You might recall that I commented on a story on the Rangers website in early January, which was headlined “Rangers Compensation Claim Boost”.
As Rangers .co.uk reported at the time:-
RANGERS have made a successful start to their bid to win compensation for the players who walked out on the club last summer.
The club is chasing Allan McGregor, Kyle Lafferty, Jamie Ness, Stevie Naismith, Steven Whittaker and Sone Aluko for breaching their contracts. Compensation is also being sought from their clubs – Besiktas, Sion, Stoke City, Everton, Norwich City and Hull City.
A meeting took place on Monday at Hampden to discuss jurisdiction on the case and Rangers prevailed.
Chief Executive Charles Green told RangersTV: “From our side it went as well as we could have expected. From the other side I’m sure they will be disappointed. Clearly they wanted they commission to throw it out and rule that the SFA had no jurisdiction because the whole process of the first meeting was about jurisdiction.
“What we stated at the meeting was that newco wants to continue where oldco was. We have this slight anomaly where for a period newco were not members of the SFA from June 14 until being granted membership on August 3. Continue reading
Before anyone thinks I am being presumptuous, I am not referring to myself in the heading.
Instead I had an interesting discussion with a senior official at a Scottish club yesterday.
His thoughts on the present reconstruction proposals?
They were unfair and wrong but financially right.
This was not because of how it would affect Rangers (who were never mentioned) but because of the “moving goalposts” idea.
However, as the plan would make the difference between profit and loss for his team, it was a “no-brainer”.
I am sure I could (and possibly will) devote thousands of words to the issue. But here, in a succinct few, the issue was summed up for those who have to deal with it, rather than wax lyrical about it.
All that remains is for me to thank Mr Lawwell for his hospitality and insight.*
Posted by Paul “Scoop” McConville
*Please note that sentence is written in jest. It was NOT Mr Lawwell …
It was Mr Green!**
**No it wasn’t.
Following on from comments some, including me, have made about the declaration by Mr Green that his company is presently loss-making, I see from the excellent Bill McMurdo that a statement has been released by Mr Green “clarifying” matters.
“We are a public company and have to publish accounts at both the half year and full year stage. Everything will be laid bare. The trading position of the company up to the float was in the prospectus. There is absolutely nothing to hide and all will be disclosed.”
Who can have any argument with that? After all, as he says, the company will publish accounts at 6 months and one year. Although as this is the company formed in November 2012, even the six-month accounts will take a wee while to arrive. Continue reading
It is always good when Adam pops back in to offer us his views and thoughts, which I appreciate greatly. I also liked the Fitzcarraldo comment! He has been party to a cracking debate running on the blog as we speak, and I thought I would take advantage of my position as the blog host to write a response to some of what he has been saying tonight.
For those who have not been following the debate (and why not?) one strand of discussion has been what the Rangers debt would have been without the “Big Tax Case”, whether Lloyds wanted their money. There are a couple of points where I think something needs to be added.
First of all, here are some of Adam’s comments. Continue reading