In Football’s “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” How Close is Charles Green to Craig Whyte? An Earley Answer

 

In the game “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” a player has to link another actor or performer to Mr Bacon in no more than six steps. The game is not intended to show that Mr Bacon is an integral part of world cinema, but rather the interconnectedness of people in a comparatively small field.

In an idle moment this morning, I tried the same with Mr Green, the new “preferred bidder” for Rangers and Mr Whyte. I offer the following simply to show how connected the world of football finance is. Nothing I say should be seen as in any way casting doubt on the bona fides of Mr Green or indeed of Mr Whyte.

All of my company research comes via duedil.com, but if there are any errors, they will be mine.

Mr Green has been heavily involved in football and business for many years. One name which crops up a few times in connection with him is John Michael Edelson, also known as Michael Edelson (and I apologise for using Wikipedia as a source).

For example, Mr Edelson was a Director of Gillpollco (No 1) Ltd from 30th April 1992 until 14th January 1997. On the latter date Mr Green became a Director and Chief Executive, although only remaining in post until April 1997.

Similarly Mr Edelson became a director of Sheffield United PLC on 10th June 1992. HE remained so until 14th January 1997 when he stepped down. That same day, Sheffield United PLC got a new Chief Executive, Charles Green! This time he was there until leaving on 30th June 1998.

Mr Edelson is now a director of Manchester United and described by Wikipedia as follows:-

“He is an angel investor, venture capitalist and philanthropist who has been instrumental in creating numerous cash shell companies on both AIM and PLUS. As a result of these, he was nicknamed “The Shellmeister” by Richard Rivlin in an article in the Sunday Telegraph in 1996 and the nickname has stuck to this day.”

Therefore, it is not surprising he has wide business connections.

Moving forward down the time line, we see that Mr Edelson was a director of a company called Regenesis Group Ltd from 10th March 2004 until 10th March 2005.

He was also a director of Worthington PLC from 5th May 2005 until 6th July 2010.

The latter gives us his “Kevin Bacon” connection with Craig Whyte.

When Mr Edelson stepped down as director of Worthington PLC in July 2010, he was replaced by Peter Townsend, a director of Regenesis Holdings Ltd (not Regenesis Group Ltd). Regenesis Holdings owns 14% of Worthington PLC.

On 12th August 2010, a company shown as based in Geneva acquired a 7.54% shareholding in Worthington PLC. This amounted to 890,000 shares. The Company is Liberty Capital Ltd, Route de Trelex 8, 1266, Duillier, Geneva. The contact name is Craig Whyte!

Worthington PLC has a connection too with Mr Whyte as it is an investor in the Jerome Group PLC Pension Fund. On 12th March 2012, CQN reported that the Pension Fund was a claimant of sums held by Mr Whyte’s former solicitors, Collyer Bristow, in the name of Rangers or Rangers Group. It was suggested by Worthington that the Fund was looking at lending money to Rangers and that these funds had been released by the solicitors without authority.

As a final cherry on the cake, the sole director of Regenesis Holdings Ltd is Mr Wulstan Earley. If you search this blog you will find a number of mentions of him and his brother Aidan Earley. Indeed the Earley brothers are involved with Banstead Athletic Football Club, which benefited from a £250,000 payment from Rangers prior to it entering administration!

So, in the footballing Kevin Bacon game, I start at Charles Green, move to Michael Edelson and thence arrive at Craig Whyte. If being pernickety, you would force me to add in Peter Townsend of Regenesis/Worthington as an extra step.

Bearing in mind that Mr Green has said he has only ever met Mr Whyte three times (and I hasten to say I am not doubting him when he does so), that might have been through bad luck as they move, or seem to have moved, in similar circles.

Does this mean anything negative about Mr Green? Of course not. What about his consortium of 20 people?

Until there is transparency and clarity regarding them, then no one, especially the Rangers fans, will know.

 

Posted by Paul McConville

 

About these ads

114 Comments

Filed under Alleged Humour, Charles Green, Craig Whyte's Companies

114 responses to “In Football’s “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” How Close is Charles Green to Craig Whyte? An Earley Answer

  1. SouthernExile

    Nailed!

    Nemesis coming.

  2. Insomniac

    Great stuff again Paul. A few more pieces of the jigsaw added. Still plenty of time for the MSM to splash this tomorrow. Just who are these people? Rangers fans have a right to know.

  3. rhino221

    no wonder mr green dont want the names mentioned just now!
    are u listening hector lol hh

  4. Jim

    Did that 250,000 ever reach Banstead Athletic? I seem to remember that it was paid to a company that had the words “Banstead” and “Athletic” in its name, but that representatives of the club itself had no knowledge of such a payment.

  5. Glazert Tim

    Paul.
    On the money as per. Perhaps Messrs Duff and Phelps should be made aware of duedil.com. They may not have heard of it before as it has only been mentioned in just about every reputable financial site and journal for some time now.

    Perhaps they don’t have broadband access at the minute in Govan. What do you think the scrap value of copper cabling is these days?

  6. Peter Caid

    Get this sent to the Daily Record and the Sun mate, wee email !
    Nah , second thoughts , don’t tell them !

  7. Jack Sparrow

    It’s a bit clutchy-at-strawy, is it not, to link Green to Edelson because the former took over two posts from the latter on the same date. Unless you can link him or his consortium in stronger terms, this is a bit of a waste of everyone’s time, most of all yours.

  8. 100bjd

    Worth a chat on this one, Paul

  9. ocuilte

    Paul, the legal stuff around RFC situation is all very confusing and depressing at the same time.

    What I have to say has been said in other ways by many others, but it needs to be said again and again.

    I have no background in company law but I do own and run a small company (successfully to date).I have always been told that although it is “limited” it is my legal duty as director to pay any debtors. I also had been told that any attempt to do anything else except pay the creditors would end up with me in in the Gaol,

    The RFC(IA) situation seems to suggest that MSM and the government establishment in general are happy that a company can drive a coach and horses through insolvency law. All the talk of newco, incubator, asset transfer etc is clearly – if it allowed – legalized theft from creditors – and yet no official says “hold on, don’t be daft, that’s not going to happen, pay your debts!!!”

    Why don’t small companies do this all the time (or maybe they will now)? I know personally of a small printers who had to sell all of their machinery and premises give all the proceeds of it to creditors when they were broke. If only they had started a newco and moved the equipment and premises into it and then left the creditors with what???

    Can this all really be legal?? SImilarly if HMRC are at the very least keeping out of this when they are owed £m then perhaps we should all just stop paying tax both as companies and as individuals.

  10. Martin McMahon

    Looking at the basics of the Green deal on the BBC site, it seems a very poor deal for crediitors. It would appear that the creditors either accept the £8.5M which the Green consortium is putting up for a CVA or if they don’t the club’s assets will be sold off to a newco, owned by the Green consortium. Presumably the sale of these assets is not for more than £8.5 M or the creditors would be crazy to accept the CVA (as the money raised from a sale of assets would to a newco presumably be used to pay creditors as far as possible) How can the sale of all of the assets of Rangers for £8.5M be realistic? Surely they could raise £8.5M just by selling off their best players? Am I being very dense, or have I missed something very obvious?

