Rangers into administration

[Woodsey]

.

[henrik777]

^^ My favourite yet i think.


Some very interesting thoughts http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/craig-whyte-the-notice-of-appointment-of-duff-phelps-could-it-be-invalid-other-questions/

Sandy

[henrik777]

Yet another bill to pay.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/299136-rangers-hit-with-50000-fine-over-craig-whyte/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Rangers hit with £50,000 fine over Craig Whyte
£50,000 fine from the Plus stock exchange over failing to declare Craig Whyte ban.

By John Kilbride
27 February 2012 12:16 GMT
Comment

Craig Whyte: Fine for Rangers from stock exchange. Pic: © STV

Rangers have been fined £50,000 by the Plus stock exchange over failing to declare Craig Whyte's ban on being a director.

The disciplinary notice was posted on the website of the Plus stock exchange on Tuesday.

Plus began an investigation into Craig Whyte following a BBC documentary that was broadcast in October 2011.

The documentay had claimed that Mr Whyte had been disqualified as a director in 2000 for a period of seven years.

Plus stock exchange found that Rangers were in breach of their rules by not disclosing that Craig Whyte had been disqualified at the time of the annoucement in May 2011 that he was buying the company.

The stock exchange said that they considered this to be a serious breach of their rules because such a disclosure was expressly required in their rules becuse it is relevant to investors who would need this information so that they could form an opinion on a company and its management. The information would have affected the reputation of the Rangers board.

Plus stock exchange said: "The information relating to Mr Whyte goes to the reputation of Rangers FC's board of directors. Mr. Whyte's director disqualification may have an effect on the prospects of Rangers FC as an issuer traded on the Plus-quoted market as well as on Rangers FC’s ability to raise further funding if required at a future date.

"The failure by Rangers FC to disclose this information has generated adverse publicity for Rangers FC which has harmed its interests."

They added that they have an obligation to protect investors and to maintain an orderly diclosure-based market, saying "A consequence of non-disclosure by Rangers FC of information required to be announced by the Plus Rules is that Plus was impeded from exercising its regulatory functions."

Plus added that despite meeting with officials from the club at the club on November 8, they did not announce it until Noember 30, six weeks after the documentary, which they considered an unreasonable delay.

In their statement they also said that they took seriously the club's failure to disclose Craig Whyte's disqualification to other bodies, namely the Takeover Panel and the SFA.

They said: "Whilst Plus does not rely on any breaches of regulations other than the Plus Rules to reach its decision to serve this Disciplinary Notice, the lack of disclosure to other regulatory bodies further illustrates (i) that the failure to disclose was deliberate, negligent or reckless and (ii) Rangers FC's lack of willingness to make an announcement in a timely fashion."

They concluded: "Plus considers the regulatory fine of GBP 50,000 imposed on Rangers FC as appropriate taking into account a range of factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the rule breach and the circumstances of Rangers FC."

Sandy

[Snowball]

They are about to release up to 11 Players shortly.
Can get 11/2 Hearts for Saturday, nearly half the price of the Killie bet but it will.be shorter come pm Saturday.

[Josedinho]

They are about to release up to 11 Players shortly.
Can get 11/2 Hearts for Saturday, nearly half the price of the Killie bet but it will.be shorter come pm Saturday.

Well played sir!

[TightEnd]

bbc

Rangers director Dave King fears liquidation is 'inevitable'

Rangers director Dave King fears the club will not exit administration and that liquidation is "inevitable".

In a statement, King said the club's owner Craig Whyte has "abused the loyalty of fans" by mortgaging future sales of tickets to Ticketus.

King also claims that Sir David Murray had no knowledge that proof of funds supplied by Whyte to purchase the club was secured by season ticket sales.

The South Africa-based businessman said the club's plight "grieved him".

King, who remains a non-executive director of the troubled Scottish Premier League club, met administrators Duff and Phelps two weeks ago to discuss the Ibrox side's current financial situation.

    “I intend to remain involved with the club, at least on my present basis, post-reconstruction if that is at all possible under the new ownership structure”

Dave King Rangers non-executive director

He was previously involved in takeover talks with the club, who were forced into administration following action from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs over a £9m tax bill.

Along with fellow-director Paul Murray, King also made a late bid for the club in 2011 to prevent the eventual successful takeover by Whyte.

King invested £20m in the club in 2000 and is the second-largest shareholder, but has also been hit with a £250m bill after losing a 10-year battle with the taxman in South Africa.

