der Berliner

Methinks a bit too much is made about his initial comments with regard of him being a "fall-back" option. I would assume that by now he has a clearer picture of it all and ... obviously ... his wife will make his life hell on Earth of he backs down too much

There was a huge headline there, but no more info on who wants to buy us.

 

The bulk of that story was just telling us what we all already know.

That's the problem with most of the stuff we get these days. Nigh every article written on a subject relating to us needs to bang in the HMRC bill that looms over our heads and all the rest of the dire stuff, whether it relates to the actual story or not. One does need a cool head to see this through.

Taken from FF, a little discussion by an FFer with an unaffiliated tax expert:

Perhaps not too much new stuff in here, but I thought I'd post details of a conversation I've had via LinkedIn with a Senior Tax Partner at a leading legal firm. He doesn't seem to sway in favour of Rangers or otherwise, so I found it quite interesting to hear from a neutral perspective.

+++

It started from a comment from him hence the initial blog-like post. If anyone sees this discussion on LinkedIn, I'd appreciate anonymity for the expert at all costs.

------

EBT = Evil Bad Taxpayer ??

Aggressive tax â??planningâ? or â??avoidanceâ? is headline news right now. The line between tax evasion â?? illegally not paying the tax due - and tax avoidance â?? quite legitimately interpreting the law to reach an appropriate conclusion - is increasingly blurred. The use of employee benefit trusts is part of that debate and some of the comment on this has been .... well frankly, a load of rubbish.

One thing Iâ??ve heard on several occasions is that those involved, for example Rangers FC, "are guilty of tax evasionâ? â?? no, theyâ??re not. What Rangers and many other taxpayers did was tax planning = arranging your affairs in a way that allows you to pay the least possible tax within the confines of the law. Last time I checked, that precedent established by historic case law still applied. Rangers paid some of their players and senior employees in a way which meant their earnings werenâ??t subject to UK tax and they did this in a way that at the time was relatively common and not viewed with particular disdain. The Government has fought a â??hearts and mindsâ? campaign over the last 10 years to try to convince us that there is no difference between evasion and avoidance and everyone should pay the full amount of tax possible. Somewhere on that road they decided that they didnâ??t like EBTs. Hundreds if not thousands of taxpayers want to see the outcome of the recent Tribunal as there are millions of pounds of tax at stake.

However that may not be the end of the story. The Tax Tribunal is the first level at which a contentious tax point is debated. Whoever loses has the right to appeal to a higher level, although there is the question of whether Rangers can afford to do this given the legal costs involved. There are further rights of appeal which eventually end at our Supreme Court, and also the European Court of Justice. In the meantime in 2011 HMRC brought in targeted rules to stop the â??offensiveâ? use of EBTs. But clearing up the historic position could take years.

---

*****,

Excellent article. However, my understanding of the situation at Rangers is that EBT's were used to pay salaries of staff rather than additional payments/bonuses. This is what HMRC is disputing and are classing as potential tax evasion?

The case itself isn't as much of a landmark case as people think due to the way EBT's were used by Rangers, not the use of them in general.

There are a few examples of companies using them to pay additional bonuses (which is slightly more acceptable to HMRC), and these have been settled out of court already (see Vodafone, Arsenal).

Correct me if I'm wrong as I may be way off (and hope that I am), and you are the tax expert!!

----

Rory: Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Businesses have used EBTs in many different ways and the underlying substance has varied with some using profits earned over many years to fund the EBT and others using exceptional profits. You mention whether it is salaries, bonuses or other and my view on this is that it shouldn't actually matter. In the view of HMRC, any remuneration for employees should be subject to income tax and it is noticeable that they chose to name their anti-avoidance rules aimed at EBTs and similar as "disguised remuneration". So they contend that once funds have left a company and gone "offshore", if the money finds its way back to an employee or director, for example by way of a long-term loan, then they should be taxed as income. A counter-argument is that it is not remuneration paid by the company and the trustees administering the EBT can at their discretion decide where the money goes. This is why the documentation surrounding the EBT is so important - and there have been suggestions that the Rangers documentation isn't helpful (am guessing here but maybe there is something in writing - as part of player signing negotiations ? - which says that overseas players will be paid with no UK tax ??) which is maybe why HMRC have litigated, viewing it as a weaker case.

