True_Ger_1872

Someone on FF (IIRC) said that companies as big as Rangers can be late in paying taxes for up to half a year before HMRC starts to act upon them. Whether true or not, it could explain why the bubble burst in January/February and not earlier.

I recall a post on here a good while back with information from someone who worked at the HMRC tax office and they basically said that Rangers being a 'Class 1' organisation would have thrown up the non payment of Tax and NI fairly promptly and went on to detail how this would have been handled by HMRC. I will have a look through the forum and see if I can find this.

Back to the old Statement and Counter-Statement I see......

This hasn't worked in any positive way until now - and I cannot see this time being any different. It doesn't do anyone any good.

Looking at Appendix 1 again, who is/are the Director(s) due £20m?

Perhaps Mr.King??

Found this on twitter this morning - apparently this can be purchased from Burtons.

https://twitter.com/theZhangx/status/533173253448417280/photo/1

I sincerely doubt Ashley has "given up" anything. He will almost certainly have exchanged the naming rights for something.

Reading this, I am reminded of the recent headlines that he was after the Rangers logo....

I think the point raised about the fan board and whether this will move forward given the recent revelations is an interesting one. I suspect that this may not be an ideal that is fully supported by Ashley. It certainly didn't seem to be something that the Easdales would have been overly involved in - GW seemed to champion this initiative.

Whilst i am unhappy over MA's involvement within the club, and the concern i now have with respect to Easdale / Ashley / Blue Pitch / Margarita / Laxey seemingly fortified their figurative trenches within Ibrox - I cannot help but try and look for a silver lining amongst this dark weather front heading over our home.

With respect to his Newcastle involvement, we are reminded of his 'generosity' in keeping the club afloat, investing in players to develop and sell on for a good fee and also the legions of the 'Toon Army' continually flocking to St James Park week after week to support the team despite the clear problems the support have with Ashley. I believe that a key point with the frustrations of Newcastle fans is the direction to which the club are heading on the park - they clearly do not rate Pardew and are not happy with the selling of good players to larger clubs for hefty fees. Liken that point to what we have at Rangers and the only difference here is the lack of opportunity for good transfer dealing be it down to quality of our players, weakened bargaining position (given our league status and very public financial woes) or general lack of foresight and strategy for our club within this area. Whichever way you cut it - this area has to be sorted. Could this be a key area that MA is interested in changing at Rangers asap to follow the situation at NUFC??

What i also find very interesting is where the Newcastle fans would like to see their club perform and to how they would measure success. I will not pretend to be any kind of follower of NUFC so my opinion on this isnt really the best, but i would have considered top half of the Premier League with the hope of Europa League Football and the odd trophy would be classed as a successful NUFC team. Attaining that status and maintaining that performance in the Premier League is no mean feat and requires significant investment into the team year on year. it is clear to see that is not how MA runs NUFC. Turning our focus back to us, we simply cannot afford to have the same success benchmark. Rangers has always been a successful club and one which deliver trophies and European football to the fans - that expectation will not change, despite our recent adventures being somewhat more modest. Where i do think MA could be interested in Rangers is down to the fact that the level of funding required for such will not be a drop in the ocean compared to achieving the same with NUFC. For a team like Newcastle to get into the top 4 would take about £250M - to get Rangers back to the top of Scotland would take something in the region of £40M (IMO). Where this would also reap benefits to MA would be the European arena - something which i think he will crave for himself - and for Rangers!

We Rangers fans haven't covered ourselves in glory throughout this mess. And by that i do not refer to our superb support of the team (boycotts aside) with some fantastic attendances through the lower echelons of Scottish Football. I refer solely to the lack of 'joined-up' thinking between fan groups and 'in-fighting'. Another point that was made to me the other day was that a lot of fans who say they do not recognise the club they grew up supporting were of the age when SDM was at the helm. During the good era of SDM, fans were happy with the performance of the club - 9 in a row to use but one example. If MA were to return success to Rangers - would the dissenting fans still be unhappy with the way the club is run - or will they be glad of his involvement?

