Charles Green of Rangers Gets Naming Rights Example Wrong or Else Mike Ashley Has a Time Machine

I would like to offer my thanks to commenter COYBIG for picking up on another inaccuracy, though again surely inadvertent, in Mr Green’s latest ramblings.

For some unaccountable reason the mainstream media seem reluctant to point out inconsistencies or errors emanating from Ibrox. Maybe they are working on the basis that James Traynor and Charles Green are an irresistible force, or at least immovable objects.

Last Thursday Mr Green was on about naming rights to Ibrox stadium.

As an aside I note that Mr Green is quoted in the piece saying the following:-

What I said last night is that I personally am going to fight to get the Ibrox name in the new title.

Now Mr Green is, unless I am very much mistaken, the CEO of Rangers International FC PLC and also the CEO of Rangers Football Club Ltd. One or both of those companies will be selling these rights. As the CEO of the seller, one assumes Mr Green is in position to tell any prospective buyer “Ibrox stays in the name”.

What am I missing?

Or is this a prelude to telling the faithful that the ground is now the Ryanair Arena because the airline offered so much money he was over-ruled by “the money men”?

Anyway, what COYBIG noted arose from Mr Green’s justification for selling the naming rights.

Referring to his best friend Mike Ashley at Newcastle United, he said:-

“Mike Ashley is rich but he’s not stupid and they had a budget to adhere to so there was a period when the management and playing staff had got to their limit.

“When they did the naming rights deal at St James’ Park, it brought cash in and that cash was used to acquire Demba Ba.

“He scored loads of goals then they sold him for £7million so that shows what selling the naming rights can do. If you can use that money well, it’ll bring further money in.”

So what is the problem?

That seems a fine example – sell the naming rights – bring in a new player – he scores lots of goals – then is sold off at a profit.

However, as COYBIG pointed out, unless Mike Ashley has a time machine within the Wonga Arena (or whatever name St James’ Park goes by now) that example cannot be correct!

According to the Newcastle United website Demba Ba signed for the club on a free transfer on June 17th 2011, having left West Ham at the end of the previous season.

Ba

When did the renaming take place which brought in the cash to sign Mr Ba?

On 4th November 2009 the BBC reported:-

Newcastle United have renamed their ground the sportsdirect.com @ St James’ Park Stadium for the immediate future.

The Championship club said last week it was looking to sell the naming rights to St James’ Park from next season. But it has now decided to use the ground to showcase the retail company controlled by club owner Mike Ashley until the end of the current campaign.

“We will showcase Sports Direct until the end of the season,” chief executive Derek Llambias told BBC Newcastle.

“I’m sure we’re going to get a sponsor in for next season.”

Asked if the name “St James’ Park” would always remain amid an angry response from fans, Llambias said: “Absolutely. In our reign, absolutely.

“It’s adding to it, and if it brings in a good chunk of money to the club, that goes straight to the team, then do you know what, it’s a revenue we should look at.”

So, in 2009 there was not a big money naming deal, but rather a “showcase” of Mr Ashley’s own company.

What happened then?

According to the BBC, the renaming of St James’ Park however did not take place until late 2011, and even then was NOT a lucrative deal.

As the BBC reported on 9th November 2011:-

Newcastle United have renamed St James’ Park the Sports Direct Arena after owner Mike Ashley’s company. The club say the change is a temporary measure to “showcase” the sponsorship opportunity to “interested parties”.

However the St James’ Park title has been dropped as the club does not think it is “commercially attractive”. Newcastle are now searching for a “long-term sponsor to acquire full naming rights”, possibly for both the ground and playing kit.

Managing director Derek Llambias said: “Stadium rebranding offers a lucrative way for clubs to secure significant additional income.”

The club originally planned to allow sponsors to link their brand to the St James’ Park title but that idea, put forward in 2009, is now replaced by the offer to purchase full naming rights.

Llambias added: “Naming the stadium the Sports Direct Arena helps up to showcase the opportunity to interested parties.

“We are now actively seeking a long-term sponsor wishing to acquire full naming rights for the stadium.

“Our shirt sponsorship deal with Northern Rock will also expire at the end of this season, which presents would-be sponsors with the opportunity to acquire both the naming rights and shirt sponsorship deals.”

Did Newcastle achieve this big money naming rights deal? Yes!

Workmen removing the name "St James' Park" from the ground in February 2012

Workmen removing the name “St James’ Park” from the ground in February 2012

On 9th October 2012 the BBC reported that Newcastle had reached a four year deal with legalised loan sharks money lenders Wonga.com.

As the BBC stated:-

Newcastle’s stadium name will revert to St James’ Park after the Premier League club agreed a four-year sponsorship deal with a loan company.

Wonga will become the club’s main shirt sponsor from next season, replacing Virgin Money, and will also invest £1.5m in the club’s academy.

The firm also purchased the stadium naming rights and decided on a return to the traditional name.

The stadium had been called the Sports Direct Arena since November 2011.

Finally, to conclude the evidence gathering, Mr Ba left Newcastle for Chelsea as reported by the BBC on 4th January 2013.

So the time line runs as follows:-

  • November 2009 – change of name to “showcase” the opportunity – ground named after Mr Ashley’s company
  • June 2011 – Demba Ba signs for Newcastle
  • November 2011 – the ground is again renamed after Mr Ashley’s company to “showcase” the opportunity
  • October 2012 – Wonga.com sign four-year naming rights deal
  • January 2013 – Demba Ba sold to Chelsea

Where did the deal create the money to sign Mr Ba?

Has Mr Ashley hoodwinked Mr Green? Unlikely. Such a canny businessman as Mr Green would not be taken in by such tales.

Maybe Mr Green’s briefing notes were confused – perhaps some good sub-editors are needed at Ibrox?

Does it matter?

I think it does and here is why.

The re-naming of a stadium is an emotional matter for football fans. As was the case with Newcastle the fans were very unhappy at the thought that the name would disappear. Rangers fans are especially protective of their club’s history and of what makes Rangers what it is, as we have seen from their anger at the thought of “title-stripping”. So the selling of the name of the ground is something which will take a lot of selling to the loyal supporters. How better to persuade them than by showing how selling off the stadium name will bring in untold riches which will themselves multiply?

What if the example chosen seems, as Oolon Colluphid might have said “a pile of fetid dingo’s kidneys”!

Heaven forfend that Mr Green will give his faithful any old guff to get them to side with him. Surely not?

