Rangers go into administration

[starchief]

Reading more about why they owe £9M adds more dirt to an already cloudy water. Apprently HMRC want £9M. Rangers dispute that figure, saying they only owe about £4M. That's been offered and refused by HMRC. Just like the £45M, no-one really knows if Rangers owe anything unpayable. It could be enormous and all go Rangers way. It could be virtually nothing for a club like Rangers. Or it could be a compromise.

So, Davie, it's not £71, 500 minimum. That's only if they lose their cases. And no-one knows where the Ticketus money has gone either. Is it a debt or there just in case of a compromise and ready to be paid back (I know that's technically a debt but you take my point).

I don't think there's enough info to really know what Rangers owe. Even Rangers don't know that. With the lawyers they will have behind them, plus other clubs no doubt desperate for Rangers to succeed (or they are next), I wouldn't be surprised to see Rangers win their case. I also wouldn't be shocked to see a compromise (as I've said before, in other industries, we'd do what we can to avoid liquidation, otherwise the money is totally dispappeared along with people's jobs - I suspect HMRC will, in the end, also employ that line).

So, do Rangers have £70M-£100M to find? Or do they have the £25M in the bank from Ticketus and only £4M to pay in tax? 10 points to Alan Davies for holding up the 'nobody knows' sign.

[CaleyD]

Do you seriously think Rangers would have placed themselves in administration if they had money there to pay everyone?

[starchief]

I have no idea what this is all about. Is it a game plan? Desperation? A storm in a teacup? Refusing to pay their share? Taking a stand against illegal taxes? No idea whatsoever.

[Yngwie]

Stranger and stranger.

With Rangers embroiled in a serious dispute with HMRC relating to overseas bank accounts, the administrators have received an approach from Milan Mandaric!

[CaleyD]

What's more, Administrators have (yet) to locate the £24 Million from Ticketus and the police have been given files suggesting some kind of fraud.

I think I'll start running a book on who is going to be the first person locked up over all this!!!

[tm4tj]

It's not going to be me, I'm saying nothing.

[starchief]

Stranger and stranger.

With Rangers embroiled in a serious dispute with HMRC relating to overseas bank accounts, the administrators have received an approach from Milan Mandaric!

Apparently not

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17072133

So is Mandaric lying? The administrators? Some hoax on them both?

I just don't get why Whyte would have battled so long for control, then be as abyssmal as he's been made out to be. I can get that he may be preparing everything for a new Rangers. To be honest, it seems an ideal scenario for the Rangers board and a disaster for the tax-payer (although all that assumes guilt, which is far from certain).

Some of the points Whyte has come out with about this being a regular procedure over uncertainty, I can agree with. So Whyte is then a white knight. But then...

Where's the missing millions and the promised investment? Is it a ruse by Whyte to get this new Rangers? Or is it fraudulent behaviour? But why battle for so long to get the club then? Asset stripping? Where would he hide? Hasn't he seen what Lennon has put up with?

It's a cracking story and I've no idea how it's going to end. This'll make a great book for Xmas 2012, when hopefully it's all laid bare.

(oh, and the Blue Knights scenario looks a great way to run a club - more power to them and any other club that goes down that route)

[old caley girl]

There is a thread on pie and bovril re the sports ministers involvement. A Dons fan emailed her for clarification re possible govt involvement and received a reply stating no govt money will be used to bail out rangers. Havent posted link as it is on another forum. You can read the original e mail and reply. Even Terry gets a mention.

[lukemackay]

somes up rangers

somes up their money :abduction:

[CaleyD]

There is a thread on pie and bovril re the sports ministers involvement. A Dons fan emailed her for clarification re possible govt involvement and received a reply stating no govt money will be used to bail out rangers. Havent posted link as it is on another forum. You can read the original e mail and reply. Even Terry gets a mention.

No issue with links being posted to other forums when the intention is to add/share information on a discussion taking place here. It's blatant advertising/spamming from other forums/sites that we don't allow.

[old caley girl]

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167906-well-written-letter-to-robison/ and http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=4&fid=27&sty=2&act=1&mid=2115308230

[PaderbornCaley]

That's a relief. Robison has made it very clear that NO public money will be used to save Rangers. The Scottish government are taking an interest because some 250 jobs at a Scottish business are at risk.

Fair eeeeeenuff!

Edited February 17, 2012 by CapitalCaley

[Laurence]

Fair Points

The only similar failiure of a football club of anywhere similar status (if you dicount Fiorentina, and a South American side who escapes my feeble memory), was Leeds United - Leeds if you remember tried to buy sucess in Europe under Peter Ridsdale , went under financially and ended up in the lower leagues in England,

Does The Forum think if Leeds can go under so can Rangers?

[mainstander]

That's a relief. Robison has made it very clear that NO public money will be used to save Rangers.

No public money controlled by Hollyrood. Robison cant guarantee that HMRC wont settle for less than their owed by HMFC. Even Salmond seemed to be suggesting that HMRC should take recognitcion of HMFCs problems.

Should ANY taxpayer settle for less than we are due?

Edited February 17, 2012 by mainstander

[CaleyD]

Very cleverly worded letter which makes no commitment to pursuing a position which sees Rangers pay the FULL amount due.

[PaderbornCaley]

That's a relief. Robison has made it very clear that NO public money will be used to save Rangers.

No public money controlled by Hollyrood. Robison cant guarantee that HMRC wont settle for less than their owed by HMFC. Even Salmond seemed to be suggesting that HMRC should take recognitcion of HMFCs problems.