----

Thanks for your response *****.

My reply was based purely on my interpretation of the ongoing situation with Rangers/HMRC, so is most likely wholly incorrect!

Your comment regarding documentation surrounding the EBT seems particularly pertinent, as there has been talk of "unofficial" letters given to players promising payment through EBT's. I'm guessing that the unofficial nature of these (no letterheads, separate from contracts) forms much of Rangers' argument - these were letters of intent and not contractually binding.

Regardless, it will be an interesting few weeks ahead for sure - and not just for Rangers Football Club.

----

Thanks Rory, your interpretation is pretty good actually. I could write pages on the documentation issue but your comment is spot on - if HMRC can present tangible evidence that the funds going into the EBT were always intended to find their way to players and staff, I struggle to see how Rangers can win unless the court ignores the substance and upholds some technical argument regarding the relevant tax law. Most tax case decisions these days tend to find in favour of the substance of what happened rather than its legal form. In the eyes of HMRC, any documentation is fair game whether a letter, internal memo, email or even a handwritten note, and so the existence of anything which points towards "disguised salary" will not help their case.

Anyone can shed any light how "illegal" any of these Whyte deals listed above actually were. Or rather, how they can be deemed illegal under British / Scottish law.

Some naughty statement by the BBC's very own sports reporter Matt Slater, for after a rather sensible report on some administrations in British football, he's leaving a lingering comment about the Rangers support to end the article.

There is one other point worth making about D&P's outsider status, however: no Scottish firms wanted the work because they feared for their windows.

 

And that should tell you everything you need to know about which of the current administrations in British football will be the hardest to resolve successfully.

The day when we won the title at the Scumhut ... was that a home - fans only occasion? (The Hugh Dallas game.)

Of course, if they postpone it, the scum and attached press will sure make us look like the bad boys who cannot behave.

There is, though, the small matter of TV commitments ...

I seem to remember that after the last round of talks in January, the "deadline" for a decision was said to be early April.

You could instead write to e.g. the Ministry of Defence and ask them about their opinion with regard to active and open anti-British behaviour at football grounds by the Hooped Hordes, who time and again besmirch the image of the British causalties of war, soldiers and victims of IRA attacks. The continued silence by the governing body untowards this continuous breach of e.g. the Terrorist Act 2006 and existing SFA / SPL statutes with regards to showing political statements within a place under their jurisdiction does not only beggar belief, it is obviously in need of some higher authority to make a statement on this.

I'm pretty pragmatic here. Ticketus dealt with Whyte and Whyte alone. If they (both) screwed it up it is the duty of the administrators to get Rangers (the club) in the clear. You'd hope that Ticketus are business-people enough to know that they might have screwed this up. If their deal with us stands, no problem whatsoever.

Well, we do not know how these discussions between the BK and Ticketus went. I would be surprised if they would want "nothing" if TBK get the their deal done though.

Of course, there is still a good possibility that other "bidders" may speak to Ticketus once the deal with them is examined.

Another day another pile of pish from McCulloch, i for one cant wait for the day this guy is no longer stealing money from Rangers pretending to be a footballer. Buying players like him have got us into this trouble, but hay it's all ok he is a Rangers man.

Out of interest, can you name a few Scottish/British "players like him" being bought in years gone by? People asked to play all over the park in unfamiliar roles ... time and again. Not saying I'm not exactly a fan of him (playing in mdifield), but since you made this claim I'd like to know.

Murray said: "By entering into a partnership with Ticketus, you essentially remove Ticketus from the pot.

 

"So our offer is worth considerably more than any others because Ticketus is not part of the CVA."

Unless ... the deal between Whyte and Ticketus, backed up by Whyte and not Rangers, is declared null-and-void. You do wonder still, what Ticketus would "demand" if the BK make it over the finishing line.

On another note, I read that PM want that share issue with the cheapest share costing 1,000 pounds. With essentially next to none but sentimental return/influence for the respective shareholder. As in: since TBK will hold thousands upon thousands of shares and have a major say, people could invest a million of pounds for 1,000 share and still have next to no say? I'd rather spend 1,000 pounds for a "gold membership" (with some extras involved) and someone who has actually a say in matters of the club representing me than that.