Time will tell I suppose.

That went on for a bit longer than i anticipated - good article Frankie!

I'm not changing my mind about anyone.

 

Wallace wasn't good enough, but Nash was apparently excellent.

 

The point I was trying to make (and here I am trying to say it a third time, sigh) is that I'm not particularly happy to still have people like the Easdales & Somers as directors while Ashley is forcing out directors like Wallace & Nash.

With the figures quoted that Nash has driven down the operating costs by circa £5M since the start of the year - I think the highlighted statement above would be correct. His efforts came far too late in the Rangers saga but by that figure, he was clearly looking at things and making efforts that would bear fruit if he were given more time, support and afforded better influence on the board.

Apparently a Dave King statement likely later as well.

 

In King's case the pen has definitely not been mightier than the sword so far. I'm not anticipating anything different this time.

Do you think it will be a bit of a damp squib of a statement effectively throwing in the towel? What more can he really say now? His lack of action of the past 6 months has been very much a damning influence into the end result from this weekend - surely he cannot detract from that. His last statement mentioned needing the fans support at a later date or the likes - i sincerely hope it isn't another one of those statements asking for fan action. The various fan groups who have supported him have had their weaknesses and lack of full-on support shown up in the MSM now. Very little we can do now!

I do wonder what the exact terms of this deal are. What interest/securities are held as part of this loan? What would happen if there isn't a great uptake of shares - can Ashley really underwrite this issue given the 10% rule? Would the SFA allow him to go over the 10% as a form of special dispensation? Who exactly will take the place of Nash and Wallace.

And i am going to assume that the Wallace pay off will be paid through the loan.

An utter shambles of a club. It really worries me as to what exactly it will take to rid our club of these charlatans. Do we need to endure this for 20-odd years?? I am not going to judge King, Murray etc - but i am convinced we would not be in this position if these Rangers men had been buying shares and had worked up a holding.

There is no doubt that if the RFFF took any of the board to court, the board would have enough sway to allocate the funds from this Ashley loan to pay for the defense. Either way, as usual - Rangers loses!

Sickening. The folk having a say in Rangers are a complete joke! What a shadow of our former selves we have become with the gutter rats we have on our board.

Wallace to leave soon also?

And now Brian Kennedy is back in the ring.....jeez-o this is getting fast paced now!!!

Prior to commencing the implementation issues referred to above it is necessary to reach an in-principle agreement with the board that can then be put to shareholders. In this regard it is important to recogniser hat the so-called Easdale Block represents more than 25% of the shares in issue and could therefore block the implementation of our proposal even if recommended by the board. Likewise, a combination of other shareholders could veto our proposal. I attempted to meet with Mr Ashley on my visit but neither he, nor his colleague, Mr Bishop, acknowledged my request for a meeting. This is their right but is unfortunate given the present concerns from supporters that Mr Ashley is using his shareholder status to put pressure on the board to alienate the rights and trade mark of the club in favour of his personal interest. I will make a separate announcement and appeal to fans on this topic at the appropriate time.

 

Our initial proposal to the board was to invest the full 16m by way of equity at 20p per share. The board requested that we consider a debt/equity mix that would reduce dilution for existing shareholders and allow the debt component to be advanced prior to the extended time frame required for the approval of additional equity. We are amenable to this and to working with the board on the mechanics necessary to ensure that this is achieved provided that the full investment is recognised by way of board representation. We wish to appoint an equal number of members to the board and have the key say regarding the appointment of the Chairperson. We will not invest funds and let the existing board determine how these funds are spent. That has not worked well in the past.

It is both the highlighted sections above that interest me most.

Of course, quite a few of our current squad see the end of their contracts coming up next summer. They should perform like hell to get an new one ...

I fully agree. However at Ibrox these days, that doesn't seem to matter. i.e. Kyle Hutton!

