Quantcast

Dunfermline statement on Rangers

1133

This evening’s announcement by Dunfermline Athletic that they no longer expect to receive timely receipt of the £80,000 ticket money Rangers FC PLC (in administration) owe them will heighten concerns at Inverness Caledonian Thistle, who have a stock at tickets with Rangers right now, money for which will be received by the administrators in advance of their game later this month.

The administrators have yet to decide whether to retain high-earning players or make more funds available for existing creditors, and future creditors, like Inverness.  As ticket sales for the Inverness game are on-going, the administrators will need to be aware of their legal position before retaining a premium squad.

One final push (this week) for the Vanessa Riddle Appeal. We have a Celtic top signed by the first team squad available to auction on eBay. You can bid on the auction and help send Vanessa for the treatment she needs by clicking here. Thanks to Penfold for the donation and to Taggsybhoy for organising (yet again).

If you would like to read CQN Magazine online (for free), click here. You can download a pdf of the magazine using the button at the top of the page, second from the right. Click on the link below to order a hard copy of the magazine.

Ship to:

You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.

Click Here for Comments >
Share.

About Author

1,133 Comments

  1. goldstar10 says:

     

    16 February, 2012 at 09:49

     

     

    Absolutely correct. There is no viable business as it stands. Any form of payment plan to HMRC and I’d be confident in saying that even if it was done on and interest free £1M for 75 years (adjusted for inflation though) would not be sustainable.

     

     

    I’m going to go 1 step further. I’m not sure of the viability of running any form of Rangers out of the current Ibrox is viable without a sugar daddy. Simply put the size and quality of the squad they could afford would not guarantee 2nd position (let alone winning) and with that goes the chances of being profitable from European football.

     

     

    They need to reduce the capacity of Ibrox and thus running costs in order to make ends meet I think.

  2. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    ‘No immediate cuts’ to Rangers squad, say administrators

     

    Administrators Duff and Phelps say meetings on Thursday will not result in immediate redundancies.

     

     

    16 February 2012 09:45 GMT

     

     

    Rangers’ administrators have assured players that no job cuts will be made on Thursday.

     

     

    Duff and Phelps say there will be “no immediate cuts in the playing staff” but have confirmed there will be a review of staffing levels shortly.

     

     

    Co-administrator Paul Clark met with manager Ally McCoist earlier on Thursday morning and will go on to speak to players at Murray Park.

     

     

    “Paul will be outlining the administration process,” said a spokesman.

     

     

    “There will be a review of staff, including playing staff. That will take its course.”

     

     

    The playing squad are also due to meet with representatives from the PFA Scotland union over their future.

     

     

    The administrators will then address the media on Thursday afternoon at Ibrox, at which they will outline the outcome of their discussions.

  3. Steinreignedsupreme on

    I heard the odious Michael Kelly on Five Live yesterday. The guy’s got some front – talk about trying to alter history.

     

     

    Kelly told Peter Allen he was the victim of a ‘hostile takeover’ – which, while technically correct on more than one level, doesn’t even come close to telling the true story.

     

     

    He also described the current Celtic squad as ‘sub-standard’. Maybe Kelly couldn’t see Wayne Biggins through that ludicrous tiger suit.

     

     

    A total chancer, who was willing to let our club die rather than do the right thing and put Celtic into the hands of people who knew how to take the club out of the 1950s. He really would be better off keeping his mouth shut.

  4. Anyone know the answer?

     

     

    A quick question and I hope someone can answer it.

     

     

    Dingbat on STV last night said that the Supporters Ass-ociation had held a conference call with the administrators and that they had admitted there would be no accounts and no agm.

     

     

    So the question is this (to quote Davina): How does this affect licensing either for Scotland or Europe next season?

  5. optimistic little soldier on

    Mort:

     

     

    It also gives the players an inflated resale value.

     

    If I was going into Admin, I’d want my available assets to be worth more than they were.

     

    I wouldn’t plan my Admin event 7mths in advance though…

  6. Dontbrattbakkinanger on

    The ole Union flag had better be flyin’ upside down this Saturday…they need to send out all the ole distress signals they can muster.