In his statement, King said that he intended to continue his involvement with the Glasgow club in conjunction with Paul Murray and had approached the Scottish Football Association to approve him as a "fit and proper person" to be in a position of control at Ibrox.

"I intend to remain involved with the club, at least on my present basis, post-reconstruction if that is at all possible under the new ownership structure," said King.

"I am however alert to the raw sentiment around the need for Rangers to have 'fit and proper' persons at its helm.

"In view of my own well-publicised and acrimonious legal disputes with the authorities in South Africa I have taken it upon myself to approach the SFA in that regard in advance of considering an increased role in the club going forward. I will be guided by the SFA's response in that regard."

The SFA confirmed to BBC Scotland on Wednesday that King had made and enquiry regarding the criteria directors of football clubs are required to comply with.

However, former Rangers director Paul Murray told BBC Scotland he does not agree with King's belief that liquidation of the Ibrox club is inevitable and he says he is working with the administrators to try and avoid it.

Paul Murray believes liquidation would not help him in any proposed takeover bid and it would be a last resort due to the inevitable footballing implications.

In the statement, King also said:

    * Craig Whyte confirmed to him that Ticketus has no recourse to the football club with regards to the money provided for future sales of season tickets.
    * The club was not debt free as claimed by the Murray Group and Craig Whyte at the time of its sale, and "was in a much worse economic position than before and had no chance of survival even if we had progressed in Europe".
    * Rangers will not meet its financial requirements before the Uefa deadline of 31 March and will consequently not participate in European football next year. King also asserts that "liquidation might extend that by another two years".
    * He remains confident that Rangers will not be stripped of any historical titles or trophies should any current inquiries underway by the SFA and SPL find the club guilty of wrong-doing in previous seasons.
    * A legal claim of £20m will be made by King on the basis of non-disclosure by former Rangers chairman David Murray regarding the club's true financial position as far back as 2000.

The statement also expressed support for former Rangers chief executive Martin Bain and former chairman John McClelland who both left the club when Whyte took over.

King also specifically stated that he hoped former player, manager and director John Greig would "be able to resume his rightful iconic place in the director's box" soon.

Greig resigned as a director in October along with McClelland, claiming he had been sidelined by new owner Whyte.

[Hairydude]

We are in such a sad state and I'm trying my best not to think about it!

Its going to take years to rebuild but I am confident we will be a strong force(in SPL Terms) within the next 5-7 years

[Micko]

Prankster pretending to be a perspective investor of 10 million got Craig Whyte a cracker!

http://www.celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=884%3Acraig-whyte-agrees-p10-million-rangers-investment-with-tommy-in-glasgow&catid=47%3Aseason-2011-2012&Itemid

[ForthThistle]

Motherwell in Europe...

Wiiiiiiiiiii

[Teacake]

If this is true its a bigger story than the current administration and looming liquidation. Its worth noting that the current President of the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie, was the Rangers Secretary for much of this time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109018/Rangers-accused-misleading-SFA-secret-deals.html?ITO=1490

Rangers stand accused of failing to properly register players after a former director revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.
The embattled Ibrox club are awaiting the outcome of the First Tier Tax Tribunal which will determine the legality or otherwise of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called 'big tax case', it appears such payments were kept 'off the books' - in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.


Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club's directors were aware of the arrangement - one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.
'They weren't included in the contracts. They definitely weren't. That was the whole point of them,' he said. 'If they'd been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.
'I don't think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.
'The directors just wanted to sit in the directors' box. That's all. When I was on the board, I knew all about them.
'I just didn't know the details of them. They became accepted. 'The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.


'People never really asked serious questions about them. "It's perfectly legal" was what they thought.
'It wasn't happening in Britain, so had nothing to do with Britain. All the directors heard about them but didn't take them seriously because they didn't appear in the books.'
Adam's revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook - and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.
The SFA rule on registration states: 'All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement.
'No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.'
Adam, the man who funded the redevelopment of Ibrox through Rangers pools, believes payments into discretionary trusts may have gone on well before the turn of the millennium.
It's understood the 'big tax case' relates to EBT payments from 2000 until 2009 but, when questioned if he heard of similar payments in the mid- 1990s, Adam confirmed: 'Without having any specialist knowledge, I'm pretty sure.


