calscot

I don't remember many fans being suckered by Whyte - they had no choice in the matter. He was received by a mixture of trepidation and hope - and then quickly pilloried. What puts people's noses out of joint is the arrogant and pretentious claims that you knew all along and you are just so much less gullible than everyone else. In my experience, those that blow their own trumpet the loudest, are usually way over selling their own achievements and are often obsessed with bovine scatology... You may or may not have known, but instead of gaining kudos, I think you've gained a lot of contempt on here.

It would at least be a vast improvement on a lot of the English on here... :fish:

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the Dunfermline chairman's agenda...

I agree that Leggat has some good insider information and while he used to be a decent read bar the spelling and grammar mistakes, he's now more of a tedious read due to trying to be sensationalist every day. Being sensationalist is a bit like giving a wink - it's effective if you only do it now an again, but do it all the time and you start to look a bit strange and possibly a bit mad. While he always had a pro-Rangers agenda, that agenda has evolved into fanatical support of one takeover group and his blogs have taken on a propaganda hue that is hard to swallow. I'd rather he went back to just providing reasonably "objective" balance and redress to much of the Timmy propaganda that manifests itself too comfortably in the media these days. Exposés can also be good but need to be of a more realistic tone. I find myself reading him less and less and hope he gets back to his previous form before his credibility disappears along with his readership.

Well, Dunfermline look like they will be relegated, so it makes financial sense for them to want us relegated to the first division...

I got the impression that's been his plan for a while.

Thanks for putting up the picture of the ticket - very interesting. However, I don't get your indignation - I only answered what you said yourself...

Part of the reason for lower crowds was the rebuilding of Ibrox and English and Celtic crowds were down at the same time... Price of a pint has gone up five fold since 1986 (60p - 70p) - tickets sounds like a bargain in comparson. The retail price index has gone up 2.75 times since 1982 and average earnings have gone up 4.19 times. Seems to me it's relatively half as cheap now as it was in the 80's. Does anyone remember exactly how much it was in the 80's? Or is the problem that many people are paying about £600 a year to watch sport on the telly - and many enjoy watching English football compared to their own team? Don't understand season ticket holders not turning up and we could really do with a show of support at the moment. But then I personally don't think our support is anywhere near as loyal or as strong as most of us like to kid ourselves on. We like to say we are the people, but we really can't be bothered actually being the people...

It seems to me that although we'll probably be without CL money on a regular basis and Europa money could fluctuate and the way things are going, possibly not average out to more than a couple of million which would be a shortfall of several million on average over the past few years. However, over the past few years we've been paying the bank back about £5m per year plus interest, so about £6m and pretty much breaking even or making a small loss - and that's while doing some modest spending in the transfer market. So it seems to me that if we go back to the financial model we had under the cosh of Lloyds then we should be able to break even without the European money due to having no debt or interest to pay. I can't see the need to halve the wage bill etc. It's just back to the financial restraints that we're now pretty much used to. I think the biggest challenge for breaking even is that you don't know your income in advance so perhaps we have to budget for the worst case scenario and then any surplus we make is our transfer fund for the next season. We do have to do better in the transfer market. It's been pointed out somewhere (although I don't know the veracity of it) that Celtic have only spent a couple of million net over the past five years due to selling players on for decent amounts, whereas we have supposedly spent something like a net £25m even with a few large fees for the likes of Hutton etc.

The silly thing about HMRC is that they've created a lose-lose situation. They've lost the tax payer quite a bit of money and shows that if you push too far you can get your fingers burnt. Compromise is usually better. In this case, it's reported that Rangers at various times under Murray and Whyte have tried to do a deal with HMRC which involved settling paying a manageable amount over a reasonable period of time - for argument say £20m over 20 years. However, it was reported they refused time and again and so forced the situation where Whyte took over and then went for bust. This has led to HMRC losing out on a further £13m of PAYE and VAT. Now supposing they get £5m from the CVA or liquidation - compare that to the £33m they could have realised if they had compromised and done a deal... So they could have cost the tax payer over £28m and at the same time ruined a footballing institution. Sounds completely stupid and incompetent to me and it's why I think they are one of the biggest shoulders of blame for the whole fiasco. Total idiots IMHO. What was the point apart from possibly scaring other clubs and companies?

Doubt it...

So far administration has cost us a very good chance of winning the league, a fair chance of winning the Scottish Cup and our place in the Champions League. We lost two players and could lose a lot more in the summer for far less than they are worth. The SFA have also rubbed salt into the wound with their fine and transfer embargo. That's without all the mental anguish and fear the club could die. That's quite a punishment compared to other clubs that go into administration. As for sanctions for a newco, we'll have to see but two more years banned from Europe has quite an impact and we've yet to see what the SPL will do to us.

PS I think the club was shorter of cash than we could understand due to that £8m repayment to Ticketus without seeing any of the original loan coming in, bar the payment to Lloyds. That's where a lot of the PAYE shortfall went.

