Rangers Rumours Archive April 13 2012

13 Apr 2012 23:31:56
Best wishes to Trevor Francis hope he is ok such a nice man to speak to and has a lot of time for the fans.

Best wishes to who seems like a good man and a fantastic player who i wish was at gers alot longer. graemeg

Sorry to hear about Trevor Francis. Get well soon a top player in his time. Sopot Celt

Although a Celtic fan just want to say good luckto trevor I remember he was first million pound player he scored in euro final with forest and he is well remembered for his football

13 Apr 2012 22:06:39
Just a post to say to all the best to Trevor Francis who has had a heart attack,get well soon ,once a Ranger always a Ranger,we are thinking of you.

Deary Me.
Get well soon Trevor m8.

All the best Trevor great player and true gentleman, get well soon.....Stevie

From a Celtic fan i wish him all the best at a worrying time!.A lot of high profile names in the news lately with serious conditions.The only thing that matters is good health.

Hear! Hear!

I'm a Celtic fan and met Trevor at an airport pub a few years back as he was waiting to board his flight to spain to cover a La Liga game for Sky Sports.

A really lovely guy who was genuinely interested in chatting to my mate and I.

Really good company too.

All the best in your recovery big man.

Dazzabhoy

I met trevor at the kriklewood in 200 he is a true rangers man and a true gent best wishes trevor get well soon from a loyal gers fan

13 Apr 2012 19:08:42
Rangers offered HMRC a settlement that would have seen the Ibrox club pay them £10million, whatever the result of the “big” tax case.
But this was rejected by HMRC, who warned the liability could be up to £75million and they’d want “a pound in the pound”.

And theyâ™d want âœa pound in the poundâ.
...................................

As much as that?

Liquidation they get nothing �30 million to owner �80million in players contracts that must be payed from assets (secured creditors) +possible 8million in debenture scheme assets of �120mill leaves 226 creditors chasing between �10 and �2 million if they got full asking price in fire sale

Hmrc may get nothing in liquidation but that isnt whta they want . they want total victory in a test case to set a precedent to take to the next lot who are getting done. the money isnt really the major part in this.so they can easily gamble.

Go on hmrc your doing it for the rest of us. fisnish em off.

The assets will be sold to pay off the creditors. The assets cannot be put beyond the creditors, that's illegal.
10p in the � doesn't pay the legal costs and salaries of all the HMRC staff on this case for the last 5 years.

Liquidation is coming deal with it ! hmrc will not do any deal and this week alone has confirmed this ! if any buyer was not gonna liquidate it would still be same scenario ! its game over and history gone, oh and dont get excited by the leeds scenario they done a cva and did not actually liquidate bye bye 140 years of bigotry !

Yes why do we all not just pay 10p in the �1 to HMRC? It would be great to have all of that extra money to spend. No I would not, because to make up for the lose of income the tax would be put up on everything that I bought. Just pay up or shut up. I feel sorry for the normal Rangers Supporters who are being put through this.

I have never read so many negative comments on this so called " transfer rumour site" people need to have a reality check... its football for god sake, Rangers will not go into liquidation, they will be bought out and will have to live within their means, although all the other SPL teams are "hoping" that they go out of business, deep down they are terrified of the fact that Rangers will be back very soon and shall destroy them on the park, look after the title septic as it will be coming back home where it belongs.

If they had accepted a 10M settlement then they couldn't use this as their "Test Case". This doesn't mean they won't accept a CVA once a final judgement has been passed. It's not about the monietary value for HMRC, it's about winning the case and allowing them to pursue others.

At the end of the day there is a very fine line between tax avoidance and evasion,any normal person who is self employed will try and avoid paying too much tax as do many businesses , Rangers have crossed that line but deliberate act I do not think so but we will pay , I sit easily with the Murray tax fine, As for what whyte was doing and continues to now that is calculated, where as Murrays will be retrospective major difference in my eyes, as for people still to be paid I think the rangers support will endeavour to make sure that those that they can pay and need to be paid will be

HMRC sent out "invitations" to clubs, asking them to come forward and basically own up to any wrong doings. Craig Whyte didnt step forward and accept this invitation, which is why HMRC wont do ANY deal whilst hes at the club.

13 Apr 2012 18:18:45
The 3 parties bidding want greater
clarity on the proposed rule changes
What that all about I wonder.