    • For the first time in this saga, I have come down on the side of having Rangers expelled from the league. The Green offer, as you say is a joke. They say that they have many people on board. They offer little. Green seems to be playing to the fans, not the creditors. It is high time the authorities, SFA, SPL, HMRC, UEFA and whatever other regulatory body is available come down on them UEFA, for failure to deal with the Rapid Vienna, Manchester City and Arsenal things, as well as Financial Fair Play, SFA an SPL for the current list of items that have been found against them.

      The Green strategy brings the game into disrepute, if not in a formal sense, then in the sense that it will disgust a lot of people. What reputation can it have if it willingly holds creditors hostage to accept a minimal offer, or be damned. He says that HMRC surely have to take it. Only true if they take the case in isolation.

      HMRC can afford to have the CVA fail. It will demonstrate that they are willing to go down that route if you go too far. Maybe clubs would take their duty to hand over monies that surely are not theirs to do with as they will, when due, and no later. Whyte called it a ploy, but it would surely only have been a ploy if, at the end of the day, the money had been there to hand over if and when HMRC caved in on the ‘Big tax Case’, which they were never going to do. I assume that there is nothing to say that you can withhold further tax payments if you disagree with the tax man about something. No, Green wants to benefit from what has gone on before. He wants Rangers FC to fulfill its divine right as a Champions League team. My impression is that he wants to keep the present playing staff, and that the consortium is willing to put money in AFTER the deal is done. No, I think that only way to force clubs to understand that, no matter who you are, you can go under.

      One question, though. Can somebody like UEFA tell Everton that they can pay some of the money that is due to Rangers, directly to Rapid Vienna; or, for that matter, can Rapid Vienna insist (by whatever means is available to them) that Everton pay them their due?

      Sorry. I am slightly annoyed.

  11. Martin McMahon

    Apologies “sale of assets to a newco would presumably be used”

  12. James Patrick

    Could anyone tell me when Rangers made payments to players through the EBT scheme? I heard it they started in in 1999 but when did they stop using the ebt scheme make payments? Sorry, I know this is a little off topic with the above article.

    • Robert

      According to the Rangers accounts the last year was 2010.
      The value of the EBTs per year were as follows:
      Year £M
      2010 1.36
      2009 2.36
      2008 2.29
      2007 4.99
      2006 9.19
      2005 7.24
      2004 7.25
      2003 6.79
      2002 5.18
      2001 1.01
      Total £47.66M

      • Robert, Rangers accounts for 2011 have not been published, so we have yet to learn when they finished. All we can say for sure is that there has not been a reporting period without an EBT.

      • Robert

        Paul67, Yes I agree that the Rangers accounts for 2011 have not been published so there could be EBTs in them. However, in December 2010 HMRC announced proposed legislation aimed at once and for all closing what HMRC regard as disguised remuneration schemes (i.e. using EBTs as a method of paying employees with out having to pay national insurance or tax). So I do not expect to see any EBTs in 2011 for Rangers (that least those that HMRC would have an issue with).

      • James Patrick

        Thanks Robert, I cant believe it was going on as late as 2010.

  13. Jinky

    I think thers more juicy stufff to come from this saga. I love iT!!

  14. Jinky

    Maybe Mr Green could pay Nicola Young the £3500 the famous Glasgow Rangers owe her? Nicola runs a charity that cares for children who are traumatised by war all over the world!! Shame on them!!!

  15. Jinky

    Accounts?? What accounts??

  16. Jinky

    Maybe the 50million the gers fans say they can raise can pay the paper boy and also Rapid Vienna? Disgusting is putting it mildly!!!

  17. Portbhoy

    Sounds like out of the frying pan and into the fire me thinks.

  18. Jack Sparrow

    Don’t see a reply button on your latest “Both” comment above….

    There is no connectedness.

    Your research on Edelson is fascinating, but apart from Liberty investing in Worthington AFTER Edelson left, and Edelson being a director of Regenesis 7 years ago which is now (no date, so I presume now) solely controlled by Wunstan ‘Banstead’ Earley, there is not much to suggest Edelson has direct or current links to Whyte.

    And the fact that Green happened to be the replacement for Edelson in two different roles is either coincidence or something you will need to properly research and evidence if you want to make that connection. I don’t see why you would make public all that research and connecting the dots only to come up with the square root of nothing. Unless of course your objective in posting this blog entry was just to keep the slavering hordes happy as Mr Green begins his Rangers repair job.

    I know you Celtic minded bloggers want to leave no stone unturned in your quest to dig the dirt on Rangers (because you presumably have nothing better to do with your time on the day that your team lifts the SPL trophy for the first time in 4 years), but this is reaching new ground.

    • Jinky

      Pay ur debts ya fuddddd!!!

    • Littlerabbits

      I think you’re missing the point – you’ve never played the Kevin Bacon game have you? If I can get 7 degrees between me and big Kev it’s not because there is a connection, it’s because I know someone who knows someone who knows someone……etc. Paul is merely pointing out the interconnectedness of the footballing/finance world.

    • Jack,

      Did you read the piece? I said right at the top that I was looking at how people could be connected, in the same way as the “Kevin Bacon” game. I made it clear that I was not suggesting that Mr Green was a front for Mr Whyte.

      You will also see the piece is tagged “alleged humour”. It was meant to be light-hearted.

      I don’t aim my stuff at the “slavering hordes” you refer to. I am not sure who you are talking about.

      Is it your position that Mr Green, as the preferred bidder, is ipso facto good for Rangers? Is it anti-Rangers to look at him and his backers? Where is the transparency and clarity Mr McCoist demanded in another context?

      I am, of course, an Albion Rovers minded blogger, rather than a Celtic one. And I have recived interesting information about possible connections of Mr Green, but would not publish them till I have evidence to back it up.

      If so, you can be assured that piece won’t be labelled as humour.

      • Jack Sparrow

        The point of the game is that one has to know or interact with another to make the connection…. Green replaced, did not interact with, Edelson so even in jest it is nonsensical.

        As for my take on Green, I like the way he spoke in the 40 minute press conference, but the jury will most definitely be out until such times as the club starts to produce good results on and off the field, taking the circumstances and constraints he may be under under into consideration. With the hindsight of what happened with Whyte, I and probably a lot of other persons with concerns about the future of Rangers, would welcome any negative information in early course, but the manner in which it is delivered is also important.

        Which is why posting crap like this will undermine your efforts to be taken seriously across the board, and not just another cult-hero blogger who is copy/pasted on various intellectually vacuous (mainly Celtic minded) forums.

    • Jinky

      As the song goes. Buddy Can You Spare A Dime?? Ans NOPE!!!!

    • Frankieb123

      “SPL Trophy for the first time in 4 years”. Try 4 years out of 7 sparrow brain.

    • NumbNuts

      Thank the Good Lord for the ‘Celtic minded bloggers’, the lazy moniker for anyone who raises the virtual pen to push for facts abound the biggest sports story in Scottish history.

