Here:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/297387-rangers-to-go-into-administration/

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

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.

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!

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!!!

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

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)

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.

somes up rangers

somes up their money :abduction:

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.

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

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, 201214 yr by CapitalCaley

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 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, 201214 yr by mainstander

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

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, 201214 yr by CapitalCaley

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FARCE.

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, 201214 yr by Laurence

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.

Craig Whyte in my opinion new exactly what he was doing when he bought Rangers over from Sir David Murray, he in my opinion looked at a business that was facing some massive debts namely the 'big case' with the HMRC and had it all in his mind that he would run the club into administration in order to strip the club back, get rid of the debts owed and then sell the club on to one if his other companies and then overtime take the club back through some legal loophole.

Look at what he has done with other companies, he's a man who steps into the helm of an ailing business, puts them into administration and then makes his money from it. I think he massively underestimated just how much public interest there would be in Rangers going into administration and the close scrutiny that would be put into it by all involved and all in the media.

Rangers have massive assetts not to mention Ibrox Stadium that would be one of the very last things to be sold off to service debts not to mention that the main stand is a listed building which hikes up the value, even if the club is stripped back and left to the bare bones with the debt serviced Ibrox Stadium still remains an asset and that alone would give him his money back and more.

it's no coinsidence that one of the administrators has had a seat in the directors box since Whyte took over and it would not shock me to find out that Whyte was seeking the services and advice from administrators from the minute he stepped foot into the club, from the outset of administration it is usually clear whether a club/business will survive and they came out within a matter of days and said that they see no reason why Rangers cannot continue on as a club now and for the future to come. Also it's not as easy to suddenly get administrators in to take up the case especially in the circumstances that came about on Tuesday with the HMRC calling it to the courts, this in my opinion also shows they have been there in the background ready to take up the administration as and when it happened.

Yes the administrators are answerable to the courts but lets be clear about it, they are a business in their own rights and stand to make a tidy little amount from the administration of Rangers not to mention taking them out of it which will ultimately happen.

The 'big case' with the HMRC is a bit of an unknown to all and the totals are not really known, I have read that the unpaid tax bill is £24m with about £12m interest added on then fines to be added on top of that decided by the courts but then that's only rough but where it looks favourable in certain ways for Rangers even if they lose the HMRC have came out and stated beore the administration that they would allow Rangers to make servicable payments to the debt to allow them to continue trading as a club, all of tyhis Whyte new but he has backed himself into a massive corner with what he has done since he took over the club and clealy any leway that the HMRC where willing to go to may now be severly strained.

There are two people to ultimately blame for the problems that Rangers face, Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte - DM from the ridiculous bad management during his term and CW for the way he has run the club since he took over, one thing I would say in DMs defence is that he always maintained that he would only sell Rangers to who he believed was the best man that had the best interests of the club to heart but his hand was forced by the bank and he was made to sell up hence whyit went for £1 as CW took over the £18m debt. Rangers at the time were actually servicing that debt well and reducing it quite considerably monthly but not quick enough for the bank which now makes the whole situation even more ludicrous and so difficult to understand.

It's no coincidence that he sacked half of the old board after taking over including a very influencial Martin Bain who is much reveared in what he does and steared Rangers almost single handidly for 3 years before CW took over. Was it that they knew exactly what CW was going to do or what he had in mind and didn't agree with it or didn't want part of it and threatened to blow the lid on his plans? No one knows but it all looks very very suspicious.

I would not be surprised to see Martin Bain back at Rangers in some capacity after CW has moved on after the administration with a new board and owner in place because there is no way CW can continue in the capacity he has, not to mention the fact that he could soon be facing criminal charges should any wrong doing be discovered which looks ever inceasingly likely.