Posted by Paul “Tam Shepherd’s Trick Shop” McConville

Advertisements

142 Comments

Filed under Charles Green, Rangers

142 responses to “Charles Green of Rangers Gets Naming Rights Example Wrong or Else Mike Ashley Has a Time Machine

  1. Carl31

    Thanks Paul.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/27/we-ought-to-care-beyonce-faked-it
    For this link appearing here, I foresee many thinking it takes the Rangers Saga a step too far into broader culture. I can almost hear, ‘What you’re doing is taking each interesting article, and viewing it through glasses that have Rangers Saga lenses’. I guess if that’s true, the reason is that there are a number of broader lessons to be learnt about what has happened to Rangers. If any commenters feel the need to wheel out the overused and untrue ‘obsessed’ jibe, please first at least read the article and the opinion below. There is a broader point made. Its also important re the current guy at the helm of Rangers being seen for what he is.
    The linked article essentially comments on the purveyors of something treating their paying public with a degree of contempt by making out that what they do/provide is the real deal, when it isn’t. The three examples are from entertainment (Beyonce ‘synching’ the American national anthem), food industry (beef burgers that have some horsemeat in them) and sport (Lance Armstrong reaching the heights of world records whilst on drugs). The author proposes that there is as much wrong with those who are content with accepting the fallacy in the knowledge that its not the real thing (embodied by the lack of criticism from the paying public, and even fawning by the ‘Commenterati’ in the Beyonce case) as with the manufacturers of that fallacy.
    Its notable that in each example the ‘shortcut’ option was taken that saved time, money and effort. For me, this is down to over-commercialisation in each situation, which will bring problems and effects that do not appear emblazoned across society’s sky writ large, but instead will creep insidiously, bit by bit, towards a level of acceptance in our lives. Such a situation will, by its nature, only change when critical mass of the paying public decide that enough is enough, and refuse to accept the fakery. I suppose thefakers also run the backlash risk of fooling the public … less music of Beyonce sold, less burgers bought, lawsuits from LAs commercial sponsors, etc. The public will turn away, with the commercial, political and legacy effects, maybe to the extent that the individual will be disgraced. But the nature of insidious creep is that it numbs public sensibilities.
    This brings me to Rangers. IMO Rangers were, for some time, achieving trophies and plaudits fuelled by funds they could not afford to spend. Even if the debts re the FTTT are ignored, the liabilities on all fronts were about £85m (the administrators had an overall debt figure placed at about £134m). This had come about over a period, I guess, of about 15 years. To some extent, for those 15 years Rangers were living a fallacy. Achievements during the period were many, but there should have been some period of cloth cutting or debt repayment. There wasn’t. Commercially, the Rangers that achieved 9 in a Row would still be with us if there had been. If the principles of the article above are applied here, then its as much an issue with their paying public, the fans, being willing to accept the fallacy, as with the purveyors of the fallacy, the Rangers board. The fans should be turning away for a period, or if not, they should be demanding better – and not with the current man at the helm. They should be demanding that their club be properly run by a Rangers man– realistically and within its means – not by a business spiv. Blogs such as this, when the various examples of the less serious posters are set aside, make a decent fist of showing what reality looks like.
    But what lesson learned? Are the same fans from the last decade plus, willing to accept the same faux reality? A strange proposition indeed, where a club in the Scottish 4th tier are on the cusp of greatness? – a small step away from multi-million pound sponsorship deal from a global brand? – ready to progress arrangements for an international feeder club setup? This deal, that deal… on to the stadium renaming with a spurious example to justify, as detailed above. Commercially, common sense tells you that this can’t be. I can buy into the idea of a big sponsorship deal, maybe if Rangers return to challenge at the top of Scottish Football in about 5 yrs time, but there are a number of barriers to that.
    IMO, what is being sold to any current Rangers fan, from the most laid back to the most defiant, is divorced from reality, with a view to the continued ‘milking’ of the loyal Rangers support. Numerous pronouncements by Mr Green since his arrival on the scene have set out various explanations for the current predicament of the club, some of which border on the fantasy, including some with a loony bigot conspiracy theme, and where the club will be going next. In my view it would be better for current Rangers fans to grasp reality, and challenge Mr Green on a number of fronts, many of which are set out on these pages, to wrestle control of their club back.
    Lastly, I must declare my personal interest. I’ve had many an excellent day with good friends congregated to watch and support both teams in an Old Firm game, enjoyed with a few libations in moderation, and frankly I miss those days. I want to see them return. With Mr Green in charge, I very much doubt they will except by accident of a cup draw.

    • Grab the Grass

      @ Carl 31

      An excellent post encapsualting much of what we know and think. It is fairly clear that old Rangers were being run at a loss for a long time and without going into all the gory details again, we shouldn’t forget that SDM effectively reduced the value of shares bought by many individuals, both rich and poor, to zero. This was real money, not an inflated value or goodwill or other acocunting sleight of hand – all gone. For people to claim that without the EBT tax bill all would have been rosy and life would have gone on as before are simply being delusional. The game was up long before CW came and thought he could make a quick buck – notably not apprently “investing” much of his own cash. The phrase I recall is someone saying tha the only time they saw CW actually look scared was when old Rangers failed to mkae it to the group stage of the CL and I do’t think it wasa co-incidence that was when he stopped paying HMRC.

      As for CG, his flimsy grasp on reality, or at least his public offerings, is quite astonishing. Newcastle Utd proved the point that naming rights for existing stadia is virtually worthless and in reality brings shed loads of grief for little in return. The back lash from all and sundry (fans, newspapers, local councillors, MPs) was such that the eventual “naming”, i.e. back to what everyone had called it before and after the SDA, was merely a face saving exercise by MA. The only naming rights that have worked in football is for brand new stadia where history is not present. Some even manage to change name after a period, e.g. Huddersfield’s new ground has gone from the McAlpine, to the Galparm to the John Smiths, all without much of a squeek. It is notable that even the mega corporation of Manchester United haven’t tried to change the name of Old Trafford and quite frankly if they can’t do then no one is likely to.

      • Adam

        “It is fairly clear that old Rangers were being run at a loss for a long time”

        What was the accumulative 6 year trading losses of Rangers 1st July 2005 to 30th June 2010?

        • ecojon

          @Adam

          You’re the numbers man why don’t you tell us? I’m sure you already have the answer. Just playing your old tricks 🙂

        • Den

          It was five million four hundred and forty three thousand profit.

          Interestingly it was a loss if you take any other range of years in the last ten.

          The biggest annual profit was solely down to an accounting adjustment and not Trading.

    • @Carl 31

      Excellent piece that actually encapsulates the general feeling and motivation behind most of the serious comments here rather than the usual “obsession” which is misinterpreted by many here. Thank you very much for a clear and sensible piece of writing.

    • Andrew

      You suggest that Rangers fans should engage in more critical thinking with regards to the comments made by Charles Green and I wholeheartedly agree with you. However you make some claims in the middle of your post about the debt figures published by Duff & Phelps. You are correct in saying that the total debt was £134m (or officially it was £134,415,632), but you also say that, “Even if the debts re the FTTT are ignored, the liabilities on all fronts were about £85m”. This is incorrect. The creditors report clearly states that the “big tax case” was valued at £75m for the purposes of the report, therefore the actual figure is then £59m.

      You then go on to say, “This had come about over a period, I guess, of about 15 years”. From the creditors report, there are only 2 sums on there that relate to anything like the 15 years that you suggest: those are the “wee tax case”, which was classed as £4m and dates back to 2000, and the supporter debenture holders at £7,736,000, the purpose of which was to build the club deck in the main stand (I can’t remember exactly when that happened but I think it was in the mid to late 90s). Of the remaining £47m worth of debt, all of it was during the Craig Whyte era, i.e. the previous 9 months. You could argue that the Ticketus money (£26.7m) was used to pay off the bank debt, but as that loan was only a few years old and subject to repayment at £1m per year (of which every payment was met during the David Murray era), I don’t see how that supports your subsequent point that, “for those 15 years Rangers were living a fallacy”.

