Evening Times response to King criticism

[Frankie 8,146]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks-ignore/the-facts-that-shine-light-into-darkest-corners-of-the-crisis-engulfing-champs-1.1023755

 

Rangers released a statement last night confirming our exclusive revelation that HM Revenue and Customs are investigating the club over payments made to players through off-shore employee remuneration trusts.

 

It is believed almost �£47million has been channelled into The Rangers Employee Benefit Trust and the Murray Group Management Ltd Remuneration Trust since 2001.

 

Here, in light of the reaction to our story that had dominated the headlines since, we spell out the facts...

 

RANGERS: ââ?¬Å?There is an on-going query raised by HMRC, which is part of a pending court case. On the basis of expert tax advice provided to Rangers, the Club is robustly defending the matters raised and cannot comment further at this stage.ââ?¬Â

 

FACT: We told our readers this explosive news yesterday ââ?¬â?? and it was subsequently confirmed an hour later by the club.

 

We also said that it was unclear how much money Rangers would have to pay ââ?¬â?? if they are found to have a case to answer.

 

It has been reported in another newspaper this morning that Sir David Murray was approached in January and asked about a HMRC tax investigation.

 

The report says he denied there was one going on when asked at that time.

 

CHAIRMAN ALASTAIR JOHNSTON: ââ?¬Å?Itââ?¬â?¢s not a new issue. Tax issues are never clear cut and all I can say is we have taken a lot of legal advice on this issue. I do not think it should be a material concern for us in the longer term, but we canââ?¬â?¢t say for sure yet what might happen.ââ?¬Â

 

We have been accused of ââ?¬Å?underhand tacticsââ?¬Â by running the story at a time when Andrew Ellis was conducting due diligence. The tax issue would have leapt out at Andrew Ellis in that process so how could it possibly be designed to derail him?

 

The story was run to inform the club�s fans this serious issue existed and what the possible implications could be.

 

RANGERS: ââ?¬Å?It has been speculated in the media today that club season-ticket and Champions League income had already been ring-fenced by the bank to reduce the Clubââ?¬â?¢s debt. This is totally incorrect and discussions with the bank in relation to the business plan will take place in the coming weeks.ââ?¬Â

 

FACT: We did not say the season-ticket money and Champions League money had already been ring-fenced. We stated that senior figures at the club FEARED this would be the case when they meet the money-men next week. It has been confirmed today that the club have yet to find out what the business plan actually is, so fears remain at senior level given what�s been imposed on them for the past 18 months.

 

CHAIRMAN ALASTAIR JOHNSTON: ââ?¬Å?Hopefully, to maintain long-term value of Rangers, Lloyds will see what is needed. Hopefully they will be collaberative.

 

WALTER SMITH AT THE WEEKEND: ââ?¬Å?I donââ?¬â?¢t know exactly how it will work out with the bank plan that has been put in place and that we have had to come into line with.

 

ââ?¬Å?Although we have been cutting back recently, cutting our staff and wages down, this (summer] would be the first time it would be implemented.

 

ââ?¬Å?We have yet to be told what will happen if we are successful in winning the league and if we do get the Champions League money ââ?¬â?? or what happens to the season-ticket money that comes in.

 

WALTER SMITH YESTERDAY: ââ?¬Å?Theyââ?¬â?¢re (bank) all sitting back looking at two lots of Cham-pions League money.

 

ââ?¬Å?Thatââ?¬â?¢s Ã?£24m quid. Dead easy from their point of view. So by winning weââ?¬â?¢ve disadvantaged anybody buying the club. Thatââ?¬â?¢s what weââ?¬â?¢re doing.

 

ââ?¬Å?Theyââ?¬â?¢ll be elated, wonââ?¬â?¢t they? Because thatââ?¬â?¢s them, theyââ?¬â?¢ve got a chance of the Champions League money again.

 

ââ?¬Å?Theyââ?¬â?¢re rubbing their hands so, from the off-field perspective, everybody is delighted.ââ?¬Â

 

So, the manager and the chairman have yet to be told what the plans are. This will come next week and Rangers fans will hope, for the sake of their club, that Lloyds take their hand off Rangers� throat.

 

With debts still around �£30m, and no guarantee that there will be Champions League money again after next season, it will take a radical U-turn for them to give the club breathing space. These are the fears that we made public yesterday.

 

RANGERS: ââ?¬Å?The club would also like to reiterate once again that at no time has Director Dave King made an offer for the purchase of Rangers Football Club.

 

FACT: We never said Dave King had made an offer. In January another newspaper reported he had offered �£18m. Yesterday we stated King had met Rangers fans last week in Johannesburg and said he wanted to buy the club. We have spoken to fans who were there and have a detailed account of what was said to them.

 

The Evening Times works to no agenda, or on anyone�s behalf. Our aim is to report stories and give our readers an insight into the financial crisis at Rangers and information about the behind-the- scenes battles in the biggest football story for years.