Money ?

13 Apr 2012 14:46:15
Ed. Is there indication from SKY what they would do in the event of Rangers dropping out of the SPL? {Ed001's Note - none.}

Laugh?

The contract ststes there must be 4 old firm games a year, if rangers are not i the SPL then the deal is null and void {Ed001's Note - are you sure?}

Are u sure ED, am sure ah read if either rangers or celtic leave the spl for whatever reason the tv deal will be scrapped, ah think it was reported on radio too :) {Ed001's Note - I doubt very much that any kind of contract along those lines would be legal.}

Mate this has been covered a million times, Ed001 is spot on. Ed007 has said for months that any deal demanding certain games is illegal under uefa rules.Think of it like match fixing and there is something about the split as well.I'm a Bear but I think the eds are bang on with this one.TV can't dictate what fixtures take place.

Does that mean that Sky can tell the EPL they want a Man U against Man City game as the last game of the season every year? Why has the SPL said an OF game will never be a title decider again,SKY would love that as well.I've never belived that it was part of the deal,a tv company can't have that much power its cheating

The current Sky Deal stipulates that there must be 4 OF games a season, however that contract expires at the end of THIS season meaning any future contracts are NOT dependant on there being 4 OF games a season.

TerribleBeauty

Ed, as far as i am led to believe that is the situation, Sky are only interested in the Old firm and they bank on them for extra subscribers throughout the country. If Rangers go to D3 then the Sky deal terminates {Ed001's Note - the deal would not be allowed to consist of that. Imagine if one or the other of the OF had a disastrous season and were in the bottom 6. What would happen then? It is complete nonsense and fantasy. They just signed the contract on the basis that top 6 teams play each other 4 times. They can't specify which teams are in the league!}

It has been said for a while that the contract depends on both rangers and celtic being in in the spl. as that how sky get there viewing figure.

sky and espn are clearly waiting on the out come of rangers admin hence why they havent signed off the new deal yet, as was reported on bbc last week, as part of the rebel ten report.

dont know if they would scrap it totally but they would defo reduce the terms on offer. as the viewing figure would drop so that would make the spl worth less as a product to sky {Ed001's Note - that is totally different, they would not pull out of the deal, but the next deal agreed would be a much smaller one, if they even bothered to cover the games.}

Lol of course it would be legal, SKY could state that each chairmen would give SKY 1 mars bar a month, if its in a legally binded contract, its legal. {Ed001's Note - no it is not. Clearly you don't understand what you are talking about. Please go and read up on the laws governing competitive sport before spouting complete and utter childish nonsense.}

Ed001;your right mate.the money will be reviewed if rangers drop out {Ed001's Note - thank you, that is all it is, and would be the same if Celtic were to leave too.}

Toal Mince no such clause ! Your Just looking to tell the other spl teams they are doomed if RFC go ! No TV an all the other P**h ,
Well I once heard a very wise man advise For every �5 Celtic spend RFC will spend
Think he got it wrong for every �5 celtic loose RFC will loose � 1000 when the dodgers go to 3rd Division ! Be carefull what you wish for !

The only reason the four old firm games per season was written into the contract was to make sure sky covered them and not espn end of. It's a load of tosh any other reason

SKY can withdraw whenever they like, nothing to do with "laws governing competitive sport", if there is such a clause about the OF, its legally binded within the contract. Thats what a contract is all about. If EITHER of the OF happen to fall out of the SPL, that contract would get ripped up no doubt, and a new contract, offering far less money, would be drawn up. {Ed001's Note - they can not just withdraw whenever they like, that would be breach of contract. Clearly another one who thinks they a legal expert but has no idea.}

Poor Ed....something in a LEGALLY binded contract means nothing, therefore contracts would be pointless. {Ed001's Note - what are you talking about? Give it a rest, you haven't a clue, grow up and stop talking about things you don't understand.}

Doubt theres any such contract. But lets be honest who would pay to watch Dundee UTD against the Hibs? Or Celtic against anyone but us? NO ONE! And how many of these clubs need our away support to keep them afloat? Between the old firm we pay most of the rests bills. All of this WILL affect the rest of the SPL including Celtic.