      If you are happy that Rangers supporters now have the stomach for the challenge and won’t revert to type by wilting in the face of the ‘we are the people’ hostility shown at the first sign of anyone breaking ranks, then perhaps the keyboards can be stood down. The bloggers will take a step back and wait for the inevitable long period of silent acquiescence to finish, some days, weeks or years from now, with the inevitable crash and cries of ‘but we didnae know!’

      The article wasn’t quite my cup of tea either. Sorry Paul, its all about opinions. Had you said so and left it at that then all would be fine. However it seems you are bearing a grudge against the blogger activity behind this story, questioning the value and motivation of those who have spent their time reading and contributing to what you call “intellectually vacuous (mainly Celtic minded) forums”. The truth is this virtual community has included fans of all clubs and fans of none. If there’s not enough Rangers fans on there, then where are they? Is that indeed not just a reflection of the problem to date?

      So yes there is plenty of anti-Rangers sentiment out there, and plenty of anti-Celtic, anti-Aberdeen, anti-this-that-and-the-next-thing but behind that unfortunately unavoidable chaff, on this story the virtual community has set the pace and the benchmark for eeking out facts, debunking PR spin and MSM mediocrity. I for one would look forward to seeing a big Thank-You card arriving from a suitably humbled and grateful RST 8-)

  19. Glazert Tim

    I think we all realise the tenuous linkages here but the enertainment value cannot be ignored easily. The only thing I would pick you up on is that where Rangers are concerned, six degrees of Kevin Bacon would not be enough. For every six degrees we spent, they would spend twelve.

    On the flip side, all the left field capers that have taken place over the past few months would also have seemed like science fiction not too long ago so anything goes.

    Suffice to say, in the words of Thunderbirds Gerry Anderson, “Anything could happen in the next half hour” (God, I’m starting to sound like D&P)

    P.S. I need a new set of driveway gates. If they do liquidate, do you think the main stand gates would be sold individually or a set. Would look lovely in an Emerald green.

    • Jinky

      I take it you are going to acid clean them first???

      • Glazert Tim

        Right enough Jinky!

        Might just buy them and take them to Daltons Scrappies and see what ‘quantum’ can be reached.

        As for trusting a man called Green, well Opportunity Knocks…..the stationery……the assets……..the carpets……..the sugar out the canteen and any anything that’s not nailed down.

  20. Jinky

    You got to admire the curns trusting a guy called Green!!! lol

  21. weeminger

    Of course there’s a degree of dubiousness about that Swiss address. Look it up on Google Maps. It’s a wee industrial estate miles out of Geneva. Not the kind of place you’d expect a man with off the radar wealth to operate out of.

    The only possible reason I could see for CW using that address is that another company registered in Tortola, BVI (called Campus2000 SA) was there.

    To me it still looked like a share purchase done with details he’d never registered a business at.

  22. John Burns

    Hi Paul, just found your site over the last couple of days and have spent many hours reading your fascinating and informed writings.

    Can I ask a question regarding the Rangers fiasco, in particular the CVA proposed by Green and the Ticketus involvement?

    Is it not the case that Ticketus would reject any ‘pence in the pound’ offer in a CVA from The Rangers Group (Wavetower), as they might jeopardise their legal action against Craig Whyte and The Rangers Group (Wavetower), or, will it be seen as minimising their loss when the case comes to court?

    My opinion is that having recently raised this action, Ticketus has virtually blown any hope of a CVA ‘out of the water’.

    Green’s press interview yesterday had many more caveats than convictions.

    I would be grateful of your views – thanks in advance.

    • Niall Walker

      Ticketus are interested in Craig Whyte and not Rangers, it is irrelevant what they get from a CVA they will sue CW for the balance.

      • John Burns

        Hi Niall, thanks for coming back – are you aware that Ticketuslegal documents mentions Craig Whyte AND The Rangers Group (formerly Wavetower) – so they are suing both?

      • Bhoywonder

        Niall,

        Agreed, but Ticketus clearly have a hidden agenda. They stated quite clearly that their deal was with RFC and not CW because in 2009 they had originally approach SDM. Since CW bought RFC from SDM then CW with his floating charge is liable. So, why then look for 2 bites of the cherry and state they wish to be regarded as creditors in the CVA?….and pursue CW in court? It stinks to high heaven!!

  23. Gilleasbuig Aotrom

    While skimming Daily Record blogs I came across results of a search conducted by someone on a string of companies(post Sheffield Wednesday) associated with Green, and subsequently dissolved, for whatever reason, and wondered if anyone else had come across this info.

  24. Jinky

    This Bacon guy sounds a bit of a ham!! Hope he’s not tellin porkies?/ Ill get ma coat!! o)))))) Ps Has Aluko gave himself a contract yet??

  25. Jinky

    An accountant has to have liability insurance usual cover is 1 million. I think this the prob with thems getting thems accounts credited, They cant find an accountant with 134million liabilty cover. LOL o)))))

  26. fisiani

    CHARLES GREEN’S consortium will hand Ally McCoist a multi-million pound war chest this summer claims the Express.
    Seriously , they think they can offer a paltry 8.5 million pounds to stiff the creditors for over 90cents in the dollar and stiff every taxpayer in Scotland for 20 pounds. THEN spend hundreds of millions on buying star players.
    If they truly have hundreds of millions then they can pay off all the debts first. There should be no need for a CVA.
    No creditor will accept this shabby and probably illegal treatment.

    • I have just read that article and it convinces me of what I said above:
      If Mike McDonald is quoted accurately, then something needs to be done, and banning them seems to be the only option. The Express quotes him as saying that the will have money coming from Europe, the UK, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi and Singapore; that everybody wants to get Rangers back where they **should be**, in the Champions league; that it is a massive club and that it should be at the forefront of British and European football. Nothing about what they are not doing for the creditors.

      He also says that top agent Paul Stretford is involved (para 3).
      http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320185/?

      I would be worried.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7498114.stm
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jan/02/sir-alex-ferguson-agents

    • Niall Walker

      The consortium headed by Charles Green has already stated Rangers will be run on a firm financial footing( a la Fergus McCann), there wll be no war chest chasing European glory ever again at Rangers plc.

      Apart from anything else, even the most optimistic Rangers fan must anticipate further European bans for their EBT debacle, you don’t need a war chest to compete against Celtic in the SPL.

      • Unless he is being seriously misquoted, in the Express article I provided the link to above, Mike McDonald said:

        “We have got all our funding together for every aspect of the take over and now it is just a case of sorting it out. Charles has had a good conversation with Ally McCoist and we want him to carry on managing the team. **Charles has brought significant funds to the table because we know we need hundreds of millions to be successful at this level.**”

        I, too have seen the bit about Fergus McCann, and I am not going to dispute it. The point I am making is that one of the consortium seems to think that there will be – over whatever period of time – hundreds of millions of pounds. My anger is that it goes little way towards dealing with creditors, some of whom can ill afford to lose out.

      • Bhoywonder

        No Niall, they don’t beed a war chest, they just need to cheat the Taxman out of about £47m and field ineligible players!