Whether this one (at the bottom) is from the Middle East remains to be seen, but anyway ...

Rangers takeover: Administrator confirms another Rangers bidder

 

By TOM ENGLISH

Published on Saturday 17 March 2012 23:59

 

The Rangers administrators have confirmed that there is no hope of bringing certainty to the Rangers takeover scenario before Sunday’s Old Firm match at Ibrox.

 

On Friday, Paul Murray, the head of the Blue Knights consortium, said there was no reason why Duff & Phelps couldn’t bring clarity to the future of the club before Celtic’s arrival for what may yet be a title decider. “It would provide a massive boost to the team and its fans ahead of such an important game,” said Murray. No such boost seems likely, however.

 

It’s been reported that Rangers are in receipt of three bids as it stands – the Blue Knights consortium, the solo effort from Brian Kennedy and the third from the Chicago sports, entertainment and media group Club 9. It is understood, though, that one other foreign party tabled a bid on Friday and supposedly another, a Middle Eastern group, contacted the administrators on Thursday evening and may also lodge a bid early this week.

 

Other joke bids have been received. A grandfather wrote a letter to the administrators saying he would like to buy the club for his grandson’s birthday. Another offered three empty bottles of Irn-Bru –“worth a few quid if you bring them back to the shop,” said the prankster. “That ought to cover it.”

 

Of the real bids, Paul Clark of Duff & Phelps refused to say whether one was stronger than another, saying instead that any of them could win and that there is still time for new bidders to enter the picture.

 

The supposed deadline of Friday seems to have been more of a hurry-up to interested parties, all of whom had placed qualifications on their bids pertaining to Craig Whyte, the big tax case and the on-going scenario with Ticketus and its claim on 100,000 Rangers season tickets over the next four seasons. The Court of Session in Edinburgh will resume debate on that matter tomorrow.

 

One of the bidders, Brian Kennedy, said his offer was predicated on all these factors being “cleaned up”. All other offers would be, too, he said. Clark is confident of delivering a clean club to the preferred bidder.

 

The administrators met Whyte last week. “We’ve had discussions with Craig and in fact I met him earlier in the week just to try and finalise some of these issues,” Clark said. “I remain confident that Craig Whyte’s position will not be an impediment to a sale.

 

“It’s a time for cool heads,” he added. “We’ve had bids and we’re pleased with them but there are still several big issues we need to deal with. We’re going to get on and move it forward now.

 

“There was comment about whether we could get it resolved before Old Firm game. That would be very optimistic. It will be clearer by that stage [next Sunday] but I don’t think the position will be completely resolved. We have to work out what each bid means and then sit down face to face with the parties and go through it and make sure we know what the deal will look like.”

 

Though the Blue Knights, headed by the only Rangers fan in the bidding process that we know of, may be the fans’ choice, sentiment will not come into the minds of the administrators when assessing what’s on the table. “I don’t think we can give any substantial weight to an emotional attachment to the club, so really it’s about the financial side of it. What I would say is that those with an emotional attachment and financial backing would find themselves well-placed. It’s mainly about how much money they’re sticking into the creditors pot. Principally, it’s about what goes into the creditors pot.”

 

Clark said that that the interested parties have been asking about the various SFA disciplinary charges facing the club as well as the SPL inquiry and what the ramifications may be. It’s a further complication to doing a deal. “It’s unfortunate that there are so many issues,” said Clark. “It would have made our life easier if they didn’t exist. I don’t think any bidder has been warned off by it, but they’re asking if there is any more to come. At some point we’ll have to go to the football authorities and say, ‘Is this it or is there other things coming round the corner?’ It’s noise we could do without, but it’s necessary for the football club. We need to go through this.”

 

On the latest potential bidder, who emerged on Thursday evening, Clark was saying little apart from confirming that at no point has their name been mentioned in the newspapers since this process began. “There are more than three bids already lodged and we expect this one to be lodged early this week. There are parties that are keeping themselves to themselves and getting on with it.

 

“These people got in touch and we swapped non-disclosure agreements with them and they had access to our online data room on Friday. They made it clear they wouldn’t be in a position to make even an indicative bid by the deadline and they asked ‘does that mean we’re out?’ We said no. We’re happy to speak to people until we’re in a closed-out period. They’re not people I have dealt with before. They appear to be a credible party and we’ll see what their work over the weekend brings.”