As i posted earlier there will be no clause about having to have 4 old firm games a season as that cant be fairly guaranteed. i.e if team has a bad season.

but the contract can require both rangers and celtic to be in the league as that how sky get the viewing figures, (this would be legal, and can be done for any league, i.e in epl if the big four up and left sky would also have a look at changing their deal) to reflect the new product the epl was offering

sky and espn aint signed off the new deal yet as they like everyone else want to know the out come of the admin at rangers just now before they commit to anything,

if rangers go to the 3rd division there is no way the spl will get the �80 million 5 year deal that is currently waiting to be signed off, as the spl wont be the same product

sky will either choice to offer new terms at a new reduced rate. or will choice to not offer a contract at all . this will be sky choice and will depend on what they feel reflects the best deal for them not anyone else.

As far as i understood the next sky deal has not been signed yet so no Rangers then signed sky deal

The Ed is right to specify that there must be 4 games is illegal in terms of fixing a sporting contest. Therefore even if such a clause exists it would be 'voidable' as it would be legal and such clauses will not be enforced by a court - loads of legal precedent for this. Correct that Sky took the 4 OF games as they make the money and left rest to ESPN and probably also correct that they would reduce money on offer if no OF. Danger for them is that someonelse nips and steals the rights as they like to show matches on days when FA cup is on ITV and ESPN.

The Scottish Premier League’s new television deal with Sky is dependent on both Celtic and Rangers participating in the competition.

STV understands the broadcaster has negotiated a termination clause in its contract with the league, should either side no longer be in the division.

The most recent deal agreed for TV rights, which will see the SPL receive �80m over five years starting next season, is yet to be signed and is currently going through the required legal process before it is ratified.

The existing Sky deal, which expires at the end of the 2011/12 campaign, stipulates there must be four Glasgow derbies per season.

Source: STV

The existing Sky deal, which expires at the end of the 2011/12 campaign, stipulates there must be four Glasgow derbies per season.
The word there is STIPULATES, that is term of agreement to which the authorities are paid the MAXIMUM money from the deal struck. This does not mean that if one or both the clubs move divisions or country to play football Sky would not allow it, They have no authority to keep Rangers or Celtic in the league, they only have an agreement that they would like a minimum of 4 games within the agreed deal. end of.
As for next season they will still put in a bid to televise Scottish football, but, how much it will be worth is up for debate depending on the out come of the Rangers senario. Jim McLean once said TV money will kill football in this country or words to that effect.....how right he was. I think next season will be seen as a watershed for our national sport in the same way it was for Germany a few years back and also with Italy, they had the strength to take a step back and look at how their football was imploding and decided, with EVERY CLUB in the country to address the issues...we need to ba able to do that also if our national sport is to survive and grow at home, Europe and Internationally. bring through youth development and sell from within to live within our means.

Short reply -: Telling any league that 2 teams must play each other 4 times is illegal! However Sky are not dictating this and never have. They are prepared to agree a deal based on the basis that the 4 Old Firm games is an attractive "Part" of the overall package without that the deal is not as attractive and are less likely to put the same amount of money in the pot...not illegal!!

Mr Murdoch is such a stand up guy am sure he will pay the full 80million as promised no auld firm no dough simples

There really is NO clause in the deal about what happens if there's no Old Firm clash, this is just a myth. And if you think about it, why would they even have thought to put such a stipulation in at the time the deal was struck?

Ed I think every one will find that Sky's contract states that they will have the right to show 4 old firms a year not reliant on it just that they and they alone are aloud to show it.

Wasn't too long ago Sky didn't bother outbiding Setanta for tv rights and that was with both the old firm, so i dont think there will be any sky deal without Rangers. Maybe premier sports or someone would take it for a tenth of the price.

13 Apr 2012 14:43:33
Why are the people who used EBT's not being asked to repay their loans? this seems to be an obvious step and a huge money spinner for sure.Why are decent,working men and women giving cash to the fighting fund,yet not a peep from the players and executives who gained plenty for years? Legally they will be watertight,morally they must be ashamed.It would be nice to see just who did gain payment from these contracts.

Because they were not loans,Rangers used it as a way to pay more wages and hence get better players than they could affoard, cheating to you or me

This information is in the public domain. Despite the shredder lorry turning up a few weeks ago and processing a few tonnes of hard copies.
Any shareholder (20,000 of them can request this data .