  27. Niall Walker

    Good morning Gents,

    When one clutches enough straws one can build a straw man and set fire to it,:
    The plain reality is a CVA is now the most likely outcome and it wil be in the best interests of the creditors, Rangers and the SPL..
    Both Ticketus and Craig Whyte have left the building and all HMRC conditions for a CVA have been met. It would be perverse for HMRC to reject the 8.5 million CVA and then agree to an 8.5 million CVA after the liquidation of the assets to a newco. For all intensive purposes they are one and the same, the companies will merge back once the agreement is given.

    Richard Green has quite cleverly spread the high risk of this Rangers gamble amongst many small investors, the costs of restructuring and short term operating losses will be shared by many investors instead of one.

    • And why would it be perverse? If they let everybody do that, it would mean, as others have said before me, that they – and others – can do it all over again. Some clubs already have.

      It is absurd to say that they have met all the HMRC conditions for a CVA. They offer little, and say that they are going to take Rangers back to the top of the tree, they are going to give the manager a war chest to spend, as and when the club are freed from the shackles of any penalty that they end up with. They do not see it as a gamble, they see it as an exercising of their RIGHT, and they hold the creditors hostage while they do so.

      You call Mr Green, Richard. The Richard Greene (with an e at the end) that I know, was the actor who played Robin Hood in the 1950s. He tended to rob from the rich to give to the poor, I see nothing of that here.

      • Niall Walker

        Good morning David,

        Forgive my senior moment, good old Charles and others buy companies through CVAs all the time, it is neither illegal nor unethical to pay the market value for insolvent assets or an insolvent company. I fail to see your grievance, the PAYE offender is not being rewarded and the creditors would be worse off. Rangers did not invent the system you condemn and insolvent businesses are turned around every day, saving jobs and paying taxes.

        It is not absurd just because you say so, the offer delivers the most to the creditors,the owner has been removed, the owner is not being rewarded and there is no preferential treatment being given to unsecured creditors.
        All of the above meets the conditions for HMRCs agreement to a CVA.

        No one is holding creditors hostage, they are being offered the highest price for their debt.

      • Bhoywonder

        As I’ve consistently stated, a CVA will not happen. In order for a CVA to be agreed the creditors need to be aware of all debts totals. The Court of Session has yet to reveal Hector’s overall amount, so the CVA will be held up until the First Tier Tax case result is announced. This is highly likely to go against RFC (ia)

        It is not only secured creditos who get to vote on the CVA proposals, it’s also the unsecured creditors…..which includes Hector’s £75m.

        And as an East Fife fan you certainly seem to have divided loyalties.

        And, it’s for all intents and purposes not “intensive purposes”, although some of your opinions should clearly be referred to intensive care.

    • 100bjd

      Richard Green is/was an actor most famous for playing Robin Hood of “rob the rich to give to the poor fame!” Are you making a freudian slip here!!! I really do think your view of the CVA is unlikely although we will wait and see.

    • Hugh Jarse

      Niall, I need to pick you up on several lines.

      “The plain reality is a CVA is now the most likely outcome and it wil be in the best interests of the creditors, Rangers and the SPL..”

      The plain reality is that this is not true unless the “investors” are willing to kick A LOT more cash into the CVA pot. The amounts reported are single digit millions against a debt that will be circa £150m if the “big case” is lost – which is likely. The plain reality is that the creditors can, and will, walk away from a derisory settlement when liquidation will realise more.

      “good old Charles and others buy companies through CVAs all the time,”

      You don’t buy a company through a CVA, it is a mechanism for a company in administration to exit administration.

      ” it is neither illegal nor unethical to pay the market value for insolvent assets or an insolvent company.”

      This is absolutely true. I have yet to see any report of any of the Knights (Green, Blue or the ones that say ni) offering anything like the market value of the assets of Rangers. The largest bid so far reported is a (questionable) £8m or so. The value of the player registrations alone has to exceed that, let alone a reasonable open market value for Ibrox, Murray Park and any other assets.

      • Niall Walker

        Morning Hugh,

        One cannot exit from administration under a new owner if the old owner does not sell the shares, ergo if one buys the shares then one is buying the company.

        The creditors are not being offered more in liquidation, why you believe his to be the case is beyond me. There has been nothing stopping anyone from buyng the liquidated assets of Rangers since it went into administration, and yet no offers.

        Its simple, these assets are only worth 18-20 million to a commercially viable Rangers, liquidation reduces this viability by some margin, in effect the assets are worth less not more. liquidation carries huge financial penalties to a new Rangers, penalties that proportionally reduce the value of the assets.

    • NumbNuts

      Hi Niall –

      You have touched on the key point for me; Just what will HMRC do. Consistent thread of the broader debate has been what the Herald today correctly refers to as the “polarised views” on this issue.

      Have a read at the link below. It explains the rationale for the view that CVA route is neither “plain reality” or necessarily the “most likely outcome”. But who knows? This story is a gift that keeps giving…

      http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/two-sides-of-the-same-coin.17596205

    • AliM

      Niall, all your posts on here are filled with words that present confidence that you know what you’re talking about, that you’re sure about the future turn of events, that everything will be OK and HMRC (and Ticketus) will accept the CVA.

      Yet, (and apologies if this seems like a blow below the belt) when I see you using phrases like “For all intensive purposes”, it instantly, in my eyes, removes a lot of credibility from everything else you have to say.

      Its akin to reading a CV with a lot of spelling mistakes in it – even if the candidate says they have the right qualifications, it goes straight into the bin.

  28. Niall Walker

    Financal pragmatism dictates Rangers were too big too fail, they are worth more to the creditors and the SPL as a commercially viable going concern.

    Is it fair ? Probably not, but its necessary.

    • Hugh Jarse

      You keep saying things like that, do you really believe it?

      Rangers have failed, they are not a viable going concern, they have not been for a number of years. They have left a huge mess, this is all about the best way to a) clean it up and b) make sure it doesn’t happen again.

      Lehmans were too big too fail, as were RBS, HBOS, AIG, etc. Yet fail they did.

      • Niall Walker

        Hugh,

        One small point, the players are not worth anything in liquidation, the assets are worth next to nothing except to a football club called Rangers, and if they did manage to flog them then the secured creditors get paid first. HMRC would be behind the debentures, catering contract, redundancies and admin fees….approx 13-14 milion.

        The reality is a liquidated Rangers will pay HMRC and other unsecured crditors nothing.

      • Niall Walker

        RBS, HBOS, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG were too big to fail, thats why they were all bailed out at the taxpayers expense, Rangers will be bailed out in my opinion.

      • If financial institutions go bust – and certainly those with an implied US government guarantee like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – and those which were the guarantor for much of the worlds complex financial instruments – like AIG – there are knock on effects which would make the Wall Street crash seem like the bell on a cat’s collar. You cannot be serious if you are equating their situations to that at a sports club with debt problems?

    • Hugh Jarse

      “the assets are worth next to nothing except to a football club called Rangers”

      Nonsense.

      The players are worth something to other football clubs and therefore will have to be sold to the highest bidder. Unless a newco is willing to pay at least as much for them as their open market value or they, and D&P, will face legal action from creditors. Even at firesale prices there has to be £10-20m of transfer value there.

      Ibrox is worth something, Murray Park is worth something, the various other assets are all worth something. Again the newco will need to pay a fair price for these or they, and D&P. will face legal action. It might not be prime development land but there is a development value for Ibrox and Murray Park nonetheless

      The problem is that none of the sums being reported appear to come close to the value of these assets. In fact the sums involved in both CVA and newco scenarios to date have been utter p**stakes.