      • arb urns

        1999-2009 £140m accumulated losses with a ‘sheltered’ paye and enic scheme behind the scenes. it was never worth the £1 craig paid

        • Andrew

          Whilst I think this is deviating from the basis of my own reply to Carl31, which revolved around the figures in the creditors report, I will correct you on your figure here. The total accumulated losses from the 1999-00 season to the 2008-09 season was just under £112m. To break that down even further, the loss in the 1st 5 seasons of this period was almost £113m, whilst the next 5 saw a profit of £1m. Clearly Rangers were being badly run during the Advocaat years and were slowly recovering under McLeish and then Smith. The 2 standard accounting metrics that best illustrate my assertion are the asset cover & asset gearing ratios. At the end of the 2001-02 season (the season that saw the transition from Advocaat to McLeish) Rangers had an asset cover ratio of 1.5 and an asset gearing of 3861% (I am not missing a decimal point here, this is genuinely almost four thousand percent). In comparison, the 2009-10 (the last season oldco Rangers published signed off, audited accounts) metrics are 5.4 and 30.42%. Clearly these figures show a badly managed business being brought under control over a period of years.

          • arb urns

            used the spl football finance web site they quote the cummulative losses for the 11 years at £140m, they are quite interested in receiving corrections but sus i have used an a instead of a c. take issue with the being brought under control bit. the club would never have been in poundstretchers if it was under control and would’nt have been on its back with its paws in the air 9 months or whatever down the line. bill miller, blue knights and brian kennedy dont think agreed with your ‘under control’ assertion either a.

            • Andrew

              Rangers were “on its back with its paws in the air” due to a number of reasons. The first was the mere possibility of a £75m tax liability. But as that possibility doesn’t prevent a company from getting its house in order I will look at the other reasons. When Craig Whyte “bought” the club (there is still an investigation in to whether or not he met the terms of the sale contract), he replaced an £18m bank loan repayable at a rate of £1m per year (which was being repaid) with a £26m Ticketus loan (which, if I remember correctly, was going to halve our ticket revenue for the next 3 seasons). He then managed to raise a further £29m of debt in the space of 9 months. That is clearly highlighted in the creditors report, all of those debts were under the stewardship of Craig Whyte. The people you mentioned were looking at the situation after Craig Whyte, which is like looking at a car after it’s been crashed into a wall.

              I’m afraid I haven’t seen the figures from the 1998-99 season so I will take your word for it that there was a loss of £28m that year (I do seem to recall a figure like that at the time, but I could be wrong). As you only mentioned the years I felt it reasonable to assume that you were looking at the season beginning 1999 to the season ending 2009. As I mentioned during my last post, the financial management of the club during the Advocaat years was atrocious and Rangers were still trying to recover from that period when Craig Whyte came along (the bank loan and the tax case were legacies from that period), but were clearly heading in the right direction.

  2. arb urns

    cant c wonga jumping in here. the last pay day loan scheme at ibrox was a disaster and caused the funder to go bust.

    what loan company could possibly make a profit where, the borrowers didnt have to make any repayments, interest rates charged made it impossible to make a profit, the lender couldnt really say no, borrowers could have as many loans as they wished, if a borrower was ill the lender effectively had to give the loan back to allow a better insurance claim to be made, if the lenders admin came unstuck they had to pay compensation to the borrowers,the loans ran on this basis for ever and then the borrowers may be able to claim tax relief. on the plus side the loans were real tho.

  3. “Posted by Paul “Tam Shepherd’s Trick Shop” McConville”
    =========================================
    It’s either far too subtle for me, or I am just missing it completely…
    but, what’s the significance of the Tam Shepherd reference: I think we should be told. 😉
    Does Paul McConville now pull rabbits out of a hat ? Or is that Green ?
    IIRC, the shop was on Queen Street – is it still open ?

  4. Adam

    ” the liabilities on all fronts were about £85m ” – Im afraid you are a mile out with that figure but lets be honest about things here. If we do as you say and ignore the debts of the FTTT ever existed then Rangers would still be controlled by Murray and our debt would be in the region of £20 m tops as things stand.

    Murray would have never allowed what happened under Whyte re the unpaid PAYE though it cant be forgotten that he helped create that situation by allowing Whyte in. When the reigns were handed over to Craig Whyte, ignoring the “debts of the FTTT” Rangers owed Lloyds £18m, HMRC circa £2.7m and a few smaller trade creditors amounting to £2m with a more than sufficient trade debtors offering a positive working capital balance. There was no overdraft at that point offering a positive cash at bank position.

    You are right to say that for years Murray chased the glory and overspent but if the FTTT is settled in the end in Murrays favour then without a shadow of a doubt, Rangers have unnecessarily been placed in this position.

    Please dont make the easy mistake of thinking that I have an angst against HMRC though. They are doing what they had to do (any leaks apart if they exist)

    • coatbrigbhoy

      HMRC were about to put RFC 1872 into administration over the small tax bill, RFC 1872 did not have the money to pay it, Lloyds had made it clear they were not going to bankroll RFC 1872 any longer, Murray had lost the right to control RFC 1872 long before Whyte turned up with his £1. Whyte pledged to pay off the small tax bill, he lied, he just delayed the day administration would take place

      • Adam

        Complete and utter garbage. The small tax bill was only agreed and accepted 1 month before Whyte took office. A payment schedule had been agreed. There was no threat of administration over the small tax bill pre Whyte taking over.

        You need to do better than that.

        • cam

          Remember now Adam, when they set mick loose on you, just agree with him.He can bake your noodle with his accountancy techniques.

        • arb urns

          and u r a figures man too adam.

          Whyte had Murrays T/O when he took over, it was a basket case and he overpaid at a quid. The problem for whyte was he had a wage bill where the club had to account for full tax and enic as the ebt years had gone but the legacy salary levels were stll there. silly salary getting lost in lithuania and sweden were the death knell. hence chico picked it up for 5.5m. what were the pay cuts taken by staff to allow the carcas to limp to the end of the season.

          interested in your view of the wee tax case in terms of LNS and SPL Remuneration Rules.

          • Adam

            arb, i dont disagree with that, but I was specifically responding to the point of “if we ignore the FTTT debt” The “FTTT debt” was the killer for us. Thats the main reason Lloyds wanted nothing to do with us as they didnt want to lose £18m and they knew they would do so.

            If people cannot see this, then I would be lost for words.

            • arb urns

              a, i take the view underlying the club was overtrading and insolvent for years, indeed the fttt made this point page 1 when they remarkably explained to all that we werent looking at corporation tax issues as rangers hadnt been trading profitably during the period in q. it would be really interesting to know what the actual ebt tax bill was as the decision currently stands. but i guess we never will the way it came out at the end of the day.

            • Driverjohn

              James Traynor is on record (you tube recording of your call) saying the FTT debt had nothing to do with the death of Rangers. I agree with Adam that it most certainly did, and was the one biggest reason why no reasonable people looked at Rangers. For this, I have never understood why Rangers fans being given a factual account (or the only account of Rangers tax affairs) by Phil Mac or RTC, wanted to instead cover their ears and say la la la, I am not listening. Why would you not want the story of why Rangers were heading to oblivion. By the time the FTT result was known it was already too late for Rangers. The FTT was real, not imaginary, but Rangers fans chose to ignore the big story and pretend it didn’t really happen. It wasn’t hatched in Hampden by Peter Lawell and Stuart Reagan, yet conspiracy has consumed all at the big house and the conduct of the board and the entire club from then has been shameful. The moderate voice is nowhere at Rangers and it would be no surprise if it brought down Scottish football as a result.