I can't lose that feeling that they want to punish us because we found out about their own shortcomings.

I would look at precedents here, like ... Motherwell, Gretna, and Dundee. Whether their people were fit & proper, how they were punished for becoming insolvent? I wouldn't be surprised if the SFA and SPl act together and get their grand deduction plan into motion, like "charging" us 1/3 of last season's points total as a penalty. (Coming to think of it, we should start loosing more games, so we only start next season at -28 or the like.

Of course, any such action is beyond all reason (IMHO) and we as a support should fight them to the bone. If they want to charge Whyte here, fair enough. If they want to hamper the club as such and make competition impossible for the seasons to come (while doing nothing towards the Hooped Horros for their continuous conduct), we should go to a higher authority.

A quote snatched from FF

I think I will leave it up to an Irish journalist Ian O'Doherty, who wrote in the Irish Independent in Dublin to describe Celtic fans

"Second only to Scousers, Celtic fans carry more chips on their shoulders than a branch of McDonalad's.

Quick to express to any sense of offence,they exhibit a sense of entitlement that would make a Cork man blush with shame.

An still they wonder why we hate them."

Yep, they all fear that Rangers disappear from Scottish football because they might get liquidated. It is essentially squeaky bums time from all 10 clubs that depend on the Old Firm to happen by two or more times a season, for the SPL and SFA to have a competition that draws some money to the game. But while the players representatives et al work their socks of to save the club that keeps Scottish football alive, they look for something to hit it even harder. What now? We have been conned by a faux-businessman. You have been conned by a faux-businessman. What could Rangers the club have done to avoid it? In this day and age of chairmen ruling the roost with no-one looking in? But leave that aside, what are they looking for? Deducting Rangers more points this season? Or, since we always make good candidates for precedents, deduct us 10 points for the next ... say 5 seasons too? Get Timothy all the wishes they want? Really, you cannot make this up, simply cannot make this up.

Here a bit more of the "latest" on this first deadline day ...

ARABIAN KNIGHTS

 

A MYSTERY firm in the Middle East were last night lining up a multi-million pound bid to buy Rangers.

With today's 5pm deadline looming, SunSport can reveal sensational late interest from an Arab country.

 

The unnamed company are admirers of British football and it's understood they are willing to invest heavily in Gers.

 

We can reveal the Middle East group made contact with Ibrox administrators Duff and Phelps yesterday and made it clear they WILL make an offer before the close of play today.

 

Potential Ibrox saviours have until 5pm today to show their hand and table their respective bids for the stricken SPL champs.

 

Paul Murray and his Blue Knights consortium, which is backed by Ticketus and fans' representative groups, are in pole position with Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy also poised to make his move for Rangers.

 

No concrete offers had been received last night, but it's understood American duo Fortress and Club 9 Sports will also approach the administrators with firm offers.

 

Murray met with Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps this week and confirmed his Blue Knights are poised to table their offer.

 

Murray revealed: "We are in good shape for Friday. We will be making an offer to buy Rangers.

 

"It's then up to the administrators to evaluate any offers that come in, but they will have to crack on in terms of a decision.

 

"I would like an answer next week and we are hopeful of being able to take control of the club and stabilise the situation.

 

"That is the main thing — Rangers needs to be saved in its current form and then plans can be put in place from there."

 

Meanwhile, Kennedy also confirmed last night he will submit an offer for Gers — but only as a fallback option.

 

Kennedy, 51, said: "I hope to get something in by Friday as a fallback for the administrators, should the other bids fall or not be acceptable.

 

"There is a huge job to be done at Rangers.

 

"It will be like starting from scratch and if I was to get involved I'd utilise the expertise and experience of people who know football and Rangers in particular far better than I do.

 

"I have spoken to Ally McCoist and Graeme Souness about Rangers recently. I have not taken it any further than that."

... plus ...

Souness in Ken talks

 

Souness confirmed to SunSport that those talks have taken place.

 

He said: "Brian has phoned me and asked me my opinion on several aspects of Rangers and that's as far as it has gone."