      I personally can’t see how a newco can be pulled off without an investment of £40-50 million plus whatever is required for the next three years plus of working capital.

      And Niall, the point I was trying to make is that Rangers are not “too big to fail”. Other companies that were regarded that way failed anyway. The situation of Rangers in no way compares to the companies I mentioned – they are insignificant in comparison.

      If Rangers were to disappear completely Scottish football would still exist, it would move on and it would recover. It might even thrive. They are not bigger than the game.

  29. Niall Walker

    David,

    Rangers will be structured to break even on domestic income, they will make a profit out of Europe. Like Celtic, they will not find it easy to progress in Europe and like Celtic they will plug away building a competitive team to achieve this goal. I haven’t a clue why some lunatic is quoting hundreds of millions of investment, maybe he is trying to maintain the over inflated expectatons of Rangers fans.

    This business model will only work if 45,000 fans still believe they have a shot at the big time and a chance of beating Celtic, SDM knew this and it prevented the slash and burn cost cutting that was needed.

  30. I am delighted to be able to cheer up Jack Sparrow who did not like my whimsical “connections” regarding Mr Green with the news that I do have some interesting material to post regarding various matters. All that remains is for me to write it up, with appropriate supporting documsntation linked thereto.

    Real life means that it might not be till late tonight or even tomorrow, but I think it will prove worth a read.

    I should say that, for the avoidance of doubt, and perhaps to the diasppointment of some, I am not suggesting for a second that Mr Green has any of the alleged skeletons rattling about similar to those which appeared regarding Mr Whyte.

    And as for the “we have millions which we will pump in when we pay off the creditors for buttons”…. even if legal, and it no doubt is, it seems morally dubious. However, it leaves on the table the issue of the SFA sanctions, and the ongoing SPL investigation into dual contracts and the rest.

    It is therefore a brave decision for the Green Knights to commit to a purchase whilst these matters remain unresolved.

  31. Niall Walker

    The market value of the land less demolition costs is zero, we are in the middle of the worst recession since time began, building homes or retail outlets in Govan is a worse investment than buying Rangers without knowing the SFA penalties.

    • Hugh Jarse

      Keep drinking the Kool Aid

    • Jim Harkins

      Sorry Niall, but the statement that land in Govan is worth “zero” because there is a recession is a nonsense. Have you never heard of people, including property speculators, who remain rich during a recession? Have you never heard of land banks? like most of your “sparring partners” I remain convinced that the value of Rangers’ assets far exceeds any of the offers made so far and that the creditors should be pushing for a sale. A new football club can find somewhere to play if it puts its mindto it.

  32. NumbNuts

    Hi Niall –

    The Herald today has an article that articulates why a CVA route is not as certain as you are implying. Not saying you are mad wrong to think a CVA could be an outcome, esp given that there is expert comment out there that would support such a view, but it certainly shows why this is far from certain. If I had to put £1 of my hard earned cash on either option it would be on liquidation. Not maliciously, just that I prefer to keep my £1. ;-)

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/two-sides-of-the-same-coin.17596205

    • Niall Walker

      Good afternoon Numbnuts,

      I am certain about death but not taxes, I believe HMRC will probably agree to a CVA because CW received nor receives any reward, and is out of their deliberations. I do not believe losing your company for nothing encourages non-payment of tax or vat, never mind losing 26.7 million in a year.

      Its not as if CW paid himself 10 million and his brother is starting up the business again through a CVA.

      • I don’t think that HMRC will take the position that because Craig Whyte walks away that Rangers should benefit. The outstanding payment on PAYE & NI is I think around five hundredths of one percent (I’m cr@p at maths – thats £27m/£467bn). Is that even a drop in the ocean? Or is that a second’s evaporation of that ocean? Worth even missing a step for?

        But oh, what a message it would sent.

        I think they would more go the route, as has been described (at length) by the SFA non-anon tribunal, that the actions of the directors are the actions of Rangers (IA) and vice versa. Otherwise, again, what precedent does it set other owners of companies who may feel that HMRC is the easiest form of short term funding available? Which is appraently the exact notion of Rangers under the ownership of Whyte, with the implicit knowledge of its board.

        Again, this is purely my own thinking, no experience of PAYE/tax other than regular fines for late with self assessment, which I of course pay…

      • Hugh Jarse

        “I believe HMRC will probably agree to a CVA because CW received nor receives any reward”

        Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?

        Are you forgetting that the biggest chunk of the debt owed to HMRC was accrued under the stewardship of Sir David Murray? Or that HMRC are pursuing a body corporate and not individuals?

        HMRC will not agree to a CVA because
        a) the amount being “offered” at the moment is derisory (6p or so in the £ was the value of the last public domain” offer”) and they will do better by forcing the company into liquidation
        b) they are fighting a principle here, they are after EBTs in a big way and no 6p in the pound CVA is worth the enforcement value of squeezing Rangers to the end.

  33. Niall Walker

    There is one thing puzzling me, why did CW not make his floating charge airtight, this man is an expert on liquidaton. There must be something in the Ticketus deal that made his floating charge shaky, if I had to guess it may have something to do with financial assistance.

    He also didn’t calculate the financial implications of his governance on the asset values he thought he had secured. He forgot about the effects of UEFA, SFA and SPL penalties on the Rangers business model and its consequential reduction in asset values. Even if his floating charge was sound he would still lose 18 million on the current offer.

    I think people believe this man to be more shrewd than he actually is.

  34. Niall Walker

    Jockybhoy,

    I believe when HMRC are dealing with one owner that has control of the cheque book, making 200 plus employees redundant out of malice seems a perverse form of justice. The deterrant is aimed at those responsible for the accounts, he has gone and will not be harmed in any way by their actions.

    Each case is viewed on its indivdual merits, I believe this one allows HMRC to settle.

    • As others have said, HMRC, are NOT just dealing with Craig Whyte. It might be that the reason that the thing came about in PART of the problem with HMRC came about because Craig Whyte deliberately instructed Mr Olverman to withhold payment of taxes due, but there is another part that cannot simply be ignored either that started in the David Murray era. Would you say that the David Murray bit should be ignored simply because Mr Murray has gone?

      These employees have been treated very badly by the Club. They think that they are paying their taxes, indeed, monies are taken out of their wages to pay their taxes, and wing their way off to the tax man … no let’s hold them back until we get our way over the big tax case, and while we’re at it, oh dear, where did that money go? … and so on. Then they owe money to other creditors, not just the tax man. They have to be thought of, as well. How many are there? It is not just something between Rangers and the Tax Man to be taken in isolation.

      Finally (for the moment), the deterrent is not just aimed at Craig Whyte. It is aimed at any and all who would want to do as he has done, in any way shape or form. It is also aimed at a practice that predates Craig Whyte (EBTs, image rights, etc.); getting football clubs to deal with tax matters in a responsible way. And so, it is not malice.