Any of the 26,000 minority shareholders can request under corporate freedom of information laws, the right to copies of any Rangers data including a list of EBT beneficiaries and the amounts involved.

They are only "loans" for tax purposes and once a loan is given from the fund, there is no obligation or time scale to make repayments its not a HP agreement

Not sure but I've been told Dundee used dual contracts and that's why every member club got a declare it / own up letter from the SFA , if true the SFA can't make our punishment any bigger than Dundee fc and will have to call for a amnesty regarding the EBT's ... Basically one rule for everyone not changing them because it's Rangers ! Maybe ed can add something ?

Because David Murray put in the contracts they would b no come back on the players if they were any future problems, rangers would b responcibile

Not cheating which is tax evasion, tax avoidance is what it was and as far as i'm aware was available to every employer the length and breadth of the country not just Rangers. or did we all miss the subsection of the Finance Act that year. so i realise all the tims and all the fans of the diddy teams would like to paint it differently. over spending and ebts are not financial doping they are or were legal. what happened this year non payment of PAYE and VAT should be illegal but amazingly isnt. so get over it. we know why there was a rush to change the rules when Dundee and Motherwell went into administration because they weren't in a position to challenge Sellick for the League title

The loan rangers thats a good name for the newco.

Still seems some people haven't understood that the EBT system used by Rangers may have been illegal. If a player agreed an annual salary of �2 mill and �1mill was paid in his pay-packet subject to UK taxation and the other half was paid into the EBT that is illegal. The �2 mill was the contractual obligation (an agreed regular payment) so the �1 mill in the EBT does not qualify as an opened ended loan and hence negates the EBT arrangement making UK tax due on the EBT payment, thus the Big Tax Case. Further, the EBT payment obviously would not be declared to the SPL or SFA as part of the contractual arrangement with the player (if it had there would be no need for the BTC) and so the player would not have been correctly registered to play thus the possible stripping away of trophies won when numbers of the team were "illegals". The "financial doping"
arguement is valid as these practises allowed Rangers to gain an unfair advantage. If the whole of the SPL was supposed to be amateur and Rangers had made secret payments to players to allow them to train full time then no one would try to deny that such a system was cheating. In this case we have a league (SPL) which has a certain level of financial capacity to generate income for clubs that then field teams within that constraint. Rangers hived off money ,that should have been paid to the tax authorities,to finance purchase and payment of a class of player that neither they,nor their league opposition, could have afforded had that money been paid when required to the tax authority. Of course Rangers' financial capacity would have allowed them to have players that other teams (perhaps excluding Celtic) could not afford but the tax dodge further enhanced that "natural" level of player quality by unfair means. Think, if outside the Old Firm, the SPL teams could afford, say, players of middle table English Championship sides then the OF's "natural" level of player quality would be around,say, 11th to 15th place of the Premiership. The "doping" would have enhanced Rangers to a 6th to 10th place ability so outstripping even their "natural" competitor,OF other half Celtic, let alone the Cornershop Ten. It's a big,bad situation and the penalties could be extremely harsh. I know Amoruso insists that he won his medals on the field and losing them would be unfair to him but what of the players of the Cornershop that missed out on Cup winning pride or even European thrills because the likes of Amuroso should never have been playing in Scotland in the first place?

Its also worth pointing out the seriousness of the 'second contracts' issue that ties in with the EBT payments.

This is not some obscure technicality aimed at catching out clubs that are bad at record keeping: the reason for demanding that all player payments are registered with the sporting authorities is serious, very sound and should be obvious:

Suppose a strange pattern of player payments, unusual results and 3rd party betting patterns were to emerge? Hmmmm...

The reason for payment registration is to shut the door to possible corruption and impropriety. If disclosures are not made, they cannot be accepted by the authorites as above board,and the possibility for perverting the sporting integrity of the game exists. And in the same way as - and for the same reason as 'refusing to provide a sample' carries the same penalty as 'drunk in charge' - fielding a player in a game whose playing related financial emoluments have not been disclosed to the footballing authorities means that the match is forfeit 3-0.

This is as it should be. Organised criminals stands to make alot of money from match fixing, and backhanders to players and officials in a position to influence the outome of games is a sure fire bet for them.