  7. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    Article 49 – No overdue payables towards football clubs

     

    1 The licence applicant must prove that as at 31 March preceding the licence

     

    season it has no overdue payables (as defined in Annex VIII) that refer to

     

    transfer activities that occurred prior to the previous 31 December.

     

    2 Payables are those amounts due to football clubs as a result of transfer

     

    activities, including training compensation and solidarity contributions as defined

     

    in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as any

     

    amount due upon fulfilment of certain conditions.

     

    3 The licence applicant must prepare and submit to the licensor a transfer

     

    payables table, unless the information has already been disclosed to the licensor

     

    under existing national transfer requirements (e.g. national clearing house

     

    system). It must be prepared even if there have been no transfers/loans during

     

    the relevant period.

     

    4 The licence applicant must disclose all transfer activities (including loans)

     

    undertaken up to 31 December, irrespective of whether there is an amount

     

    outstanding to be paid at 31 December. In addition, the licence applicant must

     

    disclose all transfers subject to a claim pending before the competent authority

     

    under national law or proceedings pending before a national or international

     

    football authority or relevant arbitration tribunal.

     

    5 The transfer payables table must contain the following information as a minimum

     

    (in respect of each player transfer, including loans):

     

    a) Player (identification by name or number);

     

    b) Date of the transfer/loan agreement;

     

     

    27

     

    c) The name of the football club that formerly held the registration;

     

    d) Transfer (or loan) fee paid and/or payable (including training compensation

     

    and solidarity contribution);

     

    e) Other direct costs of acquiring the registration paid and/or payable;

     

    f) Amount settled and payment date;

     

    g) The balance payable at 31 December in respect of each player transfer

     

    including the due date for each unpaid element;

     

    h) Any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December) including the

     

    due date for each unpaid element, together with explanatory comment; and

     

    i) Conditional amounts (contingent liabilities) not yet recognised in the balance

     

    sheet as of 31 December.

     

    6 The licence applicant must reconcile the total liability as per the transfer

     

    payables table to the figure in the financial statements balance sheet for

     

    ‘Accounts payable relating to player transfers’ (if applicable) or to the underlying

     

    accounting records. The licence applicant is required to report in this table all

     

    payables even if payment has not been requested by the creditor.

     

    7 The transfer payables table must be approved by management and this must be

     

    evidenced by way of a brief statement and signature on behalf of the executive

     

    body of the licence applicant.

     

    Article 50 – No overdue payables towards employees and social/tax

     

    authorities

     

    1 The licence applicant must prove that as at 31 March preceding the licence

     

    season it has no overdue payables (as defined in Annex VIII) towards its

     

    employees or social and tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal

     

    obligations towards its employees that arose prior to the previous 31 December.

     

    2 Payables are those amounts due to employees or social and tax authorities as a

     

    result of contractual or legal obligations towards employees. Amounts payable to

     

    people who, for various reasons, are no longer employed by the applicant fall

     

    within the scope of this criterion and must be settled within the period stipulated

     

    in the contract and/or defined by law, regardless of how such payables are

     

    accounted for in the financial statements.

     

    3 The term “employees” includes the following persons:

     

    a) All professional players according to the applicable FIFA Regulations on the

     

    Status and Transfer of Players; and

     

    b) The administrative, technical, medical and security staff specified in Articles

     

    28 to 33 and 35 to 39.

     

    4 The licence applicant must prepare a schedule showing all employees who were

     

    employed at any time during the year up to the 31 December preceding the

     

     

    28

     

    licence season; i.e. not just those who remain at year end. This schedule must

     

    be submitted to the licensor.

     

    5 The following information must be given, as a minimum, in respect of each

     

    employee:

     

    a) Name of the employee;

     

    b) Position/function of the employee;

     

    c) Start date;

     

    d) End date (if applicable);

     

    e) The balance payable as at 31 December, including the due date for each

     

    unpaid element; and

     

    f) Any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December), including the

     

    due date for each unpaid element, together with explanatory comment.

     

    6 The employees schedule must be approved by management and this must be

     

    evidenced by way of a brief statement and signature on behalf of the executive

     

    body of the licence applicant.

     

    7 The licence applicant must reconcile the total liability as per the employee

     

    schedule to the figure in the financial statements balance sheet for ‘Accounts

     

    payable towards employees’ (if applicable) or to the underlying accounting

     

    records.