      • And, on the topic at hand because full transparency and clarity seem to be issues here, perhaps I should declare this ‘Six degrees of Kevin Bacon’ connection with Mr Whyte:

        Myself -> Bobby Clark (former Aberdeen Goalkeeper and sports instructor at my school for a while. He was not impressed with my footballing skills, and said so.) -> John Greig (fellow Scottish International with Bobby Clark) -> Craig Whyte.

        Should I resign?

      • Niall Walker

        David,

        The consequences of SDM and CW’s actions are HMRC demands that make the company insolvent, this is the message and warning to all company directors. There is no reason to liquidate the company to drive this message home, saving the company through a CVA is not saving SDM or CW, it is saving over 200 tax paying jobs and a tax paying company. There is no geater incentive to an owner to pay his tax than the loss of ownership, nobody at Rangers is getting away with anything.
        I have posted HMRC’S policy on CVAs, there are conditions and Rangers meet these conditions, each case is judged on its individual merits.

        Anyway, its only my opinion and we will soon find out.

    • HMRC wouldn’t be making them redundant out of malice, but because the company that employs them owes them money.
      As the Financial Time reported in December:
      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbc6c7aa-20f7-11e1-8a43-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1ux0UY9tS

      The number of petitions for bankruptcy filed by Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in Scotland has nearly doubled over a three-year period, says McGrigors, the law firm, which obtained the statistics under the Freedom of Information Act. The number of winding-up orders issued by the Revenue against businesses in Scotland has increased 75 per cent in the same period…. A director at Mcgrigors is quoted at length: “Where HMRC can see you have a robust business plan and a strong order book there is still some leniency. In the absence of either, the chances of being granted a reprieve under the ‘time to pay’ regime are increasingly slim… In many cases businesses have been given time to trade their way out of trouble, but they are now hearing the sound of chickens coming home to roost. The message from HMRC is clear – if you have been given time to settle your tax affairs but have been unable or unwilling to do so, there will be no second chances.”

      What makes Rangers 200 employees more special than the thousands that preceded them or indeed that will follow, follow?

    • Bhoywonder

      Organisations are liquidated all the time, at the expense of the workforce. What you seem to be saying is that RFC (ia) should be saved to protect their staff. Why? RFC (ia) are at the minute, insolvent, they have no income. They are not a going concern. The money from Green’s “consortium” is for the creditors. How are the players and staff to be paid until the new season kicks in? Possible money through court action could take years.

      Firstly, The integrity of the sport is paramount. Without integrity you have no sport. Secondly, the punishment must fit the crime and in this case, as with Mr Piggott, custodial sentences will be appropriate for all involved in the Big Tax Scam. Thirdly, processes should be put in place to prevent this from ever happening again.

      It isn’t enough for RFC (ia) or anyone connected to the club to say “it wisnae me; a big boy did it and ran away” Rangers FC plc (ia) will be sold off to the highest bidder and will emerge in Division 3 of the SFL. Of that there is no doubt. As Paul might say “The rest m’lud, is pure conjecture”

      • Niall Walker

        I am saying Rangers should be saved because it delivers the highest return to the creditors, it can make axabl profits and it secures 200 tax paying jobs. Liquidation does the opposite, do the math.
        Liquidation occurs because the business is not worth saving, the investors believe Rangers can be saved and will invest after the CVA with their own money ( unlike CW).
        Rangers IS being sold off to the highest bidder and you obect to this because it is not a liquidation sale, may I suggest this has little to do with sporting integrity or sympathy for the creditors.,

        No criminality has been adjudged as yet, if or when this happens then the individuals will be brought to justice, I can assure you Rangers playing in Divison 3 will not be the sentence imposed by a court of law for such criminality.

    • Bhoywonder

      HMRC are dealing with RFC plc (ia) not any individual. That includes ALL directors and executives going back over 10 years. Any action they take will be against RFC plc (ia) as an organisation. There will be another organisation chasing those directors and executives following liquidation and they wear uniforms!!

    • Niall 2.29
      “The deterrant is aimed at those responsible for the accounts” – exactly! And the fact the rest of the board were seemingly aware of dodgy dealings yet did nothing to bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities/HMRC is exactly the reason Rangers as a company needs to be punished! If it seems to directors of compnaies that they can make someone a scapegoat and get away with scr€wing over the taxman, the public purse goes to hell in a handcart.

      • Niall Walker

        Rangers will be punished by HMRC but they cannot afford to pay the punishment, liquidation or CVA is not an HMRC punishment, it is a consequene of insolvency.

        • OK, liquidation is a consequence of insolvency, which is a consequence of HMRC punishment (or at least the consequence of the corporate entity that is Rangers deliberately deciding to pursue a strategy (!) of withholding HMRC’s money after they had taken it from their employees’ wages.

          The HMRC bills are what pushed Rangers into insolvency. Agreed. But that’s not even a punishment, it’s just a bill.

          Why the heck would HMRC let Rangers and its directors off the money they have systematically taken off their employees but kept for their own use (running a sporting endeavour) rather than paying the entity that money is due to?

          This isn’t wee/big or any other tax optimisation/mitigation whatever. THIS IS TAKING £17m PAYE FROM EMPLOYEES AND NOT PAYING IT TO THE PARTY WHO ARE DUE IT.

          It’s the old Father Ted gag of “I didn’t steal money it was just resting in my account” – the difference is Rangers spent it. It’s not in any account.

          Rangers (not Whyte) took money from someone (A) who allowed them to do so in order to pay another party (B), rather than doing what they were legally obliged to to they spent it on something else entirely (C) and then went “tough B I don’t have A’s money anymore and furthermore when I took A’s money I knew full well I would never be giving it to you, go scr3w yourself”.

          Explain to me how that is not stealing or at least fraud? And you believe HMRC should just bend over and grease up? I fully expect to see Stratchclyde Polis intervening in time.

  35. Geddy Lee

    Oi,
    Jack Sparrow. That’s my facebook name. Stop ruining my reputation with your bampottery filled posts please!!!!

    As for the “20″ Investors. Surely with so much riches at their command , the Green Knights will be offering what, 90p in the pound for a CVA?

    I expect as much, as they claim McCoist will be given substantial funds to buy players once the SFA cave in and recind the transfer ban.

    They must be “rolling ” in it ( splutter).

    • Niall Walker

      Geddy,

      It doesn’t matter how much money one invests after a CVA is agreed, and it does not matter how much money one has, what matters is how much the company is worth to a buyer and how much this delivers to the creditors.

      • But, in this case, how much Rangers is worth to the buyer, is very different from (1) what they are actually (as opposed to would be willing to pay for it, if they had to, and (2) what they are willing to deliver to the creditors.

        It is a bit like a dealer who goes into a charity shop and discovers a first edition of a book on sale for £1.00. He pays his pound, and goes off and sells it for thousands. To the dealer, it is worth a lot of money, but he gets off with paying £1 for it. The moral question would be, if he had been a completely honest stand-up guy, what percentage of his profit would he give to the charity shop? Or is he just going to go off with everything, and say nothing to do with me. Except, of course, in the case of Rangers it has consequences beyond the club, in that the creditors lose out.