        • @Adam
          Why were the administrators called in last year? What were the bills that could not be paid? The “big tax” bill did not figure in the senario at that time as it was still in the FTTT hands and not decided on.

          • Adam

            Did you miss what Whyte did from the beginning of his reign ? Were you sleeping ?

            • @Adam
              so you telling me that CW is exclusively to blame for taking a “highly profitable” business and within 9 months driving it to the wall? This included any money “invested” when for 2 months the business was on summer break?

              If that is the case how is the current management in any better shape? They have the same monthly liabilities and lower incomings. Surely they must be in a far worse position than CW if that is the case?

            • Adam

              Im telling you that Whyte drove that business into the wall in 9 months by not investing any money, by running up huge debts that didnt previously exist and by mortgaging ticket money to a tune that he would never be able to pay back.

              In short, Craig Whyte was clueless. Some may even say he was “not right in the head” For anyone who can remember my posts when i first started to post on RTC i said from the off that the guy pure and simple was a clueless idiot and that everyone was probably over-thinking things when the easiest answer was in front of us all. He just didnt have the first clue.

              The current position is completely different from the one Whyte faced. We havent mortgaged season books. We dont have a potential £80m tax case hanging over us. And we have people who have proven they can attract outside investment. However, we are most certainly not out of any woods yet.

            • Steven brennan

              Adam
              I thought that you do still have the potential for a large tax bill, also what is ticketus involvement in the current set up?
              Mr Green is not the answer to your clubs problems, and I have never met a rangers fan who believes he is.
              He is there till he retires he tells the fans and media, but nobody asked him if he was retiring shortly.
              The claim that he wouldnt touch the season ticket money, ” its still in the bank” is in my very humble opinion rubbish.
              You seem to be well informed and an educated man so where do you see your team in 5 years time?

            • Adam

              Steven brennan
              January 28, 2013 at 10:39 pm

              We dont have any large tax case hanging over us. If the appeal is granted and Murray loses and HMRC are owed £90m it wont affect us.

              I am on the fence with Mr Green. I like his frankness and open-ness and he certainly isnt anything remotely like Whyte, but im still cautious. Its a wait and see job for me at present.

              As for where we will be in 5 years time, i genuinely believe we will be back at the top of Scottish football battling it out with Celtic again though we will still be a bit behind them.

            • Steven brennan

              Adam
              Do you think BDO will come after the undervalued sale of assets?
              I thought they would a while ago but now not so sure.
              Considering Greens blatant overvalue I think there should be some investigation, but dont hold much hope of it.

    • coatbrigbhoy

      OH, the other thing about the small tax bill, the fact that it was overdue should have prevented the SFA issuing a licence to RFC 1872 to play in Europe

    • coatbrigbhoy

      1) Whyte forces SDM to take a £5,999,999 hit on his sale price

      http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-would-be-owner-craig-whyte-winning-1099311

      2)
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20417847

      2011: 1 April – Rangers announce a £2.8m tax liability over an issue relating to 1999-2003 (the DOS).

      Small tax bill not EBT related, just over due, sheriffs officers turned up at Ibrox not long after after Whyte took over.

      • Adam

        You are now throwing different grenades out there having got your first contribution completely wrong.

        The small tax case was accepted by Rangers in March and a payment schedule agreed with HMRC.

        The sheriif officers turned up in August after the liar that is Whyte failed to pay a penny, just like he did with everything else in his reign.

        You really need to try harder.

    • Carl31

      Adam,
      With respect, if my figure is a mile out, as per your first sentence, you’d better let the administrators/liquidators know.
      Your second sentence isn’t accurate since I dont propose that the FTTT amount never existed. I just drop it out of the £134m figure since, subject to appeal, the most of it has been found in MIH favour as not liable for tax. But if the £134m figure was correct then, I hope, my counting isn’t “a mile out”.
      Beyond that though, you make a reasonable case that SDM would still be in charge were it not for the existence of the FTTT and it all would have been a horrible dream. However, HMRC didn’t trump up or cobble together a case against SDM’s Rangers. There was (and remains) considerable evidence of aggressive tax avoidance that ‘crossed the line’ into evasion – and thats just the contested cases.

      Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When SDM was under pressure to sell, that big tax case risk was real and large. I agree that it could have been avoided, but that would have to have been achieved by not sailing so close to the tax law wind – which would have meant very substantially reined in spending on wages and salaries, with maybe 5 titles less and probably no shots at the CL money.

      In my view, and respectful of your different one, SDM could have remained in charge if he wanted, but it would have meant being in charge of a mid-table SPL Rangers battling it out as also rans behind Celtic since he would have had to very substantially reined in spending on wages and salaries from c.2002 and have did so without CL money.
      My guess is as good as yours here, since its all conjecture, but if he had done, I would think that MON would have won all five of the titles he was in charge for, as well as WGS’ three, giving one to Mowbray for 9IAR, and our favourite manager of the moment, Neil Lennon winning 10 IAR and counting. 🙂

      OK, I’ve stretched that well too far (I had a wee moment to myself), but just considering the point on about 5/6 seasons of mediocrity with the occasional win in an OF cup tie or league game, ……. would Rangers fans take that deal now, with that wonderful thing hindsight?
      …take it in exchange for where they are now – they face the risk of any titles from the period being stripped (maybe), as well as the club insolvency ignominy and playing their way up from the 4th tier through the lower divisions with its consequent guff footy on display against part-timers?

      • Adam

        It is a mile out in the context of the picture re the Big Tax Case being ignored. Its the butterfly effect. If you ignore the Big Tax Case, then you can also ignore Ticketus and the PAYE to HMRC and numerous unpaid legal bills.

        I think in your answer above you recognise that though.

        Murray was never going to stay in charge whilst the BTC was hanging over his head if he had a way out.

        If the “initial” verdict was delivered in November 2010 then things would have been different, of that, there is no doubt. (and again, please dont mistake this as a criticism of HMRC or the tribunal, just stating a fact)

        • ecojon

          @Adam

          And why wasn’t the initial verdict delivered in November 2010 Adam? I know you can anwer this but will you?

          • Adam

            It was the “opinion” of Heidi Poon that Murray Group were being evasive in answering questions about EBT. From memory, this was never tested during the tribunal and wasnt something the other 2 “judges” made a meal of.

            I therefore cant say with any certainty, however if i were a betting man, then i would bet that Murray Group were evasive in the hope that HMRC gave up.

            One thing i have learnt over the years both personally and in business is that you only ever answer HMRC the question they ask you and you divulge nothing else unless you absolutely have to. That’s not being dishonest in anyway incidentally, its common sense which also applies to any court proceedings.

            • arb urns

              in the honesty stakes adam how highly does it rate that it takes a police raid to find an answer to a q that was clearly being reasonably asked.

              u have given the impression tonight that HMRC are exonerated from putting rangers in the position u think they unecessarily find themselves in “been placed” to quote. i would suggest thats progress for those on here that merely wish rangers to understand or begin to understand what they have done.

            • Adam

              I dont think i have ever really criticised HMRC for pursuing this case. The only criticism that can be levelled at them is if the leaked information was coming from their offices.

              Having said that, if Murray wins an appeal, or if an appeal hearing is not granted, in any other walk of life, this would be seen as an industrial travesty.