 

lIn October, we revealed the massive crisis Rangers were in. We said the club had been told administration was an option had the board not accepted the bank�s business plan and that the real crisis would come in this summer. Yesterday, we told our readers how the 5-4 vote on the business plan went. This aspect of the story was unchallenged.

 

lIn November, we revealed how Graham Duffy, the Florida based businessman, wanted to launch a fans backed takeover. This never materialised, but it was this paper�s duty to report the story which activated weeks of debate on fan ownership.

 

lIn March, we revealed Andrew Ellis had lined up a �£33m bid to take control and, despite several requests, he has not yet taken up the offer to speak publicly to this newspaper.

 

We have been told his bid will not proceed. If it does, then our information will have been wrong.

 

The future of Rangers is the most important issue to their supporters, and if Ellis does proceed and take control he should be commended for taking the club on and attempting to salvage them.

 

Our sister title, the Sunday Herald, this month also revealed how a fans� group had held talks with businessman Jim McColl over a possible supporter-driven buy-out.

Our stories over the past seven months were researched fully, checked out with impeccable sources and are the subject of NO legal challenges.

 

We stand by every word. We will continue to pursue the truth about what is happening inside Ibrox on behalf of our readers.

 

 

 

THIN BLUE LINE

Q. What exactly have Rangers done?

 

A. The club have been paying some players in part through an employee remuneration trust. Instead of incurring hefty income tax and National Insurance (NI) bills, Rangers have paid the money into an offshore account.

 

This is then ââ?¬Å?loanedââ?¬Â to players at a low interest rate, currently 4.75%, with no expectation of players repaying it.

 

 

 

Q. Why would they do this?

 

A. Players often negotiate wage deals based on take-home pay, rather than

 

pre-tax income. Using trusts allows the club to afford better players.

 

 

 

Q. Is this legal?

 

A. Yes, although it is a matter of opinion. HM Revenue & Customs has pursued cases against firms that do it, claiming they are breaking the law. Either a negotiated settlement is reached or the case becomes bogged down in court with both sides arguing the toss. It is very common, with big City firms and larger sports teams across the UK adopting the practice.

 

 

 

Q. How much money would be involved?

 

A. About �£46 million at Rangers, according to figures obtained by SportTimes. The tax man could potentially try to get back all the PAYE tax and NI contributions that would be due on this balance; assuming all the players were on the top rate of tax, this would be roughly �£24.3m, effectively doubling Rangersâ�� debt.

 

 

 

Q. Which players could be involved?

 

A. Neither Rangers nor HMRC will comment on this. After accountantsââ?¬â?¢ fees are taken into account, however, it would only make sense to pay top earners in this way ââ?¬â?? players on at least Ã?£6,000-a-week would be the most likely candidates. And, since the fund has been running since 2001, this could mean any number of Rangersââ?¬â?¢ biggest names from the past decade, including (above left to right): Fernando Ricksen, Peter Lovenkrands, Ronald De Boer, Dado Prso and Pedro Mendes.

 

 

 

Q. Shouldn�t it be the players who pay the money back?

 

A. Some would argue so, but for foreign players, at least, any such attempts would be easy to avoid, simply by leaving the UK.

 

 

 

Q. And why could this make Rangers ââ?¬Å?unsellableââ?¬Â?

 

A. Given the potential for a �£24m can of worms to open up a year or two down the line, any buyer will be cautious about making a bid. If thereâ��s any danger, it is going to rule out all but the most foolhardy of investors.

 

 

 

Bank plan puts pinch on stadium

Rangers� business plan is so restrictive that standard maintenance and repairs at Ibrox are being ignored.

 

Cash is so tight, with almost every penny spent having to be signed off by the money men, that members of the board are now embarrassed when fans ask them what is going on.

 

A source told the Evening Times: ââ?¬Å?The catering outlets are in drastic need of refurbishment. There are numerous screens in the stadium concourses that need repaired or replaced but have not been touched.

 

ââ?¬Å?General maintenance work, such as painting, needs done and there have been complaints that parts of the stadium are filthy. Everything, comes under the scrutiny of the bankââ?¬â?¢s business plan.ââ?¬Â

 

The giant jumbotron screens have also been the subject of fans� enquiries as to why they are not working properly, or rarely switched on.

 

An expenditure request was raised and signed off by the board last year, and repair was then scheduled.

 

But the company Rangers were looking to use ran into trouble and there was a delay.

 

By the time a new expenditure request was raised, with the new bank plan in place, it was felt the money would be better used elsewhere and the screens remain in need of repair and are therefore not switched on at home games.

 

 

 

No liability to Murray firm

There has been conjecture over Rangers and their link to Murray Sports, the company that owns a percentage of the club�s shares.

 

It has been claimed that the football club could be liable for an �£108m payment to Murray Sports as a result of a transaction in 2004. This is not the case. A leading financial analyst explains the numbers today in a bid to clarify this speculation for supporters.

 

He said: ââ?¬Å?When Murray Sports acquired Rangers from Murrayââ?¬â?¢s holding company in 1999, the transfer price for the 75 per cent stake was set at Ã?£61m, with Ã?£60m of it a loan repayable to the parent group.

