Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[RenfrewBlue]

Interesting reading that People on here equate financial misconduct as the same as cheating at a sporting contest.

So if Rangers have to lose any trophies we'll also need to remove some from Celtic as they were spending what they didn't have for years before being saved at the last minute, we'd have to review a raft of Hearts, Dundee, Livingston and Gretna games too.

I'm sure there's plenty other examples of cheats in Scottish football (going by the new TAMB definition) I've forgotten about too.

[stocky]

Interesting reading that People on here equate financial misconduct as the same as cheating at a sporting contest.

So if Rangers have to lose any trophies we'll also need to remove some from Celtic as they were spending what they didn't have for years before being saved at the last minute, we'd have to review a raft of Hearts, Dundee, Livingston and Gretna games too.

I'm sure there's plenty other examples of cheats in Scottish football (going by the new TAMB definition) I've forgotten about too.

aye, but there is one glaring difference that you seem to be missing with that post........

its really Only Gretna are in the same situation...

as far as i can see...

[TartanJon]

Celtic didn't cheat to win them they just borrowed money

Where does this ruling leave Mr Custard ?

[Chico]

Dirty tax cheating kents.Phil was right all along.

I can't believe normal tax paying Rangers fans are trying to defend this,if it was Aberdeen I'd slap Milnes baldy heid until my hand bled.

Murray killed your club troops.Hunt the kent down ffs and stop blaming everybody else.

Btw it won't be hard he canny run fast

No need for that.

[TartanJon]

Will Aberdeen get the treble for 92-93 season ?

[thplinth]

Hmmm RFC 2012 are in a bit of shit here I would guess.

Staff costs are 80% of Revenues and that is before you get to the mysterious Other operating expenses which are 62% of Revenues. That 10m gap between Revenues and expenses is huge. I cant see how King can close it anytime soon, And yet again there is zero transparency on what the operating expenses are to get so high.

Now they have a problem raising money through shares (at least for now) and they cannot get a bank loan. Either King has managed to squeeze receivables hard or someone has been lending more money.

They are just going to keep running out of money over and over forcing more loans to be made... I would be worried.

edit: if they cannot get out of the other operating expenses (because of contracts) then to avoid bankruptcy they will be forced to slash the player budget. It is the only place big enough to make a difference. But I mean slash. 50%-80% stuff.

Edited November 4, 2015 by thplinth

[Mitre]

Interesting reading that People on here equate financial misconduct as the same as cheating at a sporting contest.

So if Rangers have to lose any trophies we'll also need to remove some from Celtic as they were spending what they didn't have for years before being saved at the last minute, we'd have to review a raft of Hearts, Dundee, Livingston and Gretna games too.

I'm sure there's plenty other examples of cheats in Scottish football (going by the new TAMB definition) I've forgotten about too.

[TartanJon]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=238105 Edited November 4, 2015 by TartanJon

[Glasgowmancity]

edit: if they cannot get out of the other operating expenses (because of contracts) then to avoid bankruptcy they will be forced to slash the player budget. It is the only place big enough to make a difference. But I mean slash. 50%-80% stuff.

Did that not happen to a large extent over the summer?

[RenfrewBlue]

aye, but there is one glaring difference that you seem to be missing with that post........

its really Only Gretna are in the same situation...

as far as i can see...

No, the greetin faced folk on here haven't said it's the liquidation that's cheating. They are equating spending cash you can't afford to cheating. So that covers all of the teams I've mentioned and probably quite a few others.

[TartanJon]

Lord Drummond Young continued: It seems to us to be self-evident that the obligations in the side-letter were part of the employees employment package, and provided him with additional remuneration. They were negotiated as part of the total employment packageOnce it is accepted that the bonus payments represented consideration for a footballers services qua employee, it inevitably follows that those payments represented emoluments or earnings of the footballer in question.

Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere. We realise that the fifth respondent [RFC 2012] was in, potentially, a difficult financial position, competing for good players in an international market where other countries may not have the same rigorous approach to taxation as the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the law is clear: the payments made in respect of footballers were in our view derived from their employment and thus the payments were emoluments or earnings.

[thplinth]

Did that not happen to a large extent over the summer?

It will have helped but I doubt it is enough.

[Debian]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 10m10 minutes ago
There will be no attempt to reopen the LNS commission. It focused on non-disclosure of side letters. Not on the legality of the scheme.

[Larky Masher]

Hmmm RFC 2012 are in a bit of shit here I would guess.

Staff costs are 80% of Revenues and that is before you get to the mysterious Other operating expenses which are 62% of Revenues. That 10m gap between Revenues and expenses is huge. I cant see how King can close it anytime soon, And yet again there is zero transparency on what the operating expenses are to get so high.

Now they have a problem raising money through shares (at least for now) and they cannot get a bank loan. Either King has managed to squeeze receivables hard or someone has been lending more money.

They are just going to keep running out of money over and over forcing more loans to be made... I would be worried.

edit: if they cannot get out of the other operating expenses (because of contracts) then to avoid bankruptcy they will be forced to slash the player budget. It is the only place big enough to make a difference. But I mean slash. 50%-80% stuff.

The only time a clear financial picture will emerge is once all the Charles Green era contracts are ended.

[macy37]

The only time a clear financial picture will emerge is once all the Charles Green era contracts are ended.

Surely a clear financial picture is evident even while they exist? No? I have not followed it that closely but surely the terms of these contracts and what RFC get from them (or don't get) are there for those in power at RFC to see?

If it is £1 in every tenner then it's not hard to budget for surely?

[Langtonian]

budget and Rangers : lol:

Rangers only aim is to get back to try and compete with Celtic and everything else

Edited November 4, 2015 by Langtonian

[thplinth]

The contract with Ashley is a rolling 7 year contract I understand. So has King given notice that he wants to terminate it (in seven years from that date) or is it still rolling on?

If it is rolling on (and I think it is) then why?

[thplinth]

If it is determined that the sale of RFC 1899's assets to Green by Duff & Phelps was fraudulent then that transaction could be reversed.(Liquidators are pretty powerful I believe) And BDO would regain ownership of the assets fraudulently sold to Green (5.5m was absurdly cheap). The regained assets would then be sold properly this time to the highest bidder. No cushy deals this time. That would obvioulsy leave RFC 2012 up shit creek.

But I do not think BDO can do anything about suspect Green era contracts within RFC 2012. That would be down to RFC 2012 to fight about (if Green goes down).

Edited November 4, 2015 by thplinth

[thplinth]

Undervalue transaction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An undervalue transaction is a transaction entered into by a company^[1] who subsequently goes into bankruptcy which the court orders be set aside, usually upon the application of a liquidator for the benefit of the debtor's creditors.^[2] Under Australian insolvency law they are referred to as uncommercial transactions.

Under ordinary principles of contract law, the courts will not generally look into the adequacy of the consideration provided by either side. However, if a company is in real peril of going into bankruptcy, many legal systems provide a mechanism that transactions which are seriously commercially disadvantageous to the company can be unwound, so as to prevent prejudice to the creditors of the company.

Normally, for a transaction to be set aside as an undervalue transaction, the liquidator or equivalent must demonstrate that:

1. the consideration received by the company in the transaction, in money or money's worth is significantly less than the value, in money or money's worth, provided by the company;
2. the transaction was entered into during the "vulnerability period"; and
3. at the time of the transaction, the company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due, or became unable to pay its debts as they fell due as a result of the transaction.^[3]

The vulnerability period is the period of time immediately prior to the company going into bankruptcy. The length of the vulnerability period varies between countries, and some countries apply different vulnerability periods in different circumstances. For example, in the United Kingdom, the vulnerability period is either:

1. two years, if the person with whom the company entered into the transaction with is a "connected person",^[4] or
2. 6 months, in all other cases.

The period is calculated by reference to the period of time immediately preceding the company going into liquidation or administration.

The effect of a successful application to have a transaction declared as an undervalue transaction varies. Inevitably the other party to the transaction who received the benefit has to return the benefit (or account for it) it to the liquidator. In some countries the assets are treated in the normal way, and may be taken by any secured creditors who have a security interest which catches the assets (characteristically, a floating charge).^[5] However, some countries have "ring-fenced" recoveries of unfair preferences so that they are made available to the pool of assets for unsecured creditors.

Many jurisdictions which have prohibitions on undervalue transactions also provide for an exception in the case of transactions entered into in the ordinary course of business where the directors are of a view that it is for the benefit of the company, and such transactions are usually either validated or presumed to be validated.

Now this case is a bit weird as the administrators appear to have been in on it and facilitated the fraudulent sale post administration (rather than the directors doing something dodgy).

Things could get really complicated for RFC 2012.

Edited November 4, 2015 by thplinth

[saintlyscot]

The five league titles "won" during this period are worthless. If everyone connected with Rangers want to proceed with the history and tradition of the old club they should do the honourable thing and write to the governing bodies to have these titles removed. Can't have your cake and all that...

[Debian]

The five league titles "won" during this period are worthless. If everyone connected with Rangers want to proceed with the history and tradition of the old club they should do the honourable thing and write to the governing bodies to have these titles removed. Can't have your cake and all that...

it's already been ruled on this by LNS.

[Larky Masher]

Surely a clear financial picture is evident even while they exist? No? I have not followed it that closely but surely the terms of these contracts and what RFC get from them (or don't get) are there for those in power at RFC to see?

If it is £1 in every tenner then it's not hard to budget for surely?

How much is loss is operational i.e. down to the current board and how much of it is Green contract related isn't clear. For example there's a line item in the report of £10,146,000 which simply labelled as other operating costs and there's no further breakdown on this in addition the first team wages to turnover ratio is cited as 38% which would equate to around £6 million so there's another £7 million of staff costs which seems very high to me.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Larky Masher

[Glasgowmancity]

Just seen this on FB

Hector is a taxman
he wears the magic hat
the huns said we are innocent
Hector said that
your 15 years of cheating
your titles are now mine
your not on 54 ya s
your down to 39

Quite funny, but when did Rangers win 15 in a row, I must have missed that

[stocky]

it's already been ruled on this by LNS.

it was ruled on under the old news, ie that Rangers were not liable for tax

The result today changes the circumstances and therefore that ruling imo

[ShedTA]

Hmmm RFC 2012 are in a bit of shit here I would guess.

Staff costs are 80% of Revenues and that is before you get to the mysterious Other operating expenses which are 62% of Revenues. That 10m gap between Revenues and expenses is huge. I cant see how King can close it anytime soon, And yet again there is zero transparency on what the operating expenses are to get so high.

Now they have a problem raising money through shares (at least for now) and they cannot get a bank loan. Either King has managed to squeeze receivables hard or someone has been lending more money.

They are just going to keep running out of money over and over forcing more loans to be made... I would be worried.

edit: if they cannot get out of the other operating expenses (because of contracts) then to avoid bankruptcy they will be forced to slash the player budget. It is the only place big enough to make a difference. But I mean slash. 50%-80% stuff.

Won't ever happen. The People won't stand for it. You only need to see the generally rational bears on here who still maintain that due to their size and season ticket money they should still be paying big wages. They completely ignore the fact their club is losing over half a mill a month. It's an easy equation - what goes out the club must be less than what comes in. But they don't get it.