              Imagine this was a one man band who had worked 70 hour weeks all his life and his business went under due to HMRC chasing him for something that he was later shown to be on the right side of the fence on, there would be uproar and huge swathes of sympathy for him.

            • arb urns

              u always pik which bits of a contra post to deal with adam.
              as u go hypothetical in defence i will counter by saying that the one man band would have invested some of the 70 hrs he was putting in pw in dealing with the hmrc initially and thereby averting the issue. we are making massive progress tonight in pinpointing the reasons behind rangers demise. i kinda like the idea of public interest sneaky leaks on occasion mps expenses being another cracker.

              on the subject of ebts i wasnt against them either in principle but not for a load of weekly salaried highly paid footballers. the fttt decision raises an interesting issue for your one man band in that to get to messrs mure and rae’s non absolute emolument u basically need a discretionary trust, a trustee who will provide a loan as and when no q’s asked and out pops some in effect tax free income all stll available as far as i can see.

        • Carl31

          No, because the FTTT money was and remains a floating risk. Youve put this into your context, not mine.
          You’re attempting to play down or ignore some elements that were real bills, like the PAYE/VAT/ENIC. The only way they might pop out of D&Ps £134m figure is if they had been paid, so the money would have to have been found from somewhere.

    • arb urns

      @driverjohn fair enough but whyte never took on the potential ebt liability for his quid. hmrc made a huge mistake in allowing whyte to appoint his own administrator turned liquidator imo. the administration process was the way to get the ebt elephant out the room but it was a best laid plans example

  5. Cregganduff

    The reality of the matter is that Companies/Football Clubs have been feeding their fans/shareholders this type of tendentious tripe for years and getting off with it, but now the the beady eyes of the internet Skibbereen Eagles, Paul/COYBIG, are on their case. Much to chagrin of sCam, the Ugly Duckling etc.

    • cam

      No chagrin sir,but mucho entertainment.With many of the chaps in here inclined to spend large portions of their lives “proving” that anything RFC connected is the work of Satan,then the bonus of freeing up beds in facilities with rubber rooms is most welcome.
      Keep up the good work,eventually the fuel of hatred expires and like all spent coal you leave nothing bu ashes for your followers to pick through.

      • Cregganduff

        Cam

        Regretfully I am inclined to believe that “the smell of burning flesh” which afflicts you in the mornings may be coming from frying brain cells. The decline and fall of the once Mighty Gers claim another sad victim.

    • COYBIG

      @Cregganduff

      Could you redraft that into English please. Oh and i’m not Paul if that’s what you’re implying.

  6. coatbrigbhoy

    Whyte used the unpaid small tax bill to force SDM to drop his asking price from £6m to a £1, Whyte had SDM over a barrel, SDM had to take the £1 or be the man that was driving the train (RFC1872) as it went off the rails,
    The tax man had a rock solid case regarding the small tax case, SDM was between a rock and a hard place, he choose to be duped, the old board claim to have been taken by surprise when the small tax bill was disclosed, it was long over due but the board say they never knew about it, maybe the banks man knew ,Eh

    • Adam

      “The tax man had a rock solid case regarding the small tax case” 🙂

      Yeah, we know. Murray had already accepted it prior to Whyte taking over. There was no dispute over that and played no part in Murrays decision to sell for £1. That was solely down to the Big Tax Case and you are mental if you think otherwise.

      • coatbrigbhoy

        @Daily Record 1/4/211
        “CRAIG WHYTE is winning his battle to have a £2.8million tax bill slashed from the price of buying Rangers.

        The would-be owner made it clear he would not pick up the tab for the bill which took Rangers directors by surprise when it was delivered a few weeks ago.”

        So what was the £2.8m getting slashed from if it was not coming from the reported £6m SD was originally asking for his shares.

        Rangers did not have the money to pay, changing holding company gave RFC a breather, if no sale then HMRC were going for the kill.

        • Adam

          Was this the same Daily Record who proclaimed Craig Whyte as a billionaire and had him handing Ally a £25m warchest ? 🙂

          Lets be 100% clear and 100% factual. The reason Murray sold for £1 was due SOLELY to the Big Tax Case. There is absolutely not even a smidging of a doubt about this.

          • coatbrigbhoy

            so why did Murray, at the last minute, reduce his asking price, why did Whyte threaten to pull out over the small tax case, as for the Daily Record breaking the news that Whyte was a billionaire, that was down to Jabba, by the way,where is he earning his money now?
            are you saying Murray had planned all along to sell all his shares for a £1,
            did Murray and Whyte not tell everyone that rangers could not lose the big tax case, so why sell for a £1 before the case was decided,

            • Adam

              Rangers were sold for a £1 due to the Big Tax Case. If there was no Big Tax Case, Rangers would not have been sold for £1.

              This is an indisputable FACT !

          • coatbrigbhoy

            http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-in-crisis-ex-chairman-alastair-johnston-1116711

            INCLUDES THIS LITTLE SNIPPET

            “Johnston doesn’t buy that one either. Nor does he expect the taxman to do Whyte any favours, nine months after being stiffed by the new owner over another smaller outstanding tax bill of £2.8m.

            Whyte promised to pay that one up on completion of his takeover. In fact, it was the reason Murray, right, dropped £3m off his own price and agreed to sell up for £1 just to get a deal done.”

            so are you saying AJ was colluding with Jabbas Daily Record to lie about the reason why SDM dropped his asking price

    • portpower

      Goodwin bricked in the back door?

  7. John C

    Paul,
    Could the stadium name change be part of the overall strategy to transform them ?
    “As long as there’s a team playing at ibrox wearing blue there will always be a rangers” is a quote oft heard. The next step is simply the supporters will always call it ibrox.
    So could the renaming be part of a plan, George Galloway is asking why they are still being allowed to trash liquidation laws by keeping the name and trading as the same team, maybe a new team name is in the pipeline too. And the supporters will always call them rangers.
    All they might be officially left with is blue, the colour of the blessed virgin 😮

  8. Marching on Together

    I suspect that the reality is with Newcastle Utd is that some of the funds invested by way of loan funding supplied by Ashley/Sports Direct was converted into revenue for the club as a result of this naming deal in Nov 2011. This would help Newcastle when it comes to the Financial Fair Play rules.

    Closer to home, Ross County did something similar (it is believed) last summer when their chairman Roy McGregor converted some of his investment booked as loans into revenue and renamed the ground the Global Energy Stadium (after the name of his company).

    If I am correct, then the funds will already have been received by Newcastle from Ashley/SD by way of loan finance at the time they were needed to acquire Demba Ba. Indeed, there might not even have been a formal loan, the banks may allow Newcastle Utd and Sports Direct to have set-off agreements, and increased Newcastle’s borrowing by way of overdraft to pay for it. I don’t have the time to wade through Sports Direct’s accounts or those of Newcastle Utd, but these are plausible scenarios, that mean that the whole point of the blog is misconceived. Sorry.

    • Grab the Grass

      @ MOT

      Sadly not. MA bought Newcastle without doing any proper due diligence, paid over the odds for the sahres, discovered that the mortgage for the new stand became payable on demand if the ownership changed and then ran the club for a while like a past-time where it didn’t really matter.