 

But asked if he would be interested in an Ibrox return, Souness added: "I'm not going to comment on that.

 

"All you can say is he has made several phone calls to me, asking me what would be involved and asking if I felt that he should get involved. That's all I can say."

Well, the admins (not Rangers, btw) do what they have to. If Whyte dealt wrongly with Ticketus and their money, they should make sure that no harm is done to the club itself. I would ask more questions if they would not look at this (or anything else SDM/Whyte-ish).

The immediate problem for the club was that we weren't able to run till the end of the season. This horror scenario has been averted due to the players and management agreeing to pay-cuts. Now, while they (IMHO) sure want us out of administration sooner (hence the "deadline") rather than later, they have more time to do it. The HMRC tribunal results are due in April, so I would expect nothing to happen before that, i.e. the club changing owners. For I do not expect that anyone will take the club as it is.

How come your average Dhim know far more about our club than the smarter than your average Bear.

Do they, though?

While there might be no statement today, here's the gist of the current situation (acc. to the Scotsman)

Sir David Murray has apologised for selling Rangers to Craig Whyte, insisting he was â??duped.â?? Murray sold the Ibrox club to the Motherwell-born businessman last May, but the former owner has expressed his dismay at how Whyte has handled affairs, maintaining that he had no knowledge of Whyteâ??s intention to use a £24 million loan from Ticketus to fund his takeover. Murray also produced documents from Whyte and his lawyers supporting the sale, outlining details of £9.5 million being set aside for players and stadium developments, and £5 million of other working capital.

Murray has also denied any wrongdoing during his time at the club, insisting that there were no double contracts, and every player was registered correctly with the SPL. Murrayâ??s comments come in the wake of Hugh Adam, the former Rangers director, claiming that dual contracts were paid and that the club were aware of the illegitimate payments.

Meanwhile, an American investment bank has expressed definite interest in taking over the club. New York-based Fortress, who have assets totalling £27 billion, have contacted Duff and Phelps signalling their interest, which the administrators are said to be considering. Fortress join a Singapore-based consortium who are also contemplating a bid for the club, however, the Paul Murray-led Blue Knights consortium believe they are currently favourites to take over Rangers.

Paul Murrayâ??s Blue Knights consortium would need around £1000 from each fan in a plan to save the club. Murray, a former director of the club admitted there was no quick fix to the situation.

Brian Kennedy, owner of the Sale Sharks rugby club, has announced he will table a bid for the Ibrox club. Kennedy was quoted as saying â??My position is that if there is no better deal...then I will gladly do a deal to buy the club. If there is a better offer then I will gladly walk away.â?

There's been an article posted by one Chris Murphy of CNN today which neatly forages to all sorts of history, assumptiuons, hearsay, and facts. What is interesting is the note on other countries, usually forgotten when we speak of the current financial troubles of our club. "We" includes the Scottish press, of course. I'll post a bit of that article here, since at the bottom the discredited journalist (for whatever reason) has been picked to make a few comments about the events.

From riches to rags: Why Rangers' financial meltdown should worry Europe

 

By Chris Murphy, CNN

March 14, 2012 -- Updated 1238 GMT (2038 HKT)

 

(CNN) -- Once labeled the richest football club in Britain, Scottish champions Glasgow Rangers are now on the brink of extinction.

 

The club that boasts a record 54 league titles and 60 domestic cups since being formed in 1872 has sunk to the lowest ebb of its illustrious 140-year history.

 

Already in administration and with a potential tax bill of $118 million, the genuine prospect exists that Rangers -- one half of the Old Firm rivalry with Glasgow neighbors Celtic -- could be about to fold, inflicting irreversible damage on the Scottish Premier League.

 

So if a football club with as proud a history as Rangers can come so close to the precipice, how likely is it that the disease of financial mismanagement will claim other high-profile scalps across Europe?

 

Football's rising costs

 

According to football finance expert Simon Chadwick, many clubs on the continent are similarly stretched as they grapple with soaring wages and transfer fees -- and a failure to make the most from their assets.

 

Chadwick, a professor of Sport Business Strategy at the UK's University of Coventry, says the next five years could be critical in shaping the long-term future of football in Europe, as cash-rich clubs in Russia, China and the Middle East compete for the globe's best players.

 

"There are two common elements to what is happening in Europe," he told CNN. "The first one is revenue generation. A lot of clubs simply don't have a notion of the ways in which they could alternatively generate revenue other than tickets sales.

 

"The other element is cost control, and obviously that relates to player transfer fees and wage costs. If there was moderation in the industry generally, if salary costs and transfer fees could be moderated in some way, that would ease clubs' financial problems.

 

"Increasingly you've got clubs in China, in Russia and in some parts of the Middle East that are paying huge transfer fees and huge wages. In many ways it's very difficult for clubs to control their costs because many of the mechanisms are outside their control."

 

Driven by debt

 

Chadwick's assessment of the general health of Europe's clubs is bleak, with teams in Italy, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Portugal and even Germany -- the one league held up as a beacon of financial integrity -- struggling.

 

Even two of the biggest clubs on the continent, Spanish duo Barcelona and Real Madrid, who drive huge wealth and success, are operating on a huge debt base.

 

"Whilst Barca and Real are massive revenue-generating entities, their costs are very high," Chadwick said. "The most obvious elements are transfer fees and salaries. As a consequence of that, if you look at the two of the biggest three club debtors in the world they are Barcelona and Real Madrid.

 

"Outside Barcelona and Real there is no conception of the need to manage their organizations better, to manage their businesses better or commercialize in any way. In terms of revenue generation and cost control, a lot of Spanish clubs are operating in the dark ages."

 

The German Bundesliga is renowned as being a model competition, where the football fan is king. Supporters retain a majority stake in their club, tickets prices are affordable, wealth is distributed far more equally than in other leagues and wages are kept under control.

 

Chasing Champions League cash

 

But Chadwick points to the example of Schalke, a club that finished in the top three in Germany four times in the past seven years but is now grappling with the debts incurred through building a new stadium. The Royal Blues are desperately hoping that qualification this year for Europe's top club competition, the Champions League, will prove a timely boon to their bank balance.

 

"Schalke is in a very precarious financial position but many people say German football is a role model for financial propriety and good management -- it's not. There are problems all over Europe," Chadwick said.

 

He sees Dutch outfit Feyenoord, regarded as one of the Netherlands' big three sides alongside PSV Eindhoven and Ajax, as a club facing a typical, modern-day predicament.

 

"Feyenoord are in a much more precarious position than PSV and Ajax for the simple reason that they are not qualifying for Europe and yet they are still very ambitious," Chadwick said.

 

"The big challenge for Feyenoord is to go for Champions League football and get it really soon, otherwise their business model is not sustainable. Then they will have to develop a business model that is consistent with being a solvent member of the Eredivisie, but basically mid-table plodders."

 

A global power shift?

 

With European football at a crossroads, UEFA's new Financial Fair Play (FFP) initiative could prove a masterstroke of timing. The rules, which aim to force clubs to live within their means, come into force next year.

 

"FFP could be the moderating force in the labor market but one of the big issues is that the football labor market is no longer dominated by the Europeans, it is now a global labor market," Chadwick said.

 

"When you've got the likes of (former Chelsea striker) Nicolas Anelka on a reported $268,000 a week in China and Samuel Eto'o on reported $553,000 a week in Russia, this is fueling the inflationary spiral.

 

"As we see in any market, resources flow to where the returns are greatest. I think we're potentially on the cusp of a real shift in global power in football simply because clubs elsewhere in the world can afford to pay for the likes of Anelka and Eto'o."

 

Scottish giants in jeopardy

 

Should European clubs need any reminder as to what despair can emerge from chasing success on the field, they need only look at Rangers.

 

The Glasgow team's slide into administration relates to an unpaid tax bill of $14 million, incurred after businessman Craig Whyte bought the club in June 2010, but they are also being pursued by the UK government, which says an astonishing $118 million is owed in back taxes.

 

A tribunal is due to rule on the case this month, and if Rangers lose, they could be wiped off the map forever. (AND CUT!)

A neat doomsday reminder to finish, ere Spiers' babble starts. Had to be done, hadn't it? Then again, every single article in the press needs to have this sort of strike-terror-into-the-supporters'-hearts - line somewhere. Compulsary, you would think.