  36. Niall Walker

    David,

    Rangers is worth EXACTLY what people are willing to pay for it, its not the bidders fault Rangers worth is nowhere near its debts or its crazy book value. No one is bidding 134 million because it is worth 18-20million, where is the integrity or sense in paying way over the price for anything ?

    • That is simply not true. Worth, and the price you are willing to pay for it can be two very different things. To Charles Green and the other investors, Rangers is worth a lot more than the price they want to pay for it. And, I am not talking of paying some of the ridiculous figures that have been talked about. I am talking about them getting it on the cheap and telling the creditors, effectively, take my low offer or be damned. I stand squarely behind my previous answer.

  37. Niall Walker

    The previous two owners valued Rangers at approx 18 million, no surprise the new owner values Rangers at around 18 million.

    • Den

      I would say that the previous owners valued the debt laden Company at £1. David Murray was happy to take £1.

      Whyte put in £18m as a loan secured on assets which he anticipated were worth much more than that. The bank’s floating charge was what made it attractive to him, a no lose situation.

      Even in a distress sale I still think the assets would fetch a lot more than £18m. If I were a creditor I would certainly take my chance on it.

      I guess these days the Goodwill will be worthless.

  38. Jinky

    Michael mc Donald one of the new “bhoys”in town says they have 100′s of millions of pounds to sort out Ragers. Oh goody everyone gets squared up. No CVA No Lickyidation!! Owl lizzie gets her party money!! Brillzy Brill!!!

    Ps Nicola Young gets her £3500 thems kept from Nicola’s charity!! Paper Bhoy gets his £18.00. HaiL HaiL

  39. Niall Walker

    Good morning everyone,

    The ordinary creditor would get nothing from a liquidated Rangers, the only reason they are getting something is because of the very investment that is being condemned. This investment is essential to turn a loss making model into a profit making model, without it, Rangers are not a commercially viable concern. If Rangers are not a commercially viable concern then the assets are nigh on worthless, it is ludicrous to suggest this investment could be used to pay off the clubs debts, the amounts involved dwarf its actual worth.

    Rangers with muti-millions invested is worth 18 millon, without investment its worth next to nothing, its a loss making business with worthless assets except to a comercially viable football club called Rangers.

    I simply do not understand those who scream ” liquidation liquidation ” and ” creditors creditors “, when it is a fact the creditors would get less out of liquidation. It is obvious who benefits the most from a liquidated Rangers and hiding behind the creditors doesnt disguise this fact.

    So lets be transparent and name names, some Celtic fans want Rangers liquidated not because it benefits the creditors, not to save the SPL, not out of sporting or financial integrity, but out of self interest.

    Celtic would clean up unopposed for a decade.

    • According to reports in today’s press the 7 members of the squad are worth £8m even at firesale prices (those same 7 guys were worth £25m a few days back). Stands to reason the rest of the squad have some value, even if its buttons. Say £2m for 14 players?

      Then there’s property – even worst case scenario values have the property around £10-15m. Then sell the trophies in the Blue Room to private collectors, museums, Sports Bars, Scottish teams that unfairly missed outt on receiving these trophies as a result of Rangers financialo doping, that’ll get a few hundred grand surely? Then there’s the fixtures & fitting, even just scrap value for the metal (hey that’d be ironic, given MIM’s involvement huh?).

      You don’t have to try too hard to get to a liquidation figure of say £22-23m. Well below the £120m valuations of old, but what’s the figure that this new bunch have some up with? £8m or 10m? Was it a third or a half of what could be realised through liquidation?

      Cheerio, cheerio cheri-ooooo.

      • Niall Walker

        The squad walk free in liquidation, I think 10-15 million is optmistic, but we will use it and lets see what the ordinary creditor gets:. Secured creditors: debentures ( 7.7 million), catering floating charge( 1.5 million), redundancies for over 200 employees ( 2 million minimum) and administration/liiquidation fees ( 3 mllion). Lets be fair and call the secured creditors 10-15 million, which leaves the ordinary creditors ZERO.

        An 8.5 million offer plus the transfer and return of all secured creditors,makes an offer of approx 10-15 million plus 8.5 million to the ordinary creditors.

        One would have to value the firesale of the assets at 23.5 million to get a similar return to the ordinary creditors, and nobody has come near to offering 23.5 million for the liquidated assets.

        In all seriousness neither Rngers or Celtic are worth very much as a profit makng business., You are not going to spend 50 million on players and assets to start up a Celtic or Rangers, you would be dead before you made a profit.

    • AliM

      “So lets be transparent and name names, some Celtic fans want Rangers liquidated not because it benefits the creditors, not to save the SPL, not out of sporting or financial integrity, but out of self interest.”

      I’ve no doubt there’s some of that from some Celtic fans, but what about fans of all the other clubs that also want to see Rangers get punishment that fits their “crime”? Or do you think is everyone out to get Rangers?

      There are people out there who simply want to see some level of justice, and a £160K fine and a 12 month player ban is not that.

      • Niall Walker

        I omitted to include fans who despise the OF, they see this as the perfect opportunity to wrench power away from the OF, show them who is boss and rub their noses in it.

      • Niall Walker

        I would simply ban Rangers from Europe for 2 more years and remove the titles they won.

    • Hugh Jarse

      Niall, this isn’t about Celtic. Celtic are irrelevant to this debate whether they clean up or whether other teams step a la Aberdeen and Dundee Utd in the ’80s.

      This also is not about what’s best for Rangers or what makes Rangers commerically viable.

      It’s simple, either Rangers agree a CVA or they go into liquidation. A newco deal is essentially a liquidation as well with the purchase price of the assets being the creditors pot.

      This is where it gets interesting. The purchase price that any newco pays for Rangers assets has to be a fair one or they will face years of legal wrangling. So what is a fair price?

      As I said before I can’t see a newco picking up all of the assets of Rangers for less than £30-40m which is a heck of a lot more than the £18m you are quoting and one of the reasons that there is not a snowballs chance of a CVA being agreed. That said it may well be the case that the newco chooses not to acquire all of the assets e.g. let the players be sold, forget Murray Park and just acquire Ibrox and “the brand” and thus be able to pull off a deal at a much lower outlay, however they would struggle to field an SPL team (although that should be a moot point anyway) on the sort of budget they have to play with.

      I admire your optimism but really who are you trying to convince – us or yourself?

      • Niall Walker

        Evening Hugh,

        My estimate of 18 million is supprted by empirical evidence, and your estimate of 30-40 million contradicts any feasible business model. Rangers commercial viability will be severely tested over the next 3 years, and the price of the assets quantify this risk. Rangers have serious structural problems, they are not easy to resolve, or both SDM and CW would have solved them.
        I think the new owers are in for a big surprise when they see their season ticke sales for their affordable and average team.

      • Hugh Jarse

        Niall, my £30-40 million (could easily be more) is a reasonable estimate for the BREAK-UP VALUE of Rangers. The point is that this delivers way more TO THE CREDITORS than any CVA and sets the baseline for any newco deal

        Player registrations – £10-20 million easy Even at firesale prices plenty clubs will still want to buy Goain, McGregor, Davis, Naismith, Edu, Lafferty, etc. They may be able to walk cheaper than their market value due to all that has happened with their wages but transfer fees will still be realised, some players millions others only hundreds of thousands. You might even beat the £18m on this asset alone.