      Relegation proved to be a true blood letting and more by luck than judgement, IMHO, managed to turn what could have been a Leeds scenario into something a lot better. However the accounts tell you that MA has simply lent the club lots of money, though at 0% interest, and has most definetly not turned any of them into stock like Abromovic. FFP has nothing to do with loans / debts, only the current account where if these owner loans were actually interest bearing would have needed to be absorbed to reduce ongoing losses. The accounts showed no value coming from Sports Direct and I think MA would have made it well known if his company had actually handed over any money for the rights they just assumed.

      Ba signed on a “free” from West Ham, with sign on fees / agents etc meaning he wasn’t free and from most accounts, Newcastle only got £5MM from the deal with £2MM going to Ba direct.

      I think the basic tenent of the blog is correct, i.e. CG doesn’t know what he’s talking about and seems to assume no one will actually disect what he says and hold it up to scrutiny / ridicule and the true sad fact is that he doesnt actually seem to care…

      • Marching on Together

        Yes and no. Completely agree with your first paragraph.

        “the accounts tell you that MA has simply lent the club lots of money” Exactly. FFP will stop rich owners continuing to lend and running up on the balance sheet loans due to rich tycoon that in reality will never be paid off, but will be written off at some point in the future. In order to convert some of that lending on the balance sheet into revenue, you convert it vai the naming rights into an annual payment which appears on the income side and a corresponding reduction in debt to rich tycoon on the balance sheet. That helps with FFP, and rich tycoon’s business gets something out of it (apart from a boycott hopefully). I wasn’t saying that Ashley had converted loans to equity, but could possibly have done the conversion to revenue. I don’t know what had actually happened, but do know that there are different coherent scenarios.

        I agree that Ashley would have made it known if SD had handed over new money for naming rights, but not necessarily if it was money that Newcastle had already had got.

        Completely agree that CG talks a lot of shite most of the time, but I just don’t agree that the time-scale outlined in the blog means automatically that he was talking complete pish on this occasion.

    • ecojon

      @Marching on Together

      At the time of the Newcastle park name change I am positive that the fans were creating hell on their forums saying that Ashley had never paid any money into the club for the Sports Direct name change.

      • Marching on Together

        Perhaps. But I have learnt to take what the Toon Army say with a huge pinch of salt. I could see it being said that he never put any additional new money into the club for the name change, which is consistent with what I am suggesting.

        • COYBIG

          @Marching on Together

          On this issue? Green is talking pish. Don’t take my word for it, take Mike Ashley’s, who at the time said he was changing the name to Sports Direct Arena to show other businesses the positives of doing so. His words, not mine.

          • Marching on Together

            So Mike Ashley is now a paragon of truthfulness and honesty? LOL

            It would be quite straightforward for Ashley to say what he said and at the same time convert some of his loan to revenue as I have outlined and not bother announcing it. At the time the Barcodes all hated him so why would he bother telling them anything about his financial affairs?

            • COYBIG

              @Marching on Together

              Because he just did. OK. End of story.

            • Marching on Together

              Oh, right. Everything an owner of a football club says is always 100% truthful and complete, Unless the club is Rangers.

              Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  9. JohnBhoy

    THE RETURN OF THE THE RANGERS

    If the SFL ignore the deranged prophecies emanating from The Director of Communications and follow in the footsteps of the SPL then The Rangers will soon re-enjoy the fruits of bottom-rung football in a division that will fill their inflamed nostrils with the tantalising aroma of déjà vu. An added bonus, as any anthrozombologist worth their salt will be quick to point out, is that zombies are fickle, unruly creatures and when their obvious escape route is blocked they quickly resort to that ancient zombualistic rite, cannibalism. Fingers crossed.

  10. Adam

    Am i the only one that gets the irony. This is a blog about someone making statements which can be shown to be untrue.

    Which is then followed by a load of people making statements which can be shown to be untrue.

    🙂

    • ecojon

      @Adam

      Why have you come back then Adam – fed up with the Amazon? Rather be with the obsessed?

      • Adam

        I felt like it. I had some free time. I saw something i would like to comment on. Ive never been to the Amazon. Is this ok for you ? 🙂

        • cam

          Adam how dare you speak to the site monitor in that abrupt fashion!
          The guy was trying to stay true to his new years resolution to not involve his higher intellect and moral standards by engaging with mere trolls like yourself.
          BTW was that a sarcastic smiley you unleashed at Eco?
          You’re about to suffer the death of a thousand smileys.

        • ecojon

          @Adam

          And here was me thinking the Amazonian League had a certain ring to it or maybe it would be more suited to female players.

          Btw quite a lot of deflection in your answer up above but that’s up to you. What was it 9 years to get the info from Rangers plus the need for a police raid at the end when all patience was lost by HMRC..

          As I have said on here many times – if HMRC had been responded to in a professional and business-like manner then I have little doubt that the matter would have been well cleared-up without the amount of penalties that accrued and the BTC would not have turned into the monster that terrified everyone involved with Ibrox.

          To blame the HMRC for events when they were just attempting to do their job i more than a little disingenuous IMHO.

          • Adam

            Who is blaming HMRC ??????

            And no, it wasnt 9 years. You have just made that up.

            • ecojon

              @Adam

              When did the investigation start Adam.

              Who is blaming Rangers? Puleasssssssse Adam – how long have you been away?

            • Adam

              In a reply to ME you stated “To blame the HMRC for events when they were just attempting to do their job i more than a little disingenuous IMHO.” I havent blamed HMRC so perhaps you can explain what you meant.

              And again, it did NOT take 9 years to get the info from Rangers. It started in 2004. Are you saying Rangers only gave the info in 2013 ? 🙂

  11. ecojon

    CHICO THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL SAVIOUR

    RANGERS Chief Executive Charles Green has released the following statement after an announcement by the SPL on league reconstruction today.

    He said: “Because of Rangers’ position I can do little more than watch this scramble to reconstruct Scottish football with interest and also bewilderment. I have to wait until more detail of today’s meetings at Hampden emerges but I must say I fail to understand why the SPL didn’t move to a vote on their 12-12-18 structure.

    “After all, SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster is telling everyone agreement was unanimous. So why the delay? Might it have been too big a risk to put the format to a vote today?

    “The SFL clubs meet on Thursday and there has to be the concern that if they don’t vote or arrive at any concrete solution then Scottish football could be back in the same situation which caused so much trauma last summer. What we don’t need is a repeat of that when one group would meet but do nothing hoping the other lot would make a decision.

    “This is far too important an issue for it to be knocked back and forth but I really do wonder if all 12 clubs are happy with today’s outcome. I’m not so sure that is the case but hopefully we will get to the end of this in a proper and coherent manner.

    “And that should also mean every effort is taken to avoid trampling fair play in the stampede to bring in something new just for the sake of it. Clubs have been playing from the start of this season believing they’d be rewarded for success through promotion and that should remain the case.

    “But of course I cannot represent my club at any of the meetings or have a say in league reconstruction so all I can do is hope the morally correct decisions will be made. All clubs, Rangers included, deserve that much at least.”

  12. Adam

    I would hope that Celtic in particular are up in arms about any suggestion that this could come into play at the beginning of next season.

    • ecojon

      @Adam

      Sooner the better IMHO – possibly everyone might not agree with the format but it would seem to me that every alternative has its own pros an cons and a decision should be made and let’s find out if it can be made to work in practice. Might need tweaked but so what it’s a major task and might need time to bed-down

      I think Celtic will be happy to do what it can asap to help cash trickle down to other clubs and I am proud they are playing such a positive role in this.