This "chap" in your work - wouldn't be from Shettleston would he?

 

It's the well worn tale re the parent company-club liabilities. Those with long memories and financial terminology could fill you in or supply you with links.

 

PS Be careful though - don't trust anyone who has 1872 in their user name, nor those who only start/contribute to threads regarding financial topics of a negative nature. These are often the same folk, btw. Almost always in fact......................on other boards I mean. Not here, obviously.

Haha - he's not from Shettleston, but not too far form it I may add. And he is often a bit of a doom-merchant. Unlike myself...of course...always brimming with positivity about the Rangers situation! He aint a blue-nose either...so i do take his views with a pinch of salt!

I might be getting all confused with what i am about to ask so please forgive if i am barking up the wrong tree - or if this has been answered before.

Is there a relevance of the 16M figure that relates to the amount of 'debt' which Rangers owe our parent company? I was speaking with a chap in work who was explaining how he thought this deal was going to work and he raised a point about Rangers being in debt to the parent company but couldn't be substantiated as 'debt'? I was a bit confused about it but i recall a while back reading something about this when the annual accounts came out for last year.

Regan seems to be bulletproof in all this. He has never been properly questioned about the entire debacle and seems to be working the quiet life these days. Its a shame but all the 'exposee' articles and documentaries abut Rangers have seemingly dried up since this information was made 'public' which leaves me with a bit of a bitter taste as these guys who should be held to account for their actions (or lack thereof) are getting off easy.

I would love if there was an opportunity to put these hard hitting questions to these characters!

I recall a good while back now, Malcolm Murray wrote an email to the rest of the board pleading with them 'not to drop to the bottom division when it comes to NOMAD' or something like that. Perhaps a bit of vindication for him...

... oh, we have enough bampots doing that on other boards, or her words about McGregor's rape charge.

Am I missing something? what happened here?

I think the AGM will be telling as to what will happen in the second half of the season. Rangers normally sell half-season tickets which I think will possibly be the only route the board will try and rely on without resulting in major fan outrage.

If the AGM comes to pass and major changes take place at boardroom level (doubtful, I know) - do we think that will see a high uptake of the half season tickets which would undoubtedly help us see off the second half of the season??

There is rumours going about that Wallace will be put of Ibrox very soon....Longmuir's name being banded about also.

Are they actually still pressing on with this given the developments over the past few weeks? I would much rather any focus was placed elsewhere.

Its developments like this might go someway as to explain the boards lack of action with Dave Kings offer of cash a while back? Where was the investment committee hiding all this time??

In the world of business stats and figures it is, no way about it. Like any other club ours is dependent on ST and pay-at-the-gate money. If supporters stay away, it will cause problems. No matter the whys and ifs and buts.

 

At this moment and time you can just hope that the naming rights deal - now we know why no-one's talked about it - is a half decent one and that the share issue is taken up in full. And in the cold light of day we can check what Murray Park costs us per season and what it would cost if we train at a university sports complex (like Dundee United does) instead.

Well in terms of fans not turning up - we need this share issue to reach the end of the year. If the other 10,000-12,000 season tickets were taken up, that would have given us about £3-4M extra income. Which relates to the same amount of cash we are being asked for right now...to take us to the end of the year. So, with my very rough estimations at this late hour, the fans not buying into the ST renewals have brought this issue nearer - but are not responsible for it! The way i see it, this was always going to happen this season.

We are loss making like its going out of fashion and there cant have been any real expectations that this season would provide a greater level of income other than the increase in ST prices across an amount of sales. But we needed 37,000 ST's last season - with a few loans to see us through! We might have had cash in the bank to try and minimise the losses but that pot of cash is close to, or has already, ran out. We have no alternatives to seeking additional funds via share issues - despite the efforts of the board (investment committee included) over the past 9 months or so - not a lot has been done to improve things.

So i still find it rather odd that fans are being held accountable for this shortfall - for me, it was always on the cards. What an awful situation!