Inthebasement Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 It's brilliant that SMcC writes statements like that. It's also clear he put a lot of time and care into it. It's finally fcuking unbelievable that jounalists sit on statements like that over such a period then release them out of context and without explanation. Pitifully unprincipled journalism. The model for football journalism in this country needs permanently wrestled from lazy and cynical tabloid hacks, and actually, our manager's emails are a small part of that (the solution i mean). So I retract my comments earlier in this thread re SMcC's original statement being disappointing. The man's owed more than a pint for his work so far. That said, the assumption that we will all be poorer is open to challenge, and remains an old firm-centric position. If a fairer speading of revenue was implimented, and a more competitive and fan focused league was the uncompromised objective of a program of reform in our league, it is perfectly possible that clubs in well's position could achieve a net gain in revenue with or without either or both shades of the bigottry problem. What the diddy teams lack is collective action, any appetite for risk, proper leadership and any imagination. Are we really just going to sit with a pound shop calculator and decide the future of our game based on (status quo business model - rangers = less cash). Oher equasions are available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkySuperSub Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I think one lesson to be learned from McCall's email is that, at all times, never to believe everything you read in the national rags and to always expect an ulterior motive. It's east to say that normally, but as soon as some story like this one breaks, particularly involving our club, or in this case, someone from within, it's very easy to forget how the media in this country works and to go starting a witch hunt! I know I fell into that trap anyway. So for that, apologies to McCall for jumping the gun and fair play for writing that email, big thumbs up for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East_Stand_Al Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Fair play to him, excellent e-mail as ever. We are lucky to have this type of direct communication from a Manager who is willing to interact with the fans and cover issues that he is aware of or is reading on here.. BUT Still torn, I want Rangers to be royally fucked for all that they have done and are still doing, but don't want my club to be fucked at the same time. That is the main issue with all of this do we want to cut back, accept lesser players and a worse football product, take a hit both off and on the pitch to get the boot in or are we cutting our nose off to spite our face. Personally I think we take the hit, we cannot let these fuckers get away with what they have been up to. We need to restore some faith that intergrity in football can come ahead of money for once. May regret it but it's how I feel. Oops negative rep given because of wrong button pressed I agree short term pain for long term gain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Will I still attend non-SPL games? Yes, I will. Will I still spend my hard-earned in the club shop? Yes, I will. Will I still invest in the Well Society? Yes, I will. the sfa would have to approve any newco. surely you should be boycotting all sfa regulated games? In the instance of Rangers coming out of administration via a CVA, they are essentially going to shed over 100 million pounds worth of debt (assuming the BIG tax case does go against them), retain all the assets of the current company including stadium, training facility, top players, history etc and be virtually unpunished other than the ten point deduction they faced last season which, to be honest, didn't matter a jot as Celtic ran away with the title anyway. Yet fans seem to be completely okay with this, only threatening boycott if they Newco. you can dodge tax, cancel contracts, sack employees and stiff suppliers and still be one of the good guys! i'm not sure how it works but there a few logic gymnasts on here who can explain it you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hervé Bacqué Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 So we have to accept the blatant cheating and tax fraud of one club to protect the gross financial mismanagement of other clubs? Well in, Scottish football. Well in. Stu, If you read my post, you'll see that's not what I said at all. I said that, in my opinion, a 'Newco Rangers' would punish RFC more than a 'CVA Rangers'. You've turned it into a to punish or not to punish. I think we all agree on that. I am making the point that I think people have their protest mixed up. As I've said, in my opinion, despite all the threats and talk of boycotting the SPL in the event of a Newco Rangers, I would argue a CVA Rangers, which people strangely see quite happy to accept, will see RFC in a much stronger position than a Newco yet the protests are complaints are in the reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 If Rangers can agree a CVA and come out of administration they're not breaking any rules so I don't see how they could be punished further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Stu, If you read my post, you'll see that's not what I said at all. I said that, in my opinion, a 'Newco Rangers' would punish RFC more than a 'CVA Rangers'. You've turned it into a to punish or not to punish. I think we all agree on that. I am making the point that I think people have their protest mixed up. As I've said, in my opinion, despite all the threats and talk of boycotting the SPL in the event of a Newco Rangers, I would argue a CVA Rangers, which people strangely see quite happy to accept, will see RFC in a much stronger position than a Newco yet the protests are complaints are in the reverse. Herve, I did read your post. At no point did I say that you thought anything. That's why I only quoted the part in which the Kilmarnock chairman gave his opinion. I'm responding to his opinion, not yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 If Rangers can agree a CVA and come out of administration they're not breaking any rules so I don't see how they could be punished further. they can form a newco without breaking any rules. edit - before i get called a h*n without a bus without etc etc i think a newco should have a 1 season points deduction, 1 year cup ban and 3 year euro ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I thnk the point is that if a clubs 'folds', or 'goes under', that should be it, start again from the bottom, whereas a CVA, although not pretty, is a legal last resort business move to save a company. I've changed my mind a few times on this whole thing. But I've came to the conclusion that this is indeed a once in a lifetime oppurtunity to fuck this whole old firm centric system. Motherwell have been giving it large with the 'join the revolution' patter, it's interesting how it now coincides with the oppurtunity for the 'wee teams' to kick the big two in the baws and make a genuine change to the scottish game. I just don't think we could live it down if in a years time we're back to the same old old firm dominated league. Imagine sitting getting pumped 5-0 at fir park while the hvns belt out a 'party tune', knowing fine well we passed up the oppurtunity to usher in a new era in our game. There's a sort of analogy with scottish independence I think. We can trundle along with what we know, to scared of risk, or we can grab the bull by the horns and try and stand on our own two feet. It might well fail, but at least we can say we gave it a shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I have deliberately avoided this topic other than to read now and again however I would like to make this point which doesn’t appear to have been picked up yet. What actually surprises me in this whole mess is that no one has really clocked that any Newco Rangers would likely to be more punished than the current Rangers negotiating their way out of administration via what looks to be a very weak Creditors Voluntary Agreement. In the instance of Rangers coming out of administration via a CVA, they are essentially going to shed over 100 million pounds worth of debt (assuming the BIG tax case does go against them), retain all the assets of the current company including stadium, training facility, top players, history etc and be virtually unpunished other than the ten point deduction they faced last season which, to be honest, didn’t matter a jot as Celtic ran away with the title anyway. Yet fans seem to be completely okay with this, only threatening boycott if they Newco. Sure they (current Rangers) still have the SFA issue hanging over their head but the court of session judgement the other day basically means they will either be fined, which will no doubt be minimal, or suspended (most likely for a year from the Scottish Cup), neither of which will present them with any real problems whatsoever. I don’t think for a second anyone really expects the SFA to expel Rangers. Whether people like it or not, and the SFA know this, no Rangers would be the final nail in the coffin for some clubs and they have a duty to look after everyone. Let’s take Kilmarnock as an example. They are only able to meet repayments on massive debt repayments based on current levels of income both from gate money and mostly from the current value of the TV contracts. Any radical shift in that arising from either this or, for example, relegation is likely for force Lloyds’ hand in liquidating the club and selling off the assets (stadium, hotel and players) to recoup as much money as they can given the unprofitability of the club at that time (either a vastly reduced income in the SPL or relegation from the SPL under the current circumstances). Why do you think Michael Johnson has gone public about how everyone should now go easy on Rangers despite their seemingly endless list of misdemeanours? Furthermore, Rangers would also retain full voting rights within the SPL i.e. they will be able to veto, along with Celtic, any proposal to change the 11-1 voting structure as it currently stands. Essentially, aside from what is likely to be a watered down punishment from the SFA, they will be the same Rangers as six months ago, minus debt, starting completely afresh and most importantly when considering this debate, in a very strong position. However, you have got to believe, given the furore that has been around a Newco, FC Rangers (or whatever name they are likely to dream up) will potentially face strict penalties from fellow SPL clubs as a given for league re-entry, including the very, very important possibility of rushing through a change in the voting structure I mentioned earlier which is really crucial in all this and what makes the SPL lop-sided at the moment. Do that and the whole landscape of how we distribute finance in this country can virtually change overnight. I really can’t for the life of me understand the whole flag-waving for the anti Newco argument. If anything, fans should be protesting about “No to a CVA”. You also have the fact they would be banned from Europe for three years, a punishment NOT set down if they agree a CVA, I honestly think fans have got it completely the wrong way around. So for what it is worth, I say bring on a Newco and say no to a CVA. As it happens, Killie have reduced our debt by £5m in recent years, so hardly just servicing it. We will post another profit this year too. Our debt is circa 9m just now but Hotel cost £6m to build. I don't care how much debt we are in. This is a sport, sporting integrity is paramount and if by Rangers getting their correct punishment, it somehow has a detrimental affect on Killie, then so be it. Rangers and Celtic are desperate to leave. Having a business plan heavily reliant on them is unsustainable and the quicker clubs realise that, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 they can form a newco without breaking any rules. edit - before i get called a h*n without a bus without etc etc i think a newco should have a 1 season points deduction, 1 year cup ban and 3 year euro ban. So a newco could carry on in the SPL as if nothing had happened? I didn't realise that. I thought the SPL clubs had to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 If Rangers can agree a CVA and come out of administration they're not breaking any rules so I don't see how they could be punished further. That's only dealing with the administration, there's the big tax case and the blatant cheating through EBT's to contend with after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 That's only dealing with the administration, there's the big tax case and the blatant cheating through EBT's to contend with after that. if they get a cva through the big tax case is dealt with entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 BTC is now irrelevant moneywise as the CVA offer has been made. BTC going against Rangers