Should ANY taxpayer settle for less than we are due?

No. But that is outiwth the Scottish Governments control. There seems to be a misunderstanding on various soocial networks / in the pubs that the Government would bail them out. i.e. John Swinney would write a big cheque. The SNP have made it clear that they will never do this.

It's up to HMRC to chase the monies.

Edited February 17, 2012 by CapitalCaley

[starchief]

Should ANY taxpayer settle for less than we are due?

If the full amount (again, I think we're jumping the gun here - no-one knows what the full amount is) means a large company that provides lots of jobs and income goes into liquidation, then yes, we should settle for less. If the situation with tax is lost by the Gers, then HMRC should take a large chunk, so that Rangers will be in no position to make any significant buys. No tax money and no jobs as a result of liquidation is vengeance - not the policy that should be followed.

Strip them to the bone, yes. Receive no money, close down Scottish income and put people on the dole in a high unemployment area in a recession? That does no-one any good.

[CaleyD]

In reality, how many jobs are we talking about?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the "250" figure seems to have been plucked from mid air and the real figure is about 180....of that there's only about 40 or so full-time staff outside of the coaching staff and players. If players are good enough they will get places elsewhere and if they are not good enough then chances are they would have been looking for new jobs at some point anyway....same goes for coaching staff.

If Rangers are stripped back to the bone then there's a good chance that a large chunk of those 40 staff will go anyway...and some will likely be out the door before the club exits administration (be that via CVA or Liquidation).

It all boils down to maybe 20 jobs which are of any real concern.

In regards to the money Rangers bring in to Scotland....you surely have to be kidding!!! Let's not forget that (win or lose) Rangers have denied the public purse of around £35 Million by not bringing money in to Scotland (UK). They also send a lot more of their income abroad by purchasing foreign players than they spend here. If anything they have a negative impact on the economy.

One final thing...How many times have Rangers stated a desire to ply their trade south of the border? Just one more action that shows they don't give two hoots about the Scottish Economy.

When all is said and done, there's absolutely no good reason...certainly not one that serves public benefit...why Scottish Politicians should be sticking their neb in and doing anything to try and save Rangers FC.

[+DoofersDad]

Of course no-one wants to see folk lose their jobs if they are not personally responsible for the mess at Ibrox, but the Goverment's and HMRC's prime responsibility must be to the taxpayer. It would seem a bit strange not to persue recovery of taxpayers money in order to save a handful of jobs of people who chose to work for a dodgy enterprise, whilst at the same time the Government is maklng hardworking public sector workers redundant because of public spending cuts. These cuts are made a little severer than they should be because Rangers haven't paid their taxes. It is Rangers football club that has a responsibility for these people and not the Government and its agencies. If HMRC is successful in recovering the money owed then the Government will be able to employ far more people in the public sector than were ever employed by Rangers.

Talking of jobs, I understand Ally McCoist has been offered a job with Sky. Apparently he starts his satelite dish installation course on Monday.

[+DoofersDad]

I just don't get why Whyte would have battled so long for control, then be as abyssmal as he's been made out to be.

Maybe he's a secret Tink.

[+DoofersDad]

Fair Points

The only similar failiure of a football club of anywhere similar status (if you dicount Fiorentina, and a South American side who escapes my feeble memory), was Leeds United - Leeds if you remember tried to buy sucess in Europe under Peter Ridsdale , went under financially and ended up in the lower leagues in England,

Does The Forum think if Leeds can go under so can Rangers?

That's a good point but I don't think the situation really is comparable. For a start, Leeds never quite went under even if they were seriously weakened. If the same fate befell Rangers (i.e. surviving but dropping down a couple of divisions) my guess is they would bounce straight back up.

Leeds were one of the top clubs in Europe under Revie but have never been one of the truly big clubs. Their history and fan base is not like Rangers. They are a club that enjoyed short lived success at the highest level and in that sense are a bit like Nottingham Forrest who enjoyed even greater success than Leeds and then fell away when that could not be maintained. Leeds have recovered and are where they are now because they have reached their natural order of things and over the next 20 years or so they will probably be in and out of the Premier Division from time to time. They are not where they are because the financial crisis they faced is holding them back. Rangers are a bigger club in a weaker league and will bounce straight back to the top two in the premier division on no time if demoted.

[starchief]

Of course no-one wants to see folk lose their jobs if they are not personally responsible for the mess at Ibrox, but the Goverment's and HMRC's prime responsibility must be to the taxpayer. It would seem a bit strange not to persue recovery of taxpayers money in order to save a handful of jobs

Never said to let the case drop.

If HMRC is successful in recovering the money owed then the Government will be able to employ far more people in the public sector than were ever employed by Rangers.

Exactly. And how do they get the money owed (if it is owed - no-one knows yet)? Keep it going as a company, whilst fining them the maximum they can afford whilst still surviving. That's more than they'd get if the company went under.

[Scarlet Pimple]

FARCE.

[Laurence]

Debt isn't a problem Manchester United have a sevicable debt of over £700million, caused through the buy out. Basically you can borrow money to buy a foofball club, and the club pay the interest charges. The problem is an unpaid tax bill and accountancy irregularities and alleged fraud. If the books can be sorted out. Rangers can service the debt through their massive income , that is what the administrators will be looking at. Or am I looking at it all wrong

Edited February 18, 2012 by Laurence

[+DoofersDad]

I think or hope we are all saying much the same thing. If keeping the business going is the best way for HMRC to recover any tax due then they should support that. What they should not do is accept a lower settlement just to keep the company in business should it ever come down to that.