      Doesn’t really matter to Rangers as they have made it clear they want out of Scotland asap and all I can say is bon voyage and wish them well wherever they end-up. They have made their bed to a large extent and don’t seem to be making that many friends although their cash is always welcome to the part-timers.

      • Adam

        It would be an extreme bout of hypocrisy if Celtic were supporting this change to come in next season. I would sincerely hope that Peter Lawwell in particular would be championing for the change to take place in season 2014/15 as “the league must not be compromised by changing the rules during the course of the competition.” as it would “compromise the integrity of the competition”

        • arb urns

          the proposal changes the rules at the END of the competition adam.

          • Adam

            In theory yes, but the rules have been changed. Getting to the new 1st division means more(given the chance to play SPL clubs mid season) yet clubs would only be getting told this at a late stage in the year when its too late. Would clubs have adopted a different approach had they known? Possibly? And what about the clubs playing out for relegation from Division 2 ? All rendered dead rubbers.

            No matter what way you look at it, the results of this season are compromised and that is wrong.

            • COYBIG

              @Adam

              And if you put it off to next season, then there will be a FULL SEASON of “dead rubbers”.

              Don’t be fooled and persuaded that you have to take the same stance as Charlie. He’s only mad because, as your new siginings have confimed, he was promised by someone..cough..David Longmuir..cough..that The Rangers would be fast tracked up a few tiers. Now that they’ve not, it scuppers Charlie’s plan to milk twice as much from The Rangers fans for season tickets. Otherwise, Charlie wouldn’t give two fucks. Just like he doesn’t give two fucks about it happening the season after next. Why? Because it wouldn’t effect his plan. Aww didums, poor Charlie.

            • arb urns

              i take your comp point not sure the sfl clubs will support it though

        • ecojon

          @Adam

          The whole of Scottish football has been compromised all season by the decisions taken by the suits to try and accommodate Rangers.

    • arb urns

      chico proposes 14-14-14 adam which division for his gers ? ally mentions the stranraer q and wants out the bottom tier if he wins div 4 how does he exactly get from 33rd to 28th and which of the 6 promoted clubs in the third tier should give up their position

      • Adam

        Looks like you have assumed that as a Rangers fan, im behind Green and Ally on this.

        I have no issue for or against with the League 12-12-18 reconstruction. Im on the fence with it as simply no-one knows if it will be good or bad. Im also therefore not for or against my clubs stance on 14-14-14 as again no-one knows how it will work out.

        All im asking is that the reconstruction starts on season 2014/15 because then everyone knows exactly what they are playing for next season and no-one can be accused of a huge bout of hypocrisy.

        • arb urns

          your last para is green and allys point adam so by dint you support their pos.everyone will know exactly what they are playing for next season re-construction or not. it makes not a jot, as a non ‘old firm fan’ this is huge news and a start at getting some of us back at games. theres much to do though

          • Adam

            I dont get whats so great about this that it will get people back to games. Same with 14-14-14 by the way. I just dont see it.

  13. JimBhoy

    For once I agree with Chico………

    “But of course I cannot represent my club at any of the meetings or have a say in league reconstruction”

    nuff said…

  14. Adam

    Just checked the credtors list and as stated, if you ignore Whytes abominations and potential frauds/lies which were a direct result of the FTTT then the real debt owed was £6.5m. This excludes debentures to bond holders which were potentially payable over 25 years but in reality would never be paid back(Celtic have similar).

    Quite a bit away from £85 million me thinks.

    • COYBIG

      @Adam

      Eh…I think you’ll find Celtic actually pay their bills. Unlike that club from govan that died last year.

      If you take the Whyte out of it? And the £8m owed to fans? Ha ha! Brilliant, i’ll be sure to use that one next time i’m behind with any bills. “I know I owe them this much, and I owe them that much, but see if you take out what I owe them, then I won’t owe as much will I?”

      Where are you getting this ludicrous logic from?

      • Adam

        If you had bothered reading the initial post you will notice it stated “Even if the debts re the FTTT are ignored, the liabilities on all fronts were about £85m”

        The point i was making that was without the FTTT or Big Tax Case, the other liabilities wouldnt have arisen.

        Nothing ludicrous about it at all.

        • COYBIG

          @Adam

          You wrote that without Whyte and the debentures the debt would be…

          You don’t get to pick and choose which debts you want to count. To think that way IS ludicrous.

          • Adam

            So its ok for the first post to pick and choose which debts to count…..but i cant.

            Right ye are. 🙂

            • COYBIG

              @Adam

              I’m talking about you writing that if we dismiss the debts Whyte ran up, then the debt would be…

              Why should we just dismiss the debts Whyte ran up?

              And if the “first post” is doing the same, then yes, the “first post” is using ludicrous logic too.

            • Adam

              I was replying to the first post who was making the point that if we dismiss the debt of the FTTT then we were left with a certain amount. My follow on point to that was that the Whyte debacle was a direct consequence of the FTTT debt.

    • coatbrigbhoy

      where would the Lloyds debt have gone ?

  15. Seems more and more people are taking an interest in septics alleged official attendance figures , I personally don’t think they would massage them to look better then they are , no definitely not , would they ? ? ? P.s. talking about naming rights for stadiums I’ve heard some belters for breezblock boulevard anyone got any suggestions ?

    • Adam

      I dont see any real issue in saying more people are at the game than what there really is…….apart from the fact its embarrassing.

      Where there would be a real issue though, and one needing explaining, is when there was 50,000 at a game but the official attendance was only only 30,000. Questions would need asked as to where the additional income from the 20,000 unaccounted for fans went and if any tax was paid on it.

      If this was happening, then there is no doubt in my mind that it would be financial dopery and cheating and be worthy of everyones wrath on here who hold this type of thing in the upper scales of their morality.

    • Maggie

      @carson
      Are you attempting to start some sort of contentious thread here
      re renaming of Celtic Park?
      We’ll stick with Paradise thank you very much,pretty definitive.
      Now get back below stairs before the dowager countess sees
      you using her I pad 🙂

    • renfrewdave

      The we pay our bills stadium. We have more wonga than newco stadium. Champs league every season from now on cos they didn’t pay up stadium. The loads of dosh arena. We are minted park. We have their stripped titles dome. Look our hoover pitches are real park. We can afford to turn our under soil heating on stadium. Hectors house… The debt collectors Pitch. … Take your pick it will be the last chance you have of naming a stadium for the next 25 years according to mr green. .. Better hope TIM screws\fixings don’t but the rights..

  16. Allegedly attendances for some ” big ” clubs are not disclosed to the media and don’t match what the police have them at , surely on the grounds of health and safety they must be accurate ?

    • Marching on Together

      Until a few years ago the reported attendance at Celtic Park, as printed in the national newspapers, every week was 60,000.

    • COYBIG

      @carson

      Attendances! Attendances! Attendances! Attendances! Attendances! Attendances! Attendances! Attendances! Attendances! Attendances!

      For fuck sake, times must be really bad at Ibrox. I mean seriously, stop and read what you’ve just wrote. Sad, ain’t it? The actions of a set of fans who are so desperate for some way to be on top, to be ahead of Timmy, that they resort to attendances. And what makes it even more idiotic is the fact that Celtic have had over 100,000 more fans through the gates this season than The Rangers have.