     

    8 The licence applicant must submit to the auditor and/or the licensor the

     

    necessary documentary evidence showing the amount payable (if any), as at 31

     

    December of the year preceding the licence season as well as any payable as at

     

    31 March (rolled forward from 31 December), to the competent social/tax

     

    authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees.

     

    Article 51 – Written representations prior to the licensing decision

     

    1 Within the seven days prior to the start of the period in which the licensing

     

    decision is to be made by the First Instance Body, the licence applicant must

     

    make written representations to the licensor.

     

    2 The written representations must state whether or not any events or conditions

     

    of major economic importance have occurred that may have an adverse impact

     

    on the licence applicant’s financial position since the balance sheet date of the

     

    preceding audited annual financial statements or reviewed interim financial

     

    statements (if applicable).

     

    3 If any events or conditions of major economic importance have occurred, the

     

    management representations letter must include a description of the nature of

     

    the event or condition and an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that

     

    such an estimate cannot be made.

     

     

    29

     

    4 Approval by management must be evidenced by way of a signature on behalf of

     

    the executive body of the licence applicant.

     

    Article 52 – Future financial information

     

    1 The licence applicant must prepare and submit future financial information in

     

    order to demonstrate to the licensor its ability to continue as a going concern

     

    until the end of the licence season if it has breached any of the indicators

     

    defined in paragraph 2 below.

     

    2 If a licence applicant exhibits any of the conditions described by indicator 1 or 2,

     

    it is considered in breach of the indicator:

     

    a) Indicator 1: Going concern

     

    The auditor’s report in respect of the annual or interim financial statements

     

    submitted in accordance with Articles 47 and 48 includes an emphasis of

     

    matter or a qualified opinion/conclusion in respect of going concern.

     

    b) Indicator 2: Negative equity

     

    The annual financial statements (including, where required, the

     

    supplementary information) submitted in accordance with Article 47 disclose

     

    a net liabilities position that has deteriorated relative to the comparative

     

    figure contained in the previous year’s annual financial statements, or the

     

    interim financial statements submitted in accordance with Article 48

     

    (including, where required, the supplementary information) disclose a net

     

    liabilities position that has deteriorated relative to the comparative figure at

     

    the preceding statutory closing date.

     

    3 Future financial information must cover the period commencing immediately

     

    after the later of the statutory closing date of the annual financial statements or,

     

    if applicable, the balance sheet date of the interim financial statements, and it

     

    must cover at least the entire licence season.

     

    4 Future financial information consists of:

     

    a) a budgeted profit and loss account, with comparative figures for the

     

    immediately preceding financial year and interim period (if applicable);

     

    b) a budgeted cash flow, with comparative figures for the immediately preceding

     

    financial year and interim period (if applicable);

     

    c) explanatory notes, including a brief description of each of the significant

     

    assumptions (with reference to the relevant aspects of historic financial and

     

    other information) that have been used to prepare the budgeted profit and

     

    loss account and cash flow statement, as well as of the key risks that may

     

    affect the future financial results.

     

     

    30

     

    5 Future financial information must be prepared, as a minimum, on a quarterly

     

    basis.

     

    6 Future financial information must be prepared on a consistent basis with the

     

    audited annual financial statements and follow the same accounting policies as

     

    those applied for the preparation of the annual financial statements, except for

     

    accounting policy changes made after the date of the most recent annual

     

    financial statements that are to be reflected in the next annual financial

     

    statements – in which case details must be disclosed.

     

    7 Future financial information must meet the minimum disclosure requirements as

     

    set out in Annex VI. Additional line items or notes must be included if they

     

    provide clarification or if their omission would make the future financial

     

    information misleading.

     

    8 Future financial information with the assumptions upon which they are based

     

    must be approved by management and this must be evidenced by way of a brief

     

    statement and signature on behalf of the executive body of the reporting entity.