Note: I am not suggesting that any RFC players were involved in such match fixing, but the club officers seem to have knowingly failed to disclose player payments to the footballing authorities because to have done so would have removed any pretence of discretion required to obtain the tax advantage,
When they did this, they knowingly did something that invalidated the matches those players participated in.

13 Apr 2012 10:17:02
Congratulations to the blue knights who will be given the keys to Ibrox this afternoon.

Rubbish, even if they make preferred bidder status, that only allows them a couple of weeks of exclusitivity to try and sort out a CVA. No one will be swapping keys this afternoon.

No cash No Plan No hope loads of good intentions of that there can be no doubt but good intentions don't pay the bills if DP have chosen them then it is almost certain that DP or some other administration team will be back in within 3 years. Hope I am wrong but very much doubt it

Good news if true, where does this info/rumour come from?

No outcome of BTC = no CVA = no DEAL.

Impossible, unless they were actually in a position to pay all outstanding debt and we know that is not even
an option

Welcome 2 the blue knights
a north ayrshire bear

The BTC has no bearing on this... as stated the BTC with form part of the CVA if agreed with HMRC on other issues.

The Blue Knights are certainties to gain control of Rangers
Reason is simple - look at the competition to take control - the american bid headed by Bill Miller and the Singapore bid headed by Bill Ng
We alll know that Rangers dont like dealing with Bills, hence the current mess

Nonsense regarding TBK getting keys and even more nonsense the guy who says no BTC result no CVA.

The taxman has already stated they shall do a deal and this deal shall incorporate the BTC when a result should be given.

As far as the result we expect this within the 2 week window anyway and if the CVA is being agree I would think this would be hurried along

HMRC wont do a deal and have made no public statements Rangers appeal on the charge of tax evasion using their EBT scheme.

The taxman has not said he will do a deal or not , its more likely he wont do a deal .
Think some of you rangers fans need to put your sane head on and look at the facts

And when did HMRC say they would do a deal ? Noone else knows about it.

The fact Craig Whyte Claims HMRC knocked back 2.5 million over ten years leads me to believe that NO deal will be done. Without HMRC's agreement there will be no CVA and it looks unlikely they will accept 12.5p in the pound and the blue knights simply don't have the funds.

"hmrc wont do a deal" another know it all.away and do one Timothy.

Ahh well if that honest, upstanding pillar of society that is Craig Whyte says that, it must be true....

Fellow bears there will be no blue knights, only liquidation hopefully think i rather be hit hard for 3yrs and keep our history with the new spl changes silly bears dont understand we will be dept free in 3 years..... But if we stick with the old spl rule we will be down div3 and with no assits nothing.. who do you think we will be then we will be like peterhead. and be stuck there we are finished the spl are helping us !

If HMRC agree a deal with rangers they would be leaving themselves wide open for the estimated 5000 companies under investigation doing the same.There is no way they would be willing to lose the vast amounts of revenue due.

HMRC may come to an understanding with the club, under the CVA, but it will be to pay the outstanding bill in full over a certain number of years, usually between 10 and 15 years, provided the defaulter continues to kp all other tax liabilities up todate

The blue knights! what a stupid name.

You can not make up a CVA without consolidating the debts, until the BTC amount is verified the debt can not be consolidated. Creditirs can not agree or disagree with an unspecified percentage if the total debt is not known. There will be no CVA until the BTC debt is confirmed.

Paul murray has gone strangely quiet!

Cant believe you lot are so keen to let the same guys who ruined your club in the first place, get full control of Rangers... your that deperate you'll take anyone! Good luck with the empty pocketed "nights"...

Liquidation is inevitable, P Murray has been told his offer owes no CVA to creditors as he has no money, only offers less to ticketus.
Liquidation dissolves his relationship with ticketus and makes TBK irrelevant.

13 Apr 2012 00:17:54
The daily mail reporting that the american consortium is in favour of the spl changes and is not
pulling out of the race for the club

I think the spl changes are going to work massively in our favour if/when we hit liquidation.

What we are seeing at the mo is posturing to get the best possible deal but the one that is on the table is more than acceptable in my opinion given the mess we are in.

Anyone who thinks different what do you want? Complete absolution? Seriously I think that what is there should be snapped at.

If the creditors can raise more money through liquidation then liquidation it will be.

The stars and stripes flying over ibrox.dont think so.

You could name the Newco THE YANKEE
DOODLE RANGERS.