        Ibrox & Murray Park – whilst they wont realise the £100m+ they are on the books at they are not worthless as you contend. £20m for both is not unrealistic considering the value of other football grounds, and this is a relatively big site compared to others. And as for Ibrox being listed – it’s only the main stand and so was Highbury.

        And what of the other assets?
        Other freehold and leasehold property – notably the car park.
        Investments
        Fixtures and Fittings
        Memorabilia and silverware
        Branding and related commercial deals (albeit only with something to a newco)

        The creditors are not stupid. £18m, you’re having a laugh.

  40. You seem to misunderstand my concern. I only support good football, not a specific club. The last time I specifically supported a team it was the Japan Women’s team at the last FIFA Woman’s World Cup.

    I am not screaming liquidation, liquidation. I am screaming: “Kick them out of the league, kick them out of the league.” That is entirely different.

    They claim to have hundreds of millions at their disposal, and yet are only willing to support those who have been let down by the current regime to a minimal degree, and they are willing to stand on the history of a club that has been found to have brought the game into disrepute and is under scrutiny for years of other things (Big Tax Case, etc.).

    No, they want to invest in something that they call Rangers football club. They want to separate the club from its previous actions. It wisnae us. Except, in reality they are inextricably linked. They do not want to inherit the difficult bits that allowed them to get to, and stay at the top, the bits that allowed them to spend beyond their means, and resulted in them going into Administration in the first place. They just want the nice bits, the stadium, players, history, etc, some of which were paid for by the ‘difficult bits’, and so are tainted by them. It wisnae us. That is my problem. They want a club that, one minute was tainted by the stain of bringing the game into disrepute to suddenly be clean, simply by dint of having been rescued from the liquidators by Charles Green, et. al. but without really having taken responsibility for what they have done before.

    Maybe they should go out and build their own club from scratch, and work their way up through the various leagues to, eventually get back into the big time.

    And, the creditors? They have to take the scraps thrown down from the high table. They seem to have been trampled on already. Turn Ibrox into a museum for a failed footballing model, Turn Murray Park into a sports facility for the city, sell the players on to other clubs. And let Charles Green et all. do something useful, like go out and spend his hundreds of millions on East Stirlingshire, and get them off the foot of Division Three.

    • Niall Walker

      David,

      What can I say, thats the rules of the game and Mr Green is playing by the rules, Rangers are not deciding their future or these actions, they are insolvent and in administration, they have no choice in the matter.

      Creditors get stung every day, its a natural outcome of Darwinian capitalism, CVAs are the least of two evils, the alternative is liquidation where noone wins.

      Nobody with their arms free would pay 134 million for Rangers, its not worth a quarter of that, its current structure loses 10 million per year if it does not qualify for the group stages of the Champions League.
      Its a shocking business model, one that breaks even when it achieves its maximum revenue, it will cost 10 million to sort it out and then you have the financial consequences of any penalties. Even a newco loses 3 more years in Europe, thats a potential loss of 30 million. I estimate Celtic and Rangers will each qualify 1 out of 4 years for the group stages, and they will make 10 million.. Now if you have spent 150 million plus on a business return of 2.5 million per year, then that is under 2% per year return on your investment. It will take you 50 years to break even.

      What have Celtics profits been since they last qualified for CL group stages ,and they have a bigger turnover and a solid business model.

      Is Celtic worth 134 million ?

      • You say that creditors getting stung every day is a natural consequence of Darwinian Capitalism. It is a curious appeal. It’s okay, because it is in our genes, perhaps? Devil take the hindmost capitalism is not a justification in law. You still miss my point. And, you also misunderstand Darwin. Darwin only says that, in a given environment, the ones that tend to survive, are those best adapted to it.

        The environment in which Rangers were operating was not just one of ‘anything goes, it is okay to ignore the tax man, your employees, and the creditors’; it was clearly regulated in law, and the rules of the various footballing authorities which, in part are there to prevent such abuse as was clearly visible in the running of the club. Pay your creditors, pay over taxes due from the club, and as collected by the club from the employees, on behalf of HMRC – the money that was deducted for things like NIC contributions and taxes, is non-trivial taking money that employees expect to be handed over – do not abuse the system by bending – and in some cases breaking – societies rules, so that you can gain material advantage over others. And so on.

        I will be fair, though, if we do take your standard for the moment, let us just say that what has happened is that a bigger beast has just come down and stomped on Rangers. That’s okay, it is just an application of Darwin. But, you argue that that is not fair. You argue one rule for Rangers (they should be protected from bigger beasts), while advocating the “it’s tough” rule for everybody else.

        No, don’t liquidate, expel, then these dinosaurs will see that the only way forward for them is extinction.

  41. Niall Walker

    Jockjybhoy,

    I have been a director of Limited companies for 30 years, using the vat and paye for working capital is as common as salt, it is not fraud when the emergent cash flow problem becomes permanent, and you have used the HMRC contributions. CW is not being charged with trading while insolvent becaue he can claim the transfer window was the solution to his cashflow problems, it wasn’t and he called in the administrators.

    Businesses have cash fluctuations, and HMRC are flexible, sometimes it goes horribly wrong, CW did not intend to ruin Rangers, he was just a bad businessman, no wonder he specialised in liquidations.

    • Rangers: You remember that money that we deducted from your wages, you know the PAYE stuff that is supposed to go to the Tax Man. I’m withholding it as a bargaining chip in the Big Tax Case, oh, and I might accidentally have spent some of it. Oops, sorry.

      Doesn’t look good, does it?

    • Aww cmon Niall – you don’t see a difference between using money as cover for a short term funding gap and witholding it for a whole year? Notwithstanding, as David MacKenzie points out, the non payment of the agreed amount for the wee tax case and aggressive tone taken by Rangers on the big tax case? I spend a lot of time in negotiations and I can promise you that is not the way to get to your desired outcome…

      Rangers would not have even made it to the transfer window without sstematically whitholding PAYE & NI deducted from its employees and not paid to to HMRC. Also if your entire financial strategy is reliant on rolling a double six half way through a season, just to pay the tax already owed, I’d suggest that’s an unsustainable business model. As for trading whilst insolvent, I think that has been happening for quite some time. Given property values have plummeted over recent years and it was only the laughable £100m+ valuation of Ibrox (market value estimated at £10-15m) that acted as a fig-leaf for Rangers modesty regarding finances – I firmly believe whoever did that valuation should be looked at by the authorties).

      I can’t speak as a director of a company but having had to pay fines for late tax returns and late payments for MY PAYE taxes I’d say that HMRC should take as hard a line against companies who systematically withold payment as a funding strategy, seemingly with the intention of never paying it. TBH as a responsible company director of 30 years standing I am amazed you don’t feel the same. Have any of your companies been the subject of CVAs? Or legal action by HMRC? Is it a case of there but for the grace of God ? Or been there done that? Or do you think special treatment is warranted because its Rangers?

  42. Robert

    Getting back to the original topic there is of course a link between Michael Edelson and Dermot Desmond

  43. Pingback: Random Thoughts – My Annual Blog Report for 2012 | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s