     

  8. BlantyreKev - Parcel=> on

    It was mentioned yesterday a potential points deduction for failing to pass on ticket monies. Can’t find anything on the SPL rule book, but interest does accrue:

     

     

    C14.5 The Visiting Club shall, unless it and the Home Club agree otherwise, return

     

    any unsold tickets for a League Match in its possession to the Home Club not

     

    less than 48 hours prior to the scheduled time of commencement of the

     

    League Match and shall pay the Home Club for any tickets which it sells for a

     

    League Match no later than 10 days after the scheduled date or dates for

     

    such League Match.

     

     

    Any Club making late payment shall pay interest to the

     

    Home Club on any balance or balances from time to time outstanding until

     

    paid in full, at the rate of 5% above the base lending rate of the Bank of

     

    England as same may vary from time to time compounded on the first day of

     

    each calendar month.

     

     

     

    Note to Administrator: You are running up more debt the longer you keep them on life support.

  9. lochgoilhead bhoy on

    ernie lynch says:

     

    16 February, 2012 at 10:03

     

     

    “I think……

     

    “I suspect…..

     

    “She probably…..”

     

     

    As usual all guesswork.

     

     

    “Salmond genuinely…..” – more guesswork. You are doing it again, Che. You are guessing and passing it off as knowledge.

  10. Steinreignedsupreme says:

     

    16 February, 2012 at 10:06

     

    I heard the odious Michael Kelly on Five Live yesterday. The guy’s got some front – talk about trying to alter history.

     

     

    Kelly told Peter Allen he was the victim of a ‘hostile takeover’ – which, while technically correct on more than one level, doesn’t even come close to telling the true story.

     

     

    He also described the current Celtic squad as ‘sub-standard’. Maybe Kelly couldn’t see Wayne Biggins through that ludicrous tiger suit.

     

    ——————-

     

    Wayne Biggins, Carl Muggleton etc etc – i laughed when i read he described the current suqd as sub standard – Oh really Mick compared to what team you put on the park?

  11. lochgoilhead bhoy on

    BlantyreKev – Parcel=> says:

     

    16 February, 2012 at 10:10

     

     

     

    Yes, but if the Administrators then give out pennies in the pound then the interest rate doesn’t matter.

  12. macjay1 for Neil Lennon on

    Meanwhile in the colonies…………..

     

     

    From:

     

    Sydney City Celtic Supporters Club

     

    To:

     

    Sydney City Celtic Supporters Club <sydneycitycsc@hotmail.com

     

    Hail hail SCCSC Members, a quick update on our events/games:

     

    Next Event: Jelly & Ice Cream with Marty Higgins – SATURDAY 18th FEBRUARY – Free event

     

    All the way from Co.Antrim, Marty will be playing a gig dedicated to Celtic fans in Sydney at The Cock n Bull, in Bondi – please note the change of venue. Marty has supported the Wolfe Tones and has recently played in the Mercantile Bar and Durty Nellys. Unfortunately The Shannon Hotel has had to close due to financial difficulties. A bit like Rangers.

     

    The Cock n Bull Hotel

     

    89 Ebley Street

     

    Bondi Junction

     

    Saturday 18 February

     

     

    Seemingly,the word has spread.

     

    In excelsis deo,`n`at.

  13. I am led to believe that it will be nine days before they are officially in administration. If I am wrong then I accept that. If I am right, then I expect apologies!

     

    Incidentally, Mars is ok, a little hot and dusty.

  14. I really hope it is updated as soon as possible.

     

    I also hope that due to their circumstance they slide down the table like a drunken lizard.

     

    It’s a pity that their players are so rubbish, nobody would want them.

     

    They might sell Shagger and Davis, but after that, who would want any of them?

  15. Bhoys sent this email to Shona Robison.

     

     

    Dear Shona,

     

     

    I am shocked by the outcry from MSP’s on the situation at Rangers Football Club.

     

     

    Here is an article below I would love you to comment on because its puzzling me why there isn’t the same outcry from you and other MSP’s on this, it really does puzzle me and the taxpayer.

     

     

    500 jobs going at a major Retailer Peacocks yet Rangers Football Club have 185 employees on their books yet you and other MSP’s are hell bent on looking after 185 employees of Rangers Football Club.

     

     

    This company paid all their taxes yet Rangers Football Club have cheated the tax payer out of millions and they have cheated other teams out of millions by buying players that other teams couldn’t afford.

     

     

    So please Shona can you explain this to me because I’m seriously astounded by the government’s stance on this.

     

     

    We have a club who have deliberately not paid tax, we have a legit company who has played by the rules, how can you try and explain this to an honest taxpayer in this country.

     

     

    From what I’m hearing Mr Salmond has lost a lot of supporters on this matter.

     

     

    What message does this send out to the 500 employees and to other Scottish Businesses and to other Scottish teams in this country.

     

     

    These companies work hard to keep their businesses afloat and pay all their taxes, I’m  sure they wont be happy with this outcry from our MSP’s.

     

     

    What about Dunfermline Football Club who have now lost £80,000 because of Rangers Football Club, or Hearts of Midlothian Football Club or Dundee United Football Club, yet I don’t hear you or any other MSP mention this.

     

     

    Being an honest hard working member of the public would it not be in the interests of MSP’s to try and help both companies but surely a company with 500 employees they have to be more of a priority.

     

     

    The establishment circles the wagons…

     

    Published on Thursday 16th February, 2012.

     

     

    140 years of ‘history and tradition’ or fiscal honesty and sporting integrity – take your pick.

     

    I was sitting having a cup of tea after my dinner this evening, reading my preferred Glasgow evening paper (I think there might only be one!), when I read of a Scottish firm which had recently gone into administration.  The piece was only a small one (two columns on page 7) but it talked about the role of the administrators and it talked about the fear of the workforce and the number of jobs that would be lost.  The jobs numbered 487 and, whatever the reason was for the demise of the firm, you had to feel sorry for every one of those nearly 500 people who, through no fault of their own, are facing the threat of unemployment in this harsh economic climate.  However, in the case of the firm in question, the chain store Peacocks, which has 40 stores across Scotland, there did not seem to be a queue of MSPs waiting to voice their support for the workers and call for all measures to be taken to save the company and secure their jobs.  There was no appearance on television of our First Minister telling the world that Scotland ‘needs’ Peacocks; that the creditors of Peacocks need to come to a sensible solution to keep the firm in business.  No, there was none of that, and yet the job losses involved here are nearly double that of Rangers FC, another large Scottish firm recently forced into administration.  Funny that…

     

     

    Yes, dear reader, it didn’t take long, did it?  Two days into administration and the Establishment in its many guises is getting to work to save Rangers FC.  From our Sports Minister, Shona Robison, to the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon (who at least has a constituency interest), to Alex Salmond himself (not to mention Labour’s Patricia Ferguson and Margaret Curran, who want to give themselves a good talking to!), they all waxed lyrical about the importance of this great ‘institution’ to Scottish society; its vital role in Scottish football; its’ 140 year illustrious history and its great ‘culture and traditions’.  I’ve left the best till last and I still can’t believe he actually said this, but our First Minister actually argued for retaining Rangers because of the ‘fun’ they bring to Scottish society.   I’ve just checked all the dictionary definitions of the word ‘fun’ and I’m fairly certain Alex has made a mistake here…

     

     

    For the moment, lets leave aside the specifics of what they mean by the history and traditions of Rangers – no-one spelled it out but could they actually mean their 114 year sectarian signing policy, followed by 22 more years of sectarianism in other forms, flavoured with a healthy dollop of anti-Irish racism to pep it up a bit?  I don’t know but I am much more concerned, as a tax-payer and as a ‘consumer’ of Scottish football about what they didn’t say.

     

     

    There are two fundamental issues here which the press, the television and politicians of all sides are desperately trying to ignore.  The first is that if large firms fail to pay the tax they owe then the public, and the public sector loses out.  So, while as a life-long trades unionist, I would never want to see workers made redundant, I can’t see why a particular group of workers should be given any more protection than those employed by the smaller creditors of Rangers for example.  I also care about those who may lose their jobs in the public sector because of cuts which are made more necessary when firms don’t pay their taxes.  I also care about those who rely on public services and welfare spending, both of which are also being cut as the government tries to cut public sector debt.  Shona Robison doesn’t seem to care about those things – or at least not to the same extent.   Robison’s ‘key concern’, she assured the administrators, is ‘the future of those employed by the club and the potential economic impact of administration’.  I don’t know what lead Peacocks into administration but its owners cannot be more culpable than those at Rangers who are alleged to have withheld tax and VAT that they had collected from employees and customers.  How come their workers don’t merit the same high-profile interventions that those employed by Rangers FC are now getting?

     

     

    The second fundamental issue here is the concept of sporting integrity.  If Rangers is so ‘crucial’ to the game of football in Scotland that they must be allowed to continue to compete at the highest level even after having cheated their way to titles and cup wins by fielding players they had no right to be signing, then there is no sporting integrity in the SPL.  What precisely would I, as a paying customer, be paying to watch?  If the SPL and SFA collude with Whyte or anyone else to ensure that Rangers stays in the SPL no matter what, then what value can possibly be placed on the top-flight game in Scotland?  It would mean precisely nothing.  We might as well all just watch our teams playing exhibition football.  Now I’m no economist….no, wait, I am an economist…..but the regulatory mechanism that allowed banks to be ‘too big to fail’ has been severely criticised by all and sundry and we are all still paying the price for that policy.  Are we now to see the same ‘too big to fail’ logic applied here because, in this case, we would lose all the ‘fun’ that Rangers bring to our lives?

     

     

    Salmond, Robison, Sturgeon and the rest could have supported the view that paying your taxes honestly and letting the public sector create jobs directly and indirectly is what is ‘vital’ to Scotland.  The could have said one word of condemnation of those who dishonestly and deliberately fail to pay what they owe.  Instead they chose to speak out on behalf of a company which has allegedly cheated the taxpayer and the sporting public for years. Maybe we should all visit their surgeries, or write to them, and ask them to justify that choice.

     

     

    Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you and i look forward to listening to the same outcry from MSP’s on this.

  16. Apologies to any SNP supporters but my disdain and distrust for Salmond and his party grows with every move he makes. Ever since his wooing of David Murray, he has been pandering to the west of Scotland orange / bluenose vote. With great success going by the last elections and the swing of votes from Labour to the SNP. I will admit Salmond is an excellent politician, an intelligent man and no fool. I believe his actions are deliberate and tactical. We are the minority, our votes have been written off.

     

     

    Fortunately HMRC vs football is bigger than Scotland.

     

     

    It is widely reported that this is a test case. I think HMRC may have already accepted that it is high unlikely they will recover what they are due from Rangers and will be lucky to get a fraction of it. They have bigger fish to fry in the EPL, by unmercifully banjaxing the quintessential british institution that is Rangers it sends a stark warning out. Gives them a greater leverage when the real scrap begins. Well this is my theory anyway and I have to admit it didn´t go to well with my hun mates that they are essentially a pawn in a much bigger fight.

  17. “Roger HMRC Mellie @RogerMellie67

     

    There were bigger protests at Ibrox when Rangers signed a Catholic than there are now at the death of their club. #apathy”

     

     

    Incredibly perceptive comment on twitter

  18. Apologies if this point has been made before.

     

    Many rangers (in administration) “fans” have made it clear they intend to regale us with the full range of their vile anthems tomorrow.

     

    When this happens,Alex salmond should be asked if he supports his offensive behaviour legislation or his rangers must survive campaign.

     

    As far as I can see the two positions are mutually exclusive.

     

     

    Thoughts?

  19. Top of the morning to you all from a mild grey Fife.

     

     

    Politicians of all parties are whores for votes. They will always take the populist view and if the public change their mind then the politicians swing right in behind them.

     

     

    Remember Murdo Fraser condemning the heavy-handed Manchester police at Holyrood? Then an hour later when film is shown of the policemen getting their heads kicked in the bold Murdo does an emergency 180% turn. It’s what they do.

     

     

    Just occasionally a decent one comes along but they are few and far between and normally don’t get far.

     

     

    Salmond is in awe of Sir Angus Grossart, the most powerful man in Scotland and a best pal of SDM and I would imagine all are Masons with pro-Rangers sympathies.

     

     

    If the public get angry about fat-cat footballers paying no tax the politicians will swing right in behind them, while at the same time mouthing platitudes about jobs lost at Rangers.

     

     

    I still think we ain’t seen nothin yet and criminality will surface. Then what will the politicians say?