would just be added to the overall debt and dilute the pot. However if the BTC goes against Rangers it virtually proves dual contracts and should lead to title stripping even if there is a newco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 So a newco could carry on in the SPL as if nothing had happened? I didn't realise that. basically the rules of the sfa and spl said that membership could be transferred to a newco at the discretion of the relevant board. that's why the spl were trying to get new rules through for the last month or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 There's a fair chance the SFA will suspend Rangers' share, so this discussion might be null anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 if they get a cva through the big tax case is dealt with entirely. The big tax case isn't even dealt with yet, how can it be included in the CVA?I've missed something here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 basically the rules of the sfa and spl said that membership could be transferred to a newco at the discretion of the relevant board. that's why the spl were trying to get new rules through for the last month or so. Do the rest of the SPL not have to vote on whether or not the SPL share can be transferred and if it can what sanctions will be placed on the newco? Sanctions = punishment for breaking the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 The big tax case isn't even dealt with yet, how can it be included in the CVA?I've missed something here according to what i've read it'll be dealt with by the cva. i was quite suprised when i saw that myself but i've seen it in a few places. Do the rest of the SPL not have to vote on whether or not the SPL share can be transferred and if it can what sanctions will be placed on the newco? Sanctions = punishment for breaking the rules? they do now post rule change. but prior to that it was an issue for the board and sanctions were optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hervé Bacqué Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 As it happens, Killie have reduced our debt by £5m in recent years, so hardly just servicing it. We will post another profit this year too. Our debt is circa 9m just now but Hotel cost £6m to build. Yep, and Killie should be applauded for that, although a large slice of that debt reduction came from a large creditor basically writing it off did it not? That is by-the-by though. Killie are working through a debt repayment with Lloyd's and they, the bank, only allow that to happen at its current rate based on Kilmarnock's projected income playing in the current SPL. Drastically reduce that by either a diluted TV deal or by relegation, thus not being able to demonstrate a clear path of income designed at clearing the 9 million and they would take other options and that would inevitably be busting the business and recouping the debt through a sale of assets. Michael Johnson knows this, hence his stance. As the Chairman and a director of Kilmarnock FC, he has a duty to protect the short, medium and long term interests of the business. Potentially slitting your own throat is something I am sure he is keen to avoid, no matter what that means or how unpalatable it may be for the average fan at Rugby Park. I don't care how much debt we are in. This is a sport, sporting integrity is paramount and if by Rangers getting their correct punishment, it somehow has a detrimental affect on Killie, then so be it. Even if, potentially and at the worst case scenario, it meant the death of Kilmarnock FC in its current form? Playing Devil's Advocate here by the way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 MY understanding re the big tax case is that it has still to come to a head, I may be wrong but I hope not. The CVA only takes care of the current monies owed, there has been no decision about whether they actually do owe that sum to HMRC or not therefore it can hardly be included in the pot unless it has been decided that they have deliberately held a certain sum of money back and that sum has been accurately worked out. Steelboy may be right, it may have been reported and I've missed it, then again it may have been one of their simpering hacks looking for some more made up good news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnstone Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 The small tax case is in the CVA - as Fatcalf says the big tax case has still to be decided. Rangers are still not paying PAYE - when they went into admin it was sitting at about 10 million - it must now be close to the 15 million figure so thats what HMRC are trying to claw back via a CVA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tottenmfc Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Pretty sure in the CVA document it mentioned HMRC as a creditor with the figure shown as TBC* *Currently owed around the 20 million quid mark but could increase based on the outcome of the BTC. This is what I found bizarre about the CVA, how can the creditors accept or reject the deal without actually knowing what they'll get for it?! That would make me think that it'll get rejected but since all they need is HMRC and Ticketus agreeing to it you never know! Regarding the alternative mentioned in the document where they are liquidated and Charles Green acquires the assets for 5.5 million, is it not strange that this figure is the same as the administrators fees (so they get paid and everyone else gets nothing) and seems alot less than the actual value of the assets? Why not liquidate them and pass ownership of the assets to the creditors who can then lease back the stadium / training facilities to any NewCo? Don't know the ins and outs of that exactly but it certainly seems like a better deal for them than they're currently getting from a NewCo. I wish I could win one of those ridiculous Euro Millions jackpots, bid 5.6 million for the assets and bulldoze the lot! Creditors still get shafted but the world is a better place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Big tax case is def in the CVA - that's one of the reasons why there's so many TBCs. Also, they are factoring in the legal action against Whyte's lawyers among others as being part of a potential payout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnstone Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I'm amazed. How can the BTC be in there when its not been decided if what Rangers actually did was tax evasion? 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.