt need to have an advantage with the transfer fee, simply to be able to offer more wages. by use of the etb's the gain was far more than 5% and more importantly it was 'noticeably more' which is all it needed to be to mean players would choose rangers over other clubs who paid their taxes.

[wunfellaff]

As a bank manager for over 20 years I have failed to understand why Ticketus would advance the vast amount they did without a considerable amount of security/collateral. Even if the advance had been to RFC itself they would have needed to have a fall-back position in place, probably a standard security over the property of the club which at that time was held by Lloyds. Instead they make the loan to Whyte. Why?

For the same reason banks have pushed pp, car loans and as many financial products as possible ............. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

You better than most should understand this.

[Fife Saint]

It's galling that the most historic of cup competitions in world football will be permanently scarred by these cheating wretches.

Something doesn't sit right with me when considering stripping titles from Rangers and leaving unawarded. It completely undermines the efforts of the competitors who were unwittingly being duped.

The compound effect of all this only leaves expulsion as a suitable punishment for vandalizing our heritage.

Edit: apologies for Android American English.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Fife Saint

[Mixuismagic]

For the same reason banks have pushed pp, car loans and as many financial products as possible ............. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

You better than most should understand this.

I don't doubt that their aim was to make money, probably lots of it, but that does not explain what they had as a fall-back position. How many mortgages do you know that are not backed up by a security over the house? What sort of company is going to give you tens of millions without such a plan B?

[HibeeJibee]

can i ask why you think it allowed only 5-6% extra spending and why this wasnt a massive advantage?

to my mind, you cant factor in the 'total' spend as rangers didnt need to have an advantage with the transfer fee, simply to be able to offer more wages. by use of the etb's the gain was far more than 5% and more importantly it was 'noticeably more' which is all it needed to be to mean players would choose rangers over other clubs who paid their taxes.

Sums were done earlier in the thread: when you put the amount going through EBTs beside the total amount going on wages, the amount saved through being tax free appears to have allowed "extra" spending to be leveraged amounting to about 5-6% extra. They weren't putting all or most £££ through EBTs.

As regards "massive" my point is simply that 5-6%, by definition, isn't massive.

I'm not sure why you're bothering with the last bit as I said it didn't need to be massive to be serious or wrong, and therefore punishable.

Looking at it objectively, they'd have been streets ahead of all the non-OF clubs with or without EBTs - if it had a tangible benefit it was in competing with Celtic and trying to compete in Europe. But that, again, doesn't change it being serious if proven.

[keepitsafe]

As a bank manager for over 20 years I have failed to understand why Ticketus would advance the vast amount they did without a considerable amount of security/collateral. Even if the advance had been to RFC itself they would have needed to have a fall-back position in place, probably a standard security over the property of the club which at that time was held by Lloyds. Instead they make the loan to Whyte. Why?

The Ticketus Ibrox Stadium? (Promise naming rights?).

He couldn't have sold them on that surely?

Then again, nowt in this would surprise me.

[HibeeJibee]

It's galling that the most historic of cup competitions in world football will be permanently scarred by these cheating wretches.

Something doesn't sit right with me when considering stripping titles from Rangers and leaving unawarded. It completely undermines the efforts of the competitors who were unwittingly being duped.

The compound effect of all this only leaves expulsion as a suitable punishment for vandalizing our heritage.

If we go down the title-stripping hypotheses, then it's very difficult to see how you re-award cups. In the league you can expunge all the results, but in the cup they'd eliminated 4 teams prior to the Final, and not just the losing finalist.

[Monkey Tennis]

It's galling that the most historic of cup competitions in world football will be permanently scarred by these cheating wretches.

Something doesn't sit right with me when considering stripping titles from Rangers and leaving unawarded. It completely undermines the efforts of the competitors who were unwittingly being duped.

The compound effect of all this only leaves expulsion as a suitable punishment for vandalizing our heritage.

Edit: apologies for Android American English.

I know what you mean, but to be honest, I'd settle for them all being declared void. Despite what my team did in 2008, I don't really see how Cups can be awarded to runners up as Rangers would have cheated their way past several sides before doing so in the final. In Leagues there's maybe a stronger case, but how many in a row would that give Celtic?

There is a precedent for trophies not being awarded in that the 1909 Scottish Cup was witheld following OF rioting.

Declaring a whole generation of Scottish games meaningless is far from ideal of course, but I would see the removal of honours as a really important part of any punishment given to Rangers.

[wunfellaff]

I don't doubt that their aim was to make money, probably lots of it, but that does not explain what they had as a fall-back position. How many mortgages do you know that are not backed up by a security over the house? What sort of company is going to give you tens of millions without such a plan B?

Probably they had a % situation, same as banks.

How much loan debt have UK banks written off in the last 5 years? All would have met the banks crieria to make said loans yet the banks fucked up. Ticketus would fall into the same boat, 1 in x deals fail, so they pump up the profits on the others to cover this.

[T_S_A_R]

As a bank manager for over 20 years I have failed to understand why Ticketus would advance the vast amount they did without a considerable amount of security/collateral. Even if the advance had been to RFC itself they would have needed to have a fall-back position in place, probably a standard security over the property of the club which at that time was held by Lloyds. Instead they make the loan to Whyte. Why?

i've got a conspiracy theory about this....

someone - still to be revealed - used ticketus, via octopus investments, to pay off lloyds bank. this imaginary individual did this for several reasons (i) to inject the required capital at the beginning of the saga without getting their hands dirty (ii) to try and claw some of it back eventually via the cva (iii) to transfer the floating charge to their stooge (whyte) so D&P could be brought in as administrators.

this scenario assumes that whyte and green are working for someone who will step in once the dirty work of juking hmrc and getting the newco going is finished.

[Granny Danger]

Very few businesses bother with due diligence once the see the £ signs theyre hooked, rangers fans are creaming their pants trying to blame the SFA for not doing due diligence on Whyte can you imagine if they done due diligence on minty back when the trophies and big names where rolling in?

That's a nonsense statement. Admittedly Ticketus got duped here, wether it be through complacency, insufficient investigation or what, but a company like that does not normally hand over £20 million plus on a whim. If they did they'd be bust by now.