      Just to be clear, attendances mean the square root of fuck all.

      • 100, 000 more allegedly ! It must mean something to you you’ve just had one fuckin tantrum replying !

        • COYBIG

          @carson

          Tell me, what does it matter to you if Celtic has had 10 or 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 people throught the gates this season? You’re not obsessed are you?

          And no, I didn’t have a tantrum. I just had what is called a ‘why would someone go on and on about something so tedious’ moment.

          Talking of tedious subjects, I bet you’re one of The Rangers fans who’re appalled that Ally McCoist doesn’t wear a suit in the dugout, ain’t you? Now that’s what you call tedious.

  17. dan

    Private Areson!! Are you still with us? I noticed you went very quiet after you alluded to your army days and gave us all a good laugh. But please, if you must, do regale us with your tales of derring do. Where did yo serve? And what was the most memorable dish that you served? Who did you cook for in the Catering Corp? Tell us all about the culinary difficulties about providing the lads with a right good fry up in a field camp. And is it true that when one squaddie yelled: ‘Hey Arseon! Any of those fried spuds left?’ And you, quite chuffed by the request replied.: ‘Yes. Lots.’ The squaddie roared: ‘Then shove them up your arse!’?

  18. Geddy Lee.

    Adam,
    In the last days of Murray’s tenure, was the bank not demanding they payback an 18 Million pound loan?

    I think that’s what made Murray “throw in the towel” andf sell out for a pound to the dreadful Whyte.

    • Adam

      As previously stated, the reason Lloyds wanted out was because of the Big Tax Case. The risk profile was high that they would end up with nothing.

      • renfrewdave

        They would have ended up paying the tax bill decided by the ftt as yet to be disclosed and the cost of defending it or they could have ended up paying the whole frigging bill as yet to be decided by the appeal

      • James C

        Hmm, think they just wanted their money back anyway they could, the whole business was seen to be a total basket case by all and sundry.

        Income way below operating expenses, stupid money on players, Murray behaving like a billionaire on other peoples money

        They obviously expected too lose the BTC otherwise why drag to out over years through lack of cooperation. The commentary from the appeal they won makes clear the behaviour of the company wasnt great, behave like you are guilty then everyone will assume you are.

        • jockubhoy

          The reason Lloyds wanted thge money back was because it wasn’t them that lent it. When Lloyds rescued HBOS and saw what HBOS had lent Murray/OldCo and were flabbergasted. IMO that was the real beginning of the end..,

  19. Geddy Lee.

    Carson, for the reasons Adam explained, it would be down right stupid to massage attendance figures.

    By the way, I think it’ the Bear’s Den Forum your looking for.

  20. Dan , I cannot divulge where I was ( nuge nuge wink wink ) only a close inner circle know !! ! and stop calling me arseson I’ve not set anything on fire for years ! ! seems you have a penchant for “arses” and ” shoving things up them ” your words not mine ! are you speaking from experiences or just wishful thinking ?

  21. Maggie , ah , you should see me in uniform ! oops sorry if I got you too excited Dan or is it really Jan ?

    • Maggie

      @carson
      Your butler’s uniform ? Yes we’ve all seen that in every
      episode of Downton carson. Do you have no civvies?
      Oh wait did you wear cricket whites in one episode? I suppose
      if I squint a little I could maybe pretend you were Richard Gere
      in that White sailor suit 🙂

  22. driverjohn

    Interesting points about EBT’s on this thread. Here is James Traynor on Your Call maintaining that EBT’s had nothing to do with killing off Rangers. Don’t know why Stuart Cosgrove doesn’t challenge him. I’d have thought it was a given that the spectre of EBT FTT hanging over Rangers kept buyers away. It’s around 6 minutes in Jabba makes his point.

    • Adam

      Its all about the context i suppose. It is right to say that administration and subsequently liquidation were down to Whyte but the Big Tax Case was the seed that spouted Craig Whyte.

      • Driverjohn

        I agree Adam but why Jabba forcefully disagrees is lost on me. Maybe more to do with succulent lamb than logical thought. Nothing to do with context, he’s 100% certain. Listen for yourself.

        • Adam

          To be fair, i put James Traynor on the same level as most football commentators and journalists on these radio shows. Utterly clueless on financial matters. They are embarrassing most times with some of their points and answers.

    • arb urns

      the plan was to have the ebt written down by about 90% via administration so one way or another there was a definitive fixed price route out of the ebt scenario for any would b purchaser. the plan went wrong. as adam says he doesnt blame hmrc for doing their job. this is also what d and p meant when they were saying the ebt assessment should not put purchasers off.

  23. renfrewdave

    I’m begining to think the mr greens claptrap show is like an episode of yes minister. Where the minister is advised to have his say on one item in 40 different ways\quotes ranging from total claptrap to well past reality. This way the public get that fed up with the shite coming from the ministers mouth they stop listening… And once the event pans out the minister can then say on such and such a date and time I said this.. As it has panned out!! And everyone one forgets\doesn’t realise that he just talks crap 99.9% of the time…. A new improved version of the mbb who talked crap 100% of the time

  24. Off now Maggie , the dowager countess has requested tea and toast , nighty night sleep tight Jan , sorry , Dan.

  25. smartbhoy

    Oh dear, more nonsense from a certain serial poster. Adam the Jackal. I thought he was maybe away on business in some far off land free of internet access…….But at least he’d have had someone to spew his nonsense to. 500m worldwide fanbase of The Rangers fans. You may have met one of them to fill them in on what’s happening these days down Govan way……. You’d have had a 14/1 chance of that happening regarding to Chuckles Greens estimations. P.S I hope you purchased your shares in the holding company of a holding company as you stated you would for your children and their children! 🙂

    • Adam

      Oh dear, more nonsense from notsosmartbhoy.

      Not sure how many times i need to tell you, i wasnt in any place free of internet. I simply wasnt posting anything. Just as i havent been for over a month now, apart from the very odd post.

      Nice of you to keep tags on me though. It warms my heart to know you care so much. 🙂

      • smartbhoy

        Lies, lies and more damn lies. I and many on these blogs have sussed you out a long time ago. Have a lovely evening. I shall be floating about in cyber space and make an appearance now and then to inform the readers of the blogs of your lies. “Wow oh Wow! 😀

      • JohnBhoy

        @Madam

        Where were you incarcerated? Heard that your ladyboy act in the Xmas pantomime went down a treat with the other inmates!

      • ecojon

        @Adam

        I have to say that I find most of your posts very odd indeed 🙂

      • Maggie

        @Adam
        Ok,as cam is being negligent and partisan in his self appointed
        role as grammar,punctuation & spelling policeman,the task falls to
        me to keep our site safe for pedants everywhere.
        1….. Keeping tags on me….. No,no,no keeping TABS on me
        2…….Smidging ……. Again,no,no,no ……SMIDGEN….
        3……..financial DOPERY….What? That’s not even a word,check
        the dictionary,Blue Tit / Black Goosey has one he’ll loan you.
        I think the phrase you search for is financial doping.You should
        just have asked mick bout that one,it’s his favourite.
        God knows what other crimes lurk within your posts,as I normally
        stop reading at Adam…..
        And to show I’m not partisan RTC drove me insane with his use
        of the split infinitive,you do know what that is,right?

  26. portpower

    Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Apt.

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