 

ââ?¬Å?Interest was to be rolled up on the loan, with the entire sum repayable in the event of the sale of Rangers. The accounts show the accumulated interest is now at Ã?£48m, which means Sir David should by now have earned an 80% return on his investment. Instead, any buyer of Rangers will consider the clubââ?¬â?¢s debt to its bankers a high enough price to pay.

 

ââ?¬Å?If, as is likely, sufficient money is not received by Murray Sports for their shares to repay the loan notes and interest then Sir David Murrayââ?¬â?¢s empire will suffer the loss.ââ?¬Â

[rbr 1,247]

Frankie this is aimed at FF due to the amount of critiscism Daryl King was getting and also in an attempt to prove there is no anti Rangers agenda

[Frankie 8,146]

It isn't only FF that are criticising Darrell King.

 

However, I don't think many bears would seriously suggest he was anti-Rangers as opposed to failing to offer a wholly balanced version of events. Much of his information - apparently from a RFC board member - seems correct but the whole story is certainly not available for the reader to digest.

 

The most interesting aspect I took from the article is that King is admitting he was wrong to go on about �£100million+ debts as he enjoyed the company of Guidi et al on Sunday evening.

[Danny 0]

It isn't only FF that are criticising Darrell King.

 

However, I don't think many bears would seriously suggest he was anti-Rangers .

 

I think quite the contrary. Which makes this so disappointing.

[Bluedell 5,329]

We stated that senior figures at the club FEARED this would be the case when they meet the money-men next week.

 

They initially said BELIEVED rather than FEARED. There is a big difference. One is virtually a certainty and one is not.

 

Yesterday

Last week, Dave King took the unusual step of meeting a group of supporters in Johannesburg. He confirmed that he had offered the bank �£18m to take control of Rangers back in January, and had tabled an offer of �£1 for Sir David Murrayâ��s controlling shareholding. Mindful of the HMRC investigation, he wanted certain warranties agreed and structured his bid at what he felt was fair. It was rejected.

 

 

Today

FACT: We never said Dave King had made an offer. In January another newspaper reported he had offered �£18m. Yesterday we stated King had met Rangers fans last week in Johannesburg and said he wanted to buy the club.

 

Slight change there.

 

More misleading journalism for King.

 

We stand by every word.

 

Not quite every word.

[calscot 0]

The article seems to be saying, "We haven't lied at all, but look at what a good job we've done of spinning the truth to make you believe it's totally different."

 

Pretty pathetic really.

 

Anyone seen "How to get a head in advertising"? There's a scene on the train where idiot upper-middle class commuters are reading a story in the newspaper where a young man was arrested carrying a paper bag, "which may have contained drugs". Richard E. Grant then starts shouting at them, "Pork pies! It may have contained pork pies!"

 

The paper didn't lie but the commuters certainly were influenced into thinking the bag almost certainly contained drugs.

[wabashcannonball 0]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks-ignore/the-facts-that-shine-light-into-darkest-corners-of-the-crisis-engulfing-champs-1.1023755

 

 

The club did not issue a statement confirming the times and kings shit stirring, the club issued a very different statement not confirming the shit stirrers version.

 

 

""In addition, and as confirmed earlier today, there is an on-going query raised by HMRC, which is part of a pending court case. On the basis of expert tax advice provided to Rangers, the Club is robustly defending the matters raised and cannot comment further at this stage."" :spl::spl::spl:

[rbr 1,247]

Bluedell the response re-the change of Believed to Feared :

 

 

I'm told it was the ONE word they were asked to change as it would have led to a stock exchange investigation.

 

He did it at Rangers behest, that's why it changed quickly online.

 

FACT

 

 

This was posted by barrybaldy aka King

Edited April 28, 2010 by rbr

[Danny 0]

This thread and King's article show that the one paper I could tolerate, the Evening Times, is going down the crapper.

 

One of the few tabloids with a hint of broadsheet about it, it actually contains (or is that contained) some quality reporting in both news and sport. The sport section appears to be getting more red top by the day.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Bluedell the response re-the change of Believed to Feared :

 

 

I'm told it was the ONE word they were asked to change as it would have led to a stock exchange investigation.

 

He did it at Rangers behest, that's why it changed quickly online.

 

FACT

 

 

This was posted by barrybaldy aka King

 

He is however changing his story in other areas as has been pointed out by Frankie and myself.

 

Here's some more:

 

Yesterday he said "The stunning revelation has emerged on the day the Evening Times reveals how the vast majority of the �£15m windfall brought in from next termâ��s Uefa Champions League ties will also be gobbled up by the bank as Rangers are forced to work under a crippling business plan that is about to kick in.

 

Today he says "We did not say the ... Champions League money had already been ring-fenced." Sorry Darrell, but you did.

 

He also says "It has been confirmed today that the club have yet to find out what the business plan actually is" so if the club don't know what the business plan is then how can he say yesterday that the CL income WILL be gobbled up?