The bit I wasn't sure about is the administrator powers to do this. It must mean that they think that the quantum achieved from Miller is greater and more expedient than selling off assets in a liquidation sale. To be honest, if we get the original company back from Whyte, it all seems a bit too easy... What is to stop companies doing this all the time? Or will Whyte be punished by not being able to be a director for a while? It does seem that Whyte still has some leverage for a pay-off; however, he risks getting nothing so he has to be flexible. I'm still wondering about his situation with Ticketus and also the missing millions. And I wonder how much he has snaffled away. Sounds to me like Ticketus are at the moment only out about £16m (due to the repayment of £8m by the club) and could possibly get say £6m in the CVA leaving them maybe £10m down. You can see why they wanted in with the BKs as they'd maybe be about £6m better off plus making quite a bit more than that with the loan deal.

I think the values are fanciful in that if there were 10 rich football or rugby clubs looking to buy a 50k seater stadium in Glasgow, it would probably be worth at least £70m as it would cost more than £200m to build a new one. However, this is not the scenario as only Rangers would want to play there. As a piece of real estate for development it's worth next to nothing as there is plenty of dirt cheap land around it which would require less demolishing and wouldn't need care to preserve a listed façade. And also image what it would do to the like of Tescos profits if they turned Ibrox into a supermarket... Those amounts were just notional to prop up a pretty dire balance sheet to make the club look solvent.

I just can't see a short term exit strategy - anyone really interested in owning the club could have bought it cheaply now, so who is there to pay a large premium in a few years time for albeit a club in better condition? I think this smells of a rich man's retirement project that brings him a small income and no loss on investment. I can see Miller and a few of his cronies or family taking a comfortable wage for being on the board while basically working part time and I can't see him losing on his £12m investment. SDM showed there are other ways to make money using your position as owner and it can be a pleasant way to strut about and be famous and revered.

I think if it wasn't for the EBT's, Murray could have continued to bring the debt down and then sold the club for about £20m which could have got him towards breaking even. If he'd run the club properly, he could have made a tidy sum out of the club and left without a huge cloud over his head, and maybe even been a legend. But he just didn't have that in him - his ego was too closely tied to the club and that ego is pretty huge and always hungry.

I was expecting a quote of more like £2m - but there seems to be plenty of missing millions so he's probably already pocketed a fair amount.

It seems to me that the administrators are about to sell them off, and the rest of the assets, to Miller. Once that happens Whyte will still own the majority of shares of the original company but that company will own no assets except for Miller's cash. That cash is then used to pay off the liabilities due to the creditors. When your company goes into administration, the administrators take over and have the power to sell assets in the best interests of the creditors. I think the main reason for having administrators in the first place is to stop company owners from selling off all the assets, putting the proceeds in an offshore account and then winding up their company with creditors getting virtually nothing. At best, Whyte is a secured creditor for the property assets and could be paid something out of the Miller money although the legitimacy of this has still to be clarified.

Just trying to understand the Miller takeover. So it seems to me that: 1. Miller will start a new Rangers company. 2. The administrators have the power to sell all Rangers assets to this new company at a price which they think will benefit the creditors and achieve a larger payout than winding up the original company. 3. Basically they swap the assets for cash (liquefying the assets) to present to the credits for CVA approval, and failing that winding up and distributing the moneys according to company law. 4. Creditors will just have to take what they can get and cut their losses and if they go by the CVA route the original company, owned by Whyte is left with no assets and no debt. 5. Miller's new company have none of the debt but will need approval to take over Rangers' membership in the SFA and SPL. Sanctions could and probably will still be imposed. Possible three year ban from Europe. 6. Sanctions can be circumvented if Miller can buy the effective shell of a company from Whyte in time and then transfer the assets back to that company or perform some sort of two tier structure as Celtic have done. 7. Whyte will probably want a significant pay-off for Rangers gaining the advantage of number 6. Miller will have to negotiate and decide the price where he will walk away and be a complete newco. 8. Ticketus will have to sue Whyte for their losses. Good luck to them. 9. HMRC will receive some of the PAYE but none of the EBT money. In that respect they will have lost out big time but will have won in putting Rangers to the brink which will scare other clubs and companies into settling EBT back-taxes and prevent future use of this and similar aggressive tax avoidance strategies. So if this is something near the correct interpretation, it seems we still have one of a choice of two problems to solve - minimising sanctions for becoming a newco or obtaining Whyte's shares for a what looks like more than a nominal sum. I think he'll want a decent wodge for his trouble and for making himself the most hated man in Scotland. Anyone want to clarify?

You can apologise while running off or do it later when you've got the chance - or even after the game. I don't even know whether he apologised or not, I just think that he should at some point if he can and if it's truly accidental. Players apologise to each other all the time. We agree on something there. It not something I've ever subscribed to or ever said. All I implied was that there is certainly more of a suspicion of some kind of malice if he didn't apologise for something that was that bad, even if accidental. It's not definitive - you can also have malice and then apologise to prevent retaliation or just to take the piss.

