HanoMaSano Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Having paid £47m in EBT's over 10 years would have required an outlay of close to £100m to be paid via paye, so they saved in the region of £50m giving an average £5m per year over the 10 years. so for that to equate to a 6% extra spend, rangers must've been spending in the region of £83 m on wages which is nonsense, their wage bill probably averaged out around £30m per season which over that perion then afforded them closer to an extra 17% extra spend which is massive. I'm not sure where either the original figures come from, or your £100m. The double contract punishment will only involve player contracts, so only the amount in question would be £33M. Payments to directors etc. may well turn out to be in breach of HMRC rules, but they weren't against SFA/SPL regulations. £33M tax free equates to ~ £74.5M gross (assuming 40% PAYE and standard 13.8% Employers NI and 2% Employees NI) Meaning Rangers saved in the region of £41.5M over the 10 years in player salaries. Assuming an average wage bill of £30M over that time (I'm not sure any source I've seen has an accurate breakdown of Player salaries so this may be wrong) then a saving of £4.15M a year equates to ~ 14% saving on player wages. As always, my maths is open to ridicule, so please feel free to point out any not-so-deliberate mistakes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) hahahahaha - I see it is Charlie's Green's turn again to take the brunt of Leggo's semi-literate and poorly constructed rantings I did enjoy his one suit comment tho! http://leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/ The RanjursMedia fanboys will not like this! Trust Leggless to miss the big scoop again - or rather avoid it because it's one that makes him suicidal! "As far as those investors are concerned, we now know for certain that Charles Green has turned in desperation to the man who brokered Fergus McCann's takeover of Celtic, self confessed unreconstructed Celtic fan, David Low, in an unseemly last ditch scramble to find money." David James St Clair Low is another dodgy dealer that goes through companies and addresses of convenience the way someone after a bad curry goes through toilet rolls, but this member of the St Aloysius Illuminati, er I mean Alumni is probably more notorious for another matter entirely - one that puts him on the same pedastel as William Hiddleston. Unlike Hiddleston however, he DID manage to get away with his ill gotten gains after murdering a club in order to line his own pocket. The club? That said, as much as I long to see the back of Rangers, the idea of that doughnut mouth toad getting any of the spoils is certainly repellent - and if this "fit and proper person" initiative of the SFA's means anything, they will tell Green that he will not be acceptable to take over at Rangers if this vulture has any involvement in it. Edited June 6, 2012 by WaffenThinMint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Good article, apart from one pretty big mistake Actually, rescuing the business as a going concern is the main priority of the administrators. Only if that cant be achieved does their main goal be to maximise the returns for the creditors. It clearly CAN'T be achieved, though - nobody with even a passing acquaintance with their marbles thinks the CVA will be approved. Even if you think there's a chance it can, D&P's contingency planning seems to be a clear breach of their responsibilities - if the CVA fails, Rangers' assets must be worth more than £5.5m, so the plan to sell them to Green for that figure is a huge failure in their duties. It would result in a return of zero for the creditors, so a fire sale would likely be a better option, and in any event can't possibly be a worse one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wokcomble Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Change is ownership doesn't always (infact hardly ever) involve transferring the membership and league shares to a new limited company ... and SFA has no powers of itself to prevent individuals from buying or selling shares. It also doesn't sound like it's an upfront SFA process anyway: Surely they should pass a new regulation as such : " Any Newco, whether it be by direct, indirect or any other means whatsoever re any share transfer, will not be able to have SFA membership for a period of 12 months from the formation of the Newco company". oh, I forgot, nae bollocks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) SFA Twitter feed quoting Campbell Ogilvie - he's been quiet of late, hasn't he? Anyhoo, he's saying they need to sort out the pyramid structure (to make it easier for I Can't Believe Its Not Rangers to get back into the league structure). Help needed here, guys. Turned this into I C B I N R and immdiately saw Ich Bin Ein Hvn. Is it just me or am I becoming obsessed? Edited June 6, 2012 by Happy Buddie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 So much for cost cutting ! Reply Retweet Favorite 9mRangers FC Official @RFC_Official#RFC have confirmed they will tour in Germany this summer in a three-game programme against local sides in Lower Saxony 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Tweeting on BBS Sportsound page that SFA passed a rule to require an investigation into prospective mew owners for a club. Who the fcuk left that stable door open? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Poster on RTC saying he knows a creditor of RFC(IA) who is owed a four figure sum - has received no CVA 'proposal' or other information from D & D. Bit of an oversight...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Lincoln Green sounds about right for an asset stripper. Is that not the colour of Robin Hood's tights? Rob from the poor (berrs) give to the rich. Sounds about right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Help needed here, guys. Turned this into I C B I N R and immdiately saw Ich Bin Ein Hvn. Is it just me or am I becoming obsessed? I'd say so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 OK, so is it 75% of creditors that need to vote no for it to come back no? What percentage do HMRC have at present? What percentage will they have if if the BTC finds against Rangers? Is it in HMRC's interest to have the BTT concluded before the cooling off period ends, so that they can effectively veto the CVA, assuming they want to veto it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 OK, so is it 75% of creditors that need to vote no for it to come back no? What percentage do HMRC have at present? What percentage will they have if if the BTC finds against Rangers? Is it in HMRC's interest to have the BTT concluded before the cooling off period ends, so that they can effectively veto the CVA, assuming they want to veto it? No 75% of creditors must agree - 25% can veto. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Surely they should pass a new regulation as such : " Any Newco, whether it be by direct, indirect or any other means whatsoever re any share transfer, will not be able to have SFA membership for a period of 12 months from the formation of the Newco company". oh, I forgot, nae bollocks. What - so if an unincorparated SFL club decides to become a limited company, or another club for one reason or another wants to conduct a solvent restructuring, they'd need to quit the league and spend a year entirely out of football ? Catch-alls are avoided for the very reason that they, often unfairly, catch-all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 HMRC are already owed enough to veto the CVA by themselves, regardless of the BTC outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Oh right So no comments about the Mass hysteria on here and the various blogs about all clubs being thrown out of Eiropean Competition...The Scotland team thrown out of the World cup. It was commneted on that FIFA had put Regan and the SFA straight on their disciplinary procedures. Good stuff...Sorry i missed that humble pie feast. I think it will be more of a case of "egg on face" for the Bears when the SFA replace Rangers original punishment with a 1year suspension. Humble pie ? Nah......we'll stick to ice cream & jelly thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 HMRC are already owed enough to veto the CVA by themselves, regardless of the BTC outcome. Really? I thought ticketus and them were owed broadly similar amounts not including the BTC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 re Leggo: What the hell is an 'unreconstructed Celtic fan'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 re Leggo: What the hell is an 'unreconstructed Celtic fan'? Leggo's ramblings make Mein Kampf read like nursery rhymes ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 What - so if an unincorparated SFL club decides to become a limited company, or another club for one reason or another wants to conduct a solvent restructuring, they'd need to quit the league and spend a year entirely out of football ? Catch-alls are avoided for the very reason that they, often unfairly, catch-all. "For the purpose of debt avoidance" could be specified. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 so Regan to do a wee press conference at 2.30pm #SFA chief exec Stewart Regan will be speaking to the media at 1430. I'll put some of your questions to him. @BBCchrismclaug 1 hour ago Anyone want to bet more nothingness to come ? or will there be something juicy, wont hold my breath. 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.