'People didn't want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).
'You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. 'It's this thing that when something happens it has to have a beginning and an end, but that wasn't the case with the overseas things.
'It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn't give a damn one way or another. You could argue that they knew about it but didn't think it was important.
'Maybe they never thought it was as much as it really was. And maybe it wasn't. I don't know if you remember radio stations from ships.
'I don't think they were making a fortune but they weren't costing a lot of money, so no one bothered.
'When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble.'They were doing things they shouldn't have been doing.
'They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they'd get away wi th i t forever. '
It would be an offshore trust - almost like a boat. You could dodge your taxes that way. It wasn't something that you picked up the paper and read about. It was one at a time then grew on a gradual basis.
'The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don't give a damn where it's coming from.'

[henrik777]

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2012/03/08/rangers-deathwatch-qa/

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.

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 is 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.

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 in other cases.

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.

Sandy

[TightEnd]

If the worst does happen it will be pretty grim for celtic and scottish football though, right?


I know the rivalry is huge, but imagine a league where you can't celebrate beating Rangers, no old firm, no genuine competition

Might as well get on the phone to the epl quick?

[Rod Paradise]

If the worst does happen it will be pretty grim for celtic and scottish football though, right?


I know the rivalry is huge, but imagine a league where you can't celebrate beating Rangers, no old firm, no genuine competition

Might as well get on the phone to the epl quick?

Moving to the EPL after proving to UEFA there is no credible home league? Been discussed as a possible out, but I'd doubt it happening.

What I see happening (and saw happening before the administration), is that after Rangers liquidate, a group of money men eg Tom Hunter etc, buy Ibrox and buy another Scottish Team, taking their place in the league & forming Zombie Rangers. There are a few clubs vulnerable, from Cowdenbeath, through Queen of the South, and even St Mirren (the costs of buying them would be easily outweighed by starting straight back in the SPL). Whether that could be done prior to next season would depend on whether Craig Whyte got paid or not, as any court case to supersede his priority debt could drag things too far to allow this to happen next season, but any cash to him does nothing to establish the Zombie Rangers.

Meantime the financial effects on the other clubs might not be as severe as initially thought. TV money isn't high & away crowds are down anyway, cuts to that should be survivable for most, there was a study that estimated that every club apart from Celtic needed an average of 600 more fans per game to make up for the loss of Rangers. With more European places available there is the possibility of increased crowds for some clubs at least. Celtic would be hardest hit, although the feel-good feeling of season 1 without Rangers would probably keep the gates up, and the money available for competing in the Champions League would more than cover the losses, providing a Groups Stage place was achieved. The Scottish League has survived spells where either of the 'Old Firm' have been out of contention (and the smaller clubs have thrived during them), this would just be a more dramatic one with their return in sight at some point.

The potential for disaster is more if (as some are discussing) newco Rangers get back in without punishment, with the banks in particular rattling sabres about calling in all debts from football clubs if football proves untrustworthy - THAT would kill a lot more clubs than the financial hit of no Rangers in the SPL for a 1-4 seasons would.

[AndrewT]

The zombie club option has happened before - Airdrie went bust and then someone bought Clydebank and renamed and relocated them to become Airdrie.

[henrik777]

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/300149-sfa-statement-on-rangers-inquiry-in-full/

Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan confirmed that the findings of the independent inquiry into Rangers had been heard by the association's board.

Here is his statement in full:

"I can confirm that the Scottish FA convened a special board meeting at Hampden Park today to discuss the findings of the independent inquiry into Rangers FC, prepared by the Chair, The Right Honourable Lord William Nimmo Smith.

"Principally, it is the belief of the board, taking into account the prima facie evidence presented today, that Mr Craig Whyte is not considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a position within association football.

"We will be writing to Mr Whyte in relation to those findings and shall seek a response within seven days.

"The report submitted by Lord Nimmo Smith, having been considered fully by the board, highlights a number of other potential rule breaches by the club and its owner. The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a judicial panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol.

"As such, the report’s contents will not be published at this time. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the club is facing a charge of bringing the game into disrepute. Specifically, areas of potential breach to be considered by the Judicial Panel include:

Obligations and duties of members
Official return
Financial records
Division of receipts and payment of expenses (Scottish Cup)
"I would like to clarify the situation relating to possible non-disclosure of payments to players, and in particular the Employee Benefit Trust. Having noted the Scottish Premier League’s intention to investigate this matter, the board has decided to allow the SPL to complete this process, given our potential status as the appellate body. We retain our position until such time as the SPL’s investigation is concluded.

"Finally, we have sent a letter to the Rangers administrators, Duff and Phelps, advising them that failure to pay monies owed to another member constitutes a breach of the cup competition rules. Consequently, the club faces disciplinary action unless they make payments due to Dundee United from their recent William Hill Scottish Cup tie. A notice of complaint has been issued to that effect."

Sandy