Actually is easier to rebut an assertion of fact as you can say why it's not true. It's harder to rebut something that's "in my opinion" as that is a fact you can't argue with. However, I think it's taken as read that it's my opinion and I'd rather not start every sentence with IMHO, it get's tedious. However, I did frame my whole post with the phrase "try to explain". Providing an explanation is basically fitting a theory to what is known. I also put plenty of words like "doubt", "assumed", "possibility", "unlikely", and "probably". I do often put "I think" or "I believe" before stuff and I'll never back something up as fact if I don't totally believe it is. I think you're just making excuses and the weird thing is you are guilty of the same thing including presuming to know what I think without me telling you. Instead of rebutting you're just obfuscating the whole debating process. That's not a categorical fact - even by definition I can't know what he knows and what he doesn't it's part of an explanation that fits the scenario. And I can't see where the difficulty arises in arguing against it if you believe differently. I was merely showing you how your reply also applies to yourself. If it makes debate tricky then maybe you can see where I stand with you. So imagine a big disclaimer before my post that says it's my opinion - and maybe debate instead of this silliness?

No, not all of them, but the big ones like that one - hell yes. If someone did that to me and didn't apologise, and had the demeanour of Brown, then I be struggling not to try and put the boot into them later. If I did that to someone, I'd be apologising even if I couldn't stand them. I'm definitely talking football and not otherwise.

As some of the financial guys on here point out, this is a civil case and it's up to the judge to decide what is likely rather than beyond reasonable doubt. It has been reported (I'm not sure if it's true) that HMRC would appeal and appeal again if they lost, rendering the outcome of the case irrelevant. We could have been in limbo for years without being able to function properly and then liquidated if we finally lost or were given too large a bill by the outcome. If that is true then I can see the point of big pain now and then over and done with. If my conjecture is wrong, what the hell is Whyte's game? At least mine makes sense. Liquidating a club for no reason is a bit far fetched for me. I'm not saying Whyte is benevolent but it looks like he's doing a job that needs to be done. Just because it doesn't fit into your model of hatred of him doesn't mean that it can't be true. There is such a thing as "necessary evil" and the saying "I must be cruel only to be kind". I think he probably sees it as an overall win-win situation. The way he's gone about things has been pretty mercenary but it doesn't mean we can't ultimately benefit. But all this explains why he won't walk away without attempting with all his ability to extract a sizeable pay-off. Speak for yourself. Plenty of us would have complained if we knew the reality of what was happening and indeed a few did. There was money coming in from all over the place at the time from Murray, King and Lewis etc as well as the CL. Our turnover was one of the biggest in Europe - and in fact, until TV took over we were in the top 20 for decades. We basically thought we were loaded - if Liverpool or Marseilles could afford something, we thought we could afford a sizeable percentage of that, even though we knew we couldn't actually match them. You have to remember this was a time when we thought clubs were properly run and we didn't have to worry about the finances. What you're saying is one of those big myths where you think everyone is the same as you. Most of us love lavish spending but we're intelligent and mature enough to realise it's not good if you overspend and it causes problems when have to pay a load of money back later because you can't really afford it now. I've done enough explaining of this point in the past with plenty of analogy, but you continue to treat your extreme view as a fact for everyone. I don't think any of us know how the case will go but I've dealt with it earlier. Judges in these case can rule against you by saying, "I think in all probability you are not telling the truth." The point about the appeal also still stands. Your conjecture about how I've made up my mind is completely incorrect. I think they were considered a jolly good way of avoiding tax but I think it relies on a little bit of a white lie or a lot of trust - and that's what the whole tax case is deciding on. If you are right then why is it taking so long? And is yours any different? Make a decent rebuttal FFS! Pot calling the kettle black there except I don't masquerade anything as fact. My "facts" come from what I read online - here and elsewher, and I take them with a pinch of salt, challenge them and then try to make sense of them. I've never claimed anything else. Yes I make conjectures, which is what everyone is doing on here, including those more expert in financial matters. I think I make a fair effort to make them make sense. There is no other way as no-one seems to know the whole truth. To state that people are using conjecture is just stating the bleeding obvious. However the way you do so, implies that you think you are the only factual one who is 100% correct. Isn't that a bit arrogant? I doubt you know any more than I do and yet you pontificate on your blog like you know more than everyone else. I think you need to try be more explanatory and persuasive about your thinking rather than your pretty empty and dismissive post. What you don't even seem to understand, is that if someone posts something that makes more sense than my current conjecture, I will adopt their's. It's a free upgrade to a better understanding. However, I find others make up their mind and that is it - they remain entrenched. Make a lot more sense with your own conjectures and I may start agreeing with you.

What happened to Brian Kennedy doing everything possible to prevent liquidation of the club?