pedro.mcghee Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Spot on. The SPL is completely seperate to the SFL, it has no obligation to admit an SFL club to fill the gap. Also, the SKY deal for 120 million was dependant on 4 Glasgow derbies a season. SO anyone htinking Rangers Athletic or somehting similar wont be in the SPL next season is mad. Turkeys dont vote for christmas. