It has been another busy news day but for now we’ll concentrate on the two most important matters.
10 SPL clubs, excluding Celtic and Rangers, have arranged to meet next week. This is the most significant news since Craig Whyte bought Rangers in May last year. One SPL chairman told the BBC:
“With the Old Firm having talked in the past about leaving Scottish football, we have had to think about a future without them.
“Part of that situation could be about to come true, so we have had time to think about how we would get on without them.”
The smaller 10 SPL clubs have a once-only opportunity to redraw the power and financial map in Scottish football. They want more of your money and this is their chance to get it. They also want to be able to vote crazy ideas into the league that benefit teams without many fans or good players.
This is perfectly understandable and expected. The distribution of TV income currently favours successful clubs, who are invariably featured most often. Smaller clubs want to change this into a more equitable distribution model. You and I will still buy the overwhelming majority of subscriptions, but our club will receive less cash from the TV deal.
“Part of that situation” refers to an SPL without Rangers. This meeting is likely to end Newco Rangers hopes of getting straight back into the SPL in their tracks. Without knowing the numbers in favour of a change, this looks like the killer blow, delivered before any proposition from Craig Whyte reaches the agenda.
We have discussed the need for Whyte to present a fait-accompli in order to get his wish. Having been unable to do that, others had the opportunity to organise and make alternative plans.
The other important occurrence today was the attendance at the Rolls Building courts in London today by HMRC lawyers, keen to secure any monies seized from Collyer Bristows’ client account last week. HMRC have made it perfectly clear they are all over Duff and Phelps and will seek court intervention to secure their rights.
This is significant.
You can make what you like about a more even distribution of SPL TV money, or the possibility of being held to ransom in future by bad teams who want to vote themselves out of relegation, but the only thing we know for sure is that this has been a profoundly bad day for Craig Whyte and anyone else hoping to phoenix a Newco Rangers.
In light of today‘s developments, Mr Whyte and the administrators have some thinking to do before announcing any plans tomorrow.
Issue six of CQN Magazine, the Fit and Proper edition, is set to become a landmark collectors item. You can browse the magazine online here but you can buy your own hard copy by clicking on the link below. Read with 20-20 vision…..
You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.
747 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- »
.
Kit..
I wondered what You meant there.. Went back and Read.. Thought at first the RTC were after Me..
I did say it Was from The Express..;0)
001
Sparkleghirl
You are start to answer your own Q.
First sign of madness.
Welcome to CQN.
MWD
PS. I can see taxman agreeing to talk about a CVA on PAYE & NI owed. They want Rangers to exist when FTT is concluded so they are able to serve that on the club. IMO there is no chance of a CVA on The Big Case or the Little case or The Medium case.
Any significance in Celtic cancelling Friday`s Press Conference? Has it to do with the Gang of Ten?
Incidentally, ignoring my own advice about commenting on that Ten meeting until we know the facts, I am now pretty confident that it was to discuss how to get a bigger share of the financial pot after Rangers become, at best (for THEM) , one of the eleven teams substantially poorer than Celtic.
JJ
JJ
I hear they are meeting to discuss how to get your Rangers cycling gloves back to you prior to MWD being liquidised.
MWD
Yeah Summa but it reads like a Roddy Forsyth production. With all the guff we are being fed Tony Bannanas is going to have enough material for a fair few more books. Talking of whom, I have not seen nor heard from him for a while, but if you are looking in Tony… I ordered your second book a week or so back, get it in the post will ya.
MWD
Rangers sold them along with the StEtiene bike.
JJ
Are you doing the Trossachs Ton this year?
Any sign of a Rangers admission of guilt yet?
I have been suffering from a cold these last few days and , pain being a great concentrater of the mind, came to this philosophical conclusion :
The worst cold you have ever had is the current one.
Now, were I Mark Twain, Winston Churchill or Greg ” Oscar ” Wylde, I would have that widely commented upon.
Off out now.
JJ
Rhetorical questions:
Which Scottish team was the first win nine titles in a row?
Which Scottish team won nine tainted titles in a row?
Which Scottish team avoided liquidation at the last minute?
Which Scottish team with 5 stars on their jersey went into adminsitration?
Which team does not Cheat?
Answers to: Jabba, Radio Clyde,Keevins et al
morning
funny how the express ignore the statements made by the qc representing d and p in a court of law yesterday and just run a story anyway.
think I will do what has held me in good stead and stick with cqn rtc Phil Paul etc.
JJ
I’ve not been on my bike since 14th of July 2012.
MWD
Scottish Cup Record v Dundee United
04.02.1931 A W 3-2 Scarff 2, Napier 13,000
22.01.1949 A L 3-4 Tully (29), J Gallacher 2 (56, 76) HT 1-2 25,000
07.02.1970 H W 4-0 Hughes 2 (15, 43), Macari (58), Wallace (77) 45,000
04.05.1974 FINAL HAMPDEN W 3-0 Hood (20), Murray (24), Deans (89) 75,959
11.04.1981 SF HAMPDEN d 0-0 40,337
15.04.1981 SFR HAMPDEN L 2-3 Nicholas 2 (5 pen, 44) HT 2-2 32,328
18.05.1985 FINAL HAMPDEN W 2-1 Provan (76), McGarvey (84) HT 0-0 60,346
14.05.1988 FINAL HAMPDEN W 2-1 McAvennie 2 (76, 90) HT 0-0 74,000
11.02.1992 H W 2-1 Creaney (25), Coyne (84) HT 1-? 26,225
10.03.1996 QF H W 2-1 Van Hooijdonk (88), Thom (89) HT 0-1 32,750
08.03.1998 QF A W 3-2 Brattbakk (11), Wieghorst (55), OG (90) HT 1-1 12,640
10.04.1999 SF IBROX W 2-0 Blinker (30), Viduka (39) 43,491
15.04.2001 SF HAMPDEN W 3-1 Larsson 2 (32, 79 pen), McNamara (80) HT 1-0 38,699
28.05.2005 FINAL HAMPDEN W 1-0 Thompson (11) 50,635
P 14 W 11 D 1 L 2 F 32 A 16
Morning all from gay Paree, beautiful morning here (13C max today).
I have just had a swift scan through the MSM this morning and was gobsmacked by a tidal wave of optimistic reporting surrounding the sANGERs situation.
Less that 24hrs after the SFA branded their Chairman “not fit and proper” to be involved in football and confirmed that the club is facing a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, I fail to see where the optimism is coming from.
One CQNer mentioned the other day that we (Celts) are highly trained in spotting bullshit. I think we are seeing a huge dose of it today.
Looking forward to our match on Sunday, should be a cracker.
Hope Broonie is fit and well, we will need his drive against a DUnt team that are the other form team at the moment.
JCGE
Kitalba 07:03
Was thinking that the other week, theres enough material the past few weeks for another book or two.
To think if some huns had read the first two books they might have started to question their media…
EN
There is a clear line being spun this morning in the press:
“No need to worry, we’ve squared Hector who is going to accept a couple of million; Whyte’s shares? Nah, no problem, we’ll “control them”. In fact, he probably owes us money. Ticketus? Null and void, they’re history.
Now. Bidders? Oh yes, a couple of North Americans with scary lawyers (they really, really impressed us!); erm, a couple of Brits, some Rotary-club-Jocks, and a Far Eastern gentleman. Yes, serious money. Serious players. Deal will be done in a few weeks and then it’s off to Glyndebourne for Pims for us.”
24 hours ago it was armageddon. Now, you’d be forgiven for wondering what all the fuss is about.
This is so clearly a pre-prepared PR line, designed to desperately flush out buyers and intimidate Whyte into settling and b***gg*** off back to Monaco. The HMRC portion of it (The Sun has them settling for 10% of PAYE, NIC, and the BTC) is so unbelievable it’s actually laughable.
Who are they fooling with this?
ItaliaBhoy on 9 March, 2012 at 07:17 said:
Couldn’t put it better myself.
This will be the same HMRC who’ve just been excoriated for tickling the tummies of other corporate tax cheats.
These will be the same buyers who fell over themselves not to match Craigy’s pund coin all those glorious months ago.
This will be the same club who’s facing a disrepute charge, which the FTT is about to officially rubber stamp as a multi-year tax cheat, and whose shady undisclosed contracts which led to that verdict will show that they fielded ineligibly players for the last umpteen fraudulent years.
Yep, all is well, Bears; salvation is at hand.
My arse.
Good Morning fellow Celts from the 0631 to Waterloo
Grey but mild… and the weather is similar
I have no probs. with SPL 10 demanding even split of the tv cash. As long as the teams featured in live games receive a match fee.
As for sharing gate mobley 50/50 after coats…will not stay on the agenda long! More clubs than Celts would be net losers….
No methinks they will demand simple things like majority voting and removal of the veto
….and a phased plan to have currants back in top flight within 1 year maybe 2
Anyone that thinks the average Joe Public in England wants Celts in their leagues should get out more :) seriously they will be kicking up a stinko
But…
It’s the Sky boys that call the shots now….so time to get costing done on the oul’ fitba speshuls
We c
We could be on the one road very soon
A bright and breezy, if somewhat cloudy morning here in North Ayrshire.
Don’t tell me they’re going to get off with it!
Two Rankers players agreed a 75% wage cut! But on which contract No 1 or No 2
There is not much the gang of ten can do to the detriment of Celtic without breaking their own rules. Celtic have not done anything that could be construed detrimental to the SPL. On the other hand, a team south of the river will not enjoy the luxury of such protection.
Is there something sinister in what the SPL clubs are doing?
From their articles of association:
General meetings:
30. No business shall be transacted at any General Meeting unless a quorum is present at the time when the General Meeting proceeds to business.
31. Save as otherwise provided in these Articles, two-thirds in number of the Members who are entitled to be present and vote and who are present by a duly authorised representative or by proxy shall be the quorum for a General Meeting for all purposes.
I think they have a lot to talk about.
Page 3 of the Articles of Association of the SPL
all Clubs and the Candidate Club must comply and have complied with the Financial Disclosure Requirements.
The Financial Disclosure Requirements are set out at Appendix 3 to the Rules.
In effect, the Financial Disclosure Requirements are that Clubs and the Candidate Club must by the dates set out in the Scottish Football Association National Club Licensing Manual provide to the Company the information required by the Criteria listed in section 7 and all of the relevant Criteria in section 8 of the manual. There are additional requirements for information as set out in Appendix 3. The date by which this material will require to be provided to the Company in any year is 31 March
So we go to…
APPENDIX 3
Financial Disclosure Requirements
1. Clubs and the Candidate Club are required to comply with Criteria 7.1.1, 7.1.3, 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 of the Legal and Administration Criteria in Section 7 and, subject to paragraph 2 of this Appendix 3, all of the Finance Criteria in Section 8 of The Scottish Football Association National Club Licensing Manual (“the Criteria”), as from time to time amended, varied or supplemented, as if the requirements of the Criteria applied to provision of the copies, documentation, verification and information set out in the Criteria required to be made out and satisfied to the Company on the same basis and to the same extent as the Criteria require to be made out and satisfied to The Scottish Football Association.
2. Criteria 8.1.4 of the Criteria shall be extended for the purpose of the Financial Disclosure Requirements to additionally require that no Payables shall be Overdue to any Club and the relevant Definition, SPL Requirement and Club Documents against Criteria 8.1.4 shall apply to Payables Overdue to any Club as they apply to Payables Overdue towards football clubs arising from transfer activity as at the specified date.
3. For all purposes in relation to the Criteria the Candidate Club in relation to any Season is to be treated as a Club and is required to comply and to have made out and satisfied the Company with respect to the Criteria as if, for the Season in which it became the Candidate Club for promotion in respect of the following Season, it
Now what would be in Section 7 of The Scottish Football Association National Club Licensing Manual that might worry one or two chairmen and lawyers.
Who cares about them getting a licence to play in Europe, by their own rules can the legally be given a licence to play in Scotland.
I have a copy of The Scottish Football Association National Club Licensing Manual somewhere but I think it isfor 2011 rather than 2012 but my files are all messed up so if anybody else has a copy and would like to shove it up… feel free.
Any way, BY THEIR OWN RULES, I don’t think Rangers would meet the requirements laid down by the SPL that would allow Rangersto play in the league next season. But I might be wrong.
A licence will be refused:
a) If the annual financial statements (that may also include supplementary information) are not submitted to the SFA within the defined deadline.
b) If the club submits annual financial statements (that may also include supplementary information) that do not meet the minimum requirements for the content and accounting.
Having read the auditor’s report on the annual financial statements, the SFA will assess it according to the points below:
c) If the auditor’s report has an unqualified opinion, without any modification, this provides a satisfactory basis for granting the licence in respect of criterion A.47.
d) If the auditor’s report has a disclaimer of opinion or an adverse opinion, the licence will be refused.
e) If the auditor’s report has, in respect of going concern, either an emphasis of matter or a qualified ‘except for’ opinion, the licence will be refused, unless additional documentary evidence demonstrating the club’s ability to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the season to be licensed has been provided and assessed by the SFA to its satisfaction. The additional documentary evidence includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the information described in 8.1.7 (Future financial information).
If the auditor’s report in respect of the annual financial statements submitted in accordance with A.47 includes an emphasis of matter or a qualified ‘except for’ opinion in respect of going concern, then Indicator IND.01 shall apply (as set out in 8.2.26). As a result, the SFA will undertake more extensive assessment procedures in respect of criterion A.52 (Future financial information) and, if granted a licence, the club must also comply with criterion A.67 (Duty to update future financial information).
f) If the auditor’s report has, in respect of a matter other than going concern, either an emphasis of matter or a qualified ‘except for’ opinion, then the SFA will consider the implications of the modification for club licensing purposes.
The licence may be refused, unless additional documentary evidence is provided, and assessed, to the SFA’s satisfaction. The additional evidence that may be requested will be dependent on the reason for the modification to the audit report.
If the club provides supplementary information the SFA shall additionally assess the auditor’s report of the agreed-upon procedures in respect of the supplementary information.
g) If the auditor’s report of factual findings from the agreed-upon procedures includes reference to errors and/or exceptions found, the licence may be refused.
Mornining cqn
Yet again the media get handed an easy story to follow :~
Did you have a second contract/ebt ?
Walter smith ?
Mark hatley ?
Ally mcoist ?
Andy goram ?
There must be 1 press guy out there looking for an exclusive story ?
Then again they so stupid ,stupid stupid media
Havingapartywhenthehunsdiex csc
Sky will be watching developments with the £££ tinted glasses on, I do believe we will end up in a more lucrative league. That big DD is some poker player I tell you.
Top of the morning to you all from a mild, grey, and breezy Fife.
So now the knives are out for our hapless hero Craig.
He is not a fit and proper person.
He is not a preferred creditor.
He might not even own the club that went into administration.
He didn’t pay any money to buy the club or its debts.
So the tabloid writers say and they are now joined in the chorus by the SFA, Duff & Phelps, et al.
But opinions are ten a penny. Well in fact they are very expensive when lawyers give them and to change Craig Whyte’s status the law courts will have to be approached.
This will be a very long and difficult process as anyone who has had cause to enter litigation will know. As someone once said about litigation it is a machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.
This might be a long and complicated business so we should just sit back and enjoy the fun.
Morning all from a sunny La Suisse, not far away from Nyon where they dont get the Scottish Press and ‘propre’ means ‘clean.’ (I think ‘sportif’ means ‘fit’ although sixtae seven might correct me on that.)
JFK has been shot, the Titanic has sunk and Craig Whyte is a man of questionable integrity. Whodda thought.
Good morning CQNers,
The never ending words on Rangers demise continues apace but I offer only one word
PREVARICATION
prevarication
n 1: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth [syn: lie]
2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: equivocation, evasiveness]
3: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth [syn: lying,
fabrication]
Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Prevarication \Pre*var`i*ca”tion\, n. [L. praevaricatio: cf. F.
pr[‘e]varication.]
1. The act of prevaricating, shuffling, or quibbling, to
evade the truth or the disclosure of truth; a deviation
from the truth and fair dealing.
2. A secret abuse in the exercise of a public office.
3. (Law)
(a) (Roman Law) The collusion of an informer with the
defendant, for the purpose of making a sham
prosecution.
(b) (Common Law) A false or deceitful seeming to undertake
a thing for the purpose of defeating or destroying it.
–Cowell.
Morning all from a cold but sunny Swiss…
Is to the day the teddy bears get their jotters…
Let’s wait and see!!
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
My understanding is that if player agreement signed and sealed, #Rangers will have enough cash to last till end of season.
Tweet Tweet…
Very good Chris but will they have enough to pay Dundee Utd to avoid being banned from next years Cup??
Let’s hope not!!
No mercy, No Newco in the SPL
Al-Megrahi to outlive Rangers?
More than
TEN individuals and groups from Scotland, England and abroad have registered their interest in buying the club and Clark says that number will be whittled down to less than five within days.
Administrators in fact held a ” secret ” meeting at a city bank in London yesterday with a mystery “White Knight ” who they say ” emerged from nowhere ” and is ready to ride to the rescue of club with proof of funds that he has the resources to save Rangers.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
So that’ll be two groups of five then. Mystery “white knight” is not Tommy from CW wind-up is it?
Can’t believe any of this made up guff!!
Morning all looking forward to another day of bad news from snake mountain.
Feel a bit more optimistic having read back.
This meeting of the ten clubs.
Could it be that they have always been intimidated and held in check by the fact that Rangers controlled the media in this sad wee country?
Now that the rags and broadcasters are turning on their erstwhile favourites Celtic are isolated and can be treated with the contempt they have always deserved.
A bleak assessment, I know, but I’ve lived here all my life.
Am I reading this right?
Anyone selling Rangers will want the new owner to take liability of the Tax Bill (big and wee and others)?
Anyone buying Rangers will want the previous owners to retain liability of the Tax Bill (big and wee and others)?
Will this not just go round in circles with no-one, buyers or sellers, wanting the liability of all the Tax Bills?
seventyxseven re “fit and proper”
I think we can put the MBB up there with Bernard Tapis (Marseilles match fixing; tax fraud; spend 6mths prison) when it come to “compétence et d’honorabilité”…
Laird of the Smiles aka PMTYH on 9 March, 2012 at 07:49 said:
The Mystery White Knight better have upwards of 100 million to write off before a ball is kicked or a player signed!!!
Must be one such a maniac out there somewhere!!
Surely…
Not sure if the idea has been mooted…but could we perhaps apply to take Portsmouth’s league place? They seem to be in a race with the huns for the best position in the scrapheap.
RTC ( in the event anyone needs a reminder of the TRUE picture)
If my twitter feed is anything to go by, the quickening drumbeat surrounding Rangers FC (In Administration) is causing confusion in those who have only recently become aware of the immediacy of this crisis. So, I will try another Q&A to help clarify some of the most commonly asked questions and misapprehensions. (Apologies to our resident technical experts and old-timers for any simplifications).
What happened yesterday to cause all the fuss?
Rangers’ administrators released a statement saying that negotiations with players aimed at avoiding a mass-layoff had failed and that if a buyer did not step forward very soon (by Friday), drastic action would be necessary.
Does this mean Rangers will be liquidated on Friday (or Monday)?
No- not necessarily. Duff & Phelps did not clarify their intended course of action. Their options are a cull of the first team squad to bring about rapid cost cuts or they can cut-to-the-chase and just liquidate if they do not see any serious prospects of anyone buying the club in its current state. (Of course, if a buyer is waiting, a pre-pack is also possible. This would be a form of liquidation. The existing company would cease to exist).
What do you think is most likely- savage cost cuts or liquidation?
If I was the betting type, my money would be on savage cost cuts. It could be important for Duff & Phelps to be seen to have exhausted all options. However, we will see some arguments for immediate liquidation below.
Is liquidation inevitable?
Eventually, yes- it seems that way. The liabilities amassed by Rangers FC (In Administration) are probably more than the underlying business is worth- even without the Big Tax Case (BTC) liability. Include the likely amounts for underpayment & interest for the BTC, and Rangers’ total debts will probably be in the region of £70m. HMRC would then proceed with the penalty phase. This will add an additional £18m or thereabouts. No one planning on keeping Rangers alive can hope to spend less than £88m before a player is signed or a ball is kicked.
Keeping Rangers alive would also entail dealing with the responsibility for at least a decade of breaking league rules regarding player contracts and other illegal payments (such as those exposed in the Wee Tax Case). In short, Rangers today are an accumulation of time-bombs set years ago as expediencies designed to “win the title now” without regard to the future. They are all exploding together now. It would simply make financial sense to let the club founded by ‘four boys with a dream’ on Flesher’s Haugh in 1872 die and to start again.
Why have Duff & Phelps not cut costs more dramatically?
They say that they have been trying to preserve asset values by retaining as many sellable players as possible. This is quite possible and a case can be made that this is a reasonable approach. However, one of the primary roles of an administrator is to determine if a distressed business can be rescued or not. To go into liquidation without wielding a chainsaw to the cost structure would be strange. Most insolvency practitioners will want to demonstrate whether costs can be reduced below income. Given the unique legal powers of an administrator, if they cannot reduce costs below income, then no one can, and the business is beyond salvaging. Hence, I would be surprised if there is not at least a short period of Rangers operating with what amounts to a youth team playing for very little money. The administrators have other drastic tools available- such as cancelling season tickets and asking all fans to pay for entry to all future games. Given the stakes and emotions bound in this case, it would surprising if Duff & Phelps do not want to be seen to have tried everything.
Why have they mentioned not fulfilling all fixtures this season?
If they are going to skip the cost cutting and proceed straight to liquidation, failing to show up becomes inevitable. I understand (but have not yet verified) that the process for a team that does not fulfill all of its fixtures is that all of its results are voided and it finishes the season on zero points. (or -10 points in Rangers’ case due to the penalty for insolvency). This would relegate Rangers from the SPL. The number of clubs who would likely object to a newco being dropped into the SPL could then start to rise. The chances of the SPL getting bogged down in court proceedings start to increase dramatically. Thus far, the SFA and the SPL have failed miserably to provide leadership in this process. Only recently stirred from their slumbers, they do not appear to have thought any of these processes through. It is vital that these organisations start thinking and listening to expert advice. They must figure out all of the pathways and pitfalls now.
Why would they go straight to liquidation?
If the liabilities accrued to Rangers- debt to Craig Whyte’s Wavetower, tickets owed to Ticketus, assorted unpaid tax bills over the last year, and so on are such that even if Rangers won the Big Tax Case (and HMRC did not appeal), that the club would still be unable to dig itself out, then liquidation would be inevitable. Cost cutting would only buy some time, but would not affect the final outcome. On top of these bills, the costs of litigating all of the legal messes created would also be significant. It is unlikely that any of our dashing heroes waiting in the morgue to collect the corpse would want to take on such a disaster.
If liquidation is inevitable, why is Paul Murray saying otherwise?
As Graham Spiers accurately recalled on TV last night, this is the same Paul Murray who said that it made no sense for anyone to buy Rangers with the Big Tax Case hanging over the club. Yet, today he is posturing on the periphery trying to look like a hero set to save the day? Nothing about Rangers’ position has improved since then. I will call it as I see it: Paul Murray is fronting a consortium of ex-directors who want to claim the corpse of the club killed by their own actions. They are hoping to make life for Craig Whyte so uncomfortable post-liquidation that he will surrender his claim on Rangers’ assets cheaply. Paul Murray is neither so naive nor so stupid as to believe that he can really save the club. He does appear to be so cynical as to toy with the hopes and emotions of the Rangers’ many supporters.
Can Rangers stay in the SPL if liquidated?
Contrary to some of the word-play coming from Duff & Phelps and Neil Doncaster of the SPL, if Rangers FC is liquidated- that is the end of the road. There are no provisions in current SPL rules to allow a club to stay in the SPL if it has been liquidated. There are no provisions to automatically allow a newco to automatically enter the Scottish Football League Division 3 either. This point was distorted by Neil Doncaster (abetted by arch St. Mirren supporter- Chick Young) as he tried to imply that re-entry to the SPL was the only path forward for a newco-Rangers. Mr. Doncaster should wait to hear the results of the inquiry he has ordered into the two-contracts scandal before he forms a set view. If a newco-Rangers is allowed free entry to the SPL- with no annual financial or points penalty as an “entrance fee”- the integrity of football in Scotland will have been torn to shreds. Free entry would do more to damage the game in Scotland than any loss of revenue from Rangers’ disappearance could ever do. If the SPL rules are modified in advance of a vote to make it easier to allow newco-Rangers free entry, then the damage will be ever greater. Likewise, a change in regulations would be necessary to allow the newco-Rangers to inherit the football honours (those won fairly and those that carry the taint of financial doping and illegal tax scams). This could prove to be the last straw for many football fans. Why bother playing the games? If one particular club is not allowed to face the consequences of its own reckless mismanagement, then the Scottish Premier League will not be worth watching at all.
To be clear, I expect the SPL and SFA to attempt to change whatever rules are necessary to make life easy for newco-Rangers.
When will the Big Tax Case result be released?
There is no set schedule. It could be days. It could be months. My guess is that we will not have to wait too much longer as the judges will have had the opportunity to write-up much of their findings of fact long before the final sitting of the tribunal.
What will happen to the Big Tax Case if Rangers are liquidated before the result?
HMRC would request that the result is still entered. Contrary to sports journalist speculation, a First Tier Tribunal (Tax) finding cannot be used to set precedent for other cases. (It would have to be heard at the Upper Tribunal or a higher court to be binding on other cases being heard in First Tier Tribunals). With no legal entity left to appeal to an upper chamber, Rangers’ case could not set precedent for anyone else. Rangers’ result could be referred to in other cases, but there are many unique aspects of Rangers’ case that will not be relevant to anyone else.
In summary, the cascading effects of a Rangers liquidation pose a serious threat to the existence of professional football in Scotland. These problems cannot be resolved by simply wishing Rangers’ illegality and irresponsibility away and allowing them to proceed as if nothing has happened. There are a series of needles that need to be threaded together. This will require intensive effort to balance justice and fair-play with the economic interests of all clubs in the short and long term. I have seen nothing yet that would indicate that the leadership required to bring this disaster to a satisfactory conclusion is in place. However, I would love to write a blog in a few months withdrawing this charge and heaping praise on Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan for a difficult job well done. I do not envy their task.
Edit:
Some have asked for a breakdown of the debt calculation. I posted this as a blog reply but before it disappears off the page, I thought that I would post it here too:
To explain the breakdown of the debt estimate:
£18m – Wavetower (plus interest at rates Whyte can set- £26m at least by now- but let’s stick with £18m).
£12m – taxes (could be £15m per BBC Scotland)
£6m – misc. working capital owed by RFC at time of takeover (not including any increase due to Whyte just not paying bills)
That would be £36m debt before we consider the Big Tax Case. (It will be significantly more, but let’s not get hung up on precision).
Big Tax Case:
£20-24m in underpayment
£16-20m in interest (compounding daily- it has grown by about £2m in the time this blog has been running. Initial estimates assumed monthly compounding. This would have been low).
i.e. initial total of £38-44m
Penalty: assumed £18m.
That actually puts the debt at between £92-98m. My apologies for the low estimate above in the interests of conservatism.
Of course, HMRC will actually just say “ach forget the £68-74m you owe us. We want you to live. It was all a big misunderstanding. We will accept nothing. You pay everyone else, including Craig Whyte, and we will be happy to walk away”
Good morning Bhoys & Girls and welcome to another live episode of
THE BIG HOOSE
Brought to you live on CQN
Will absolutely ali survive eviction, will whitey fight back,what will be king & murray ‘s next move. Where is SDM,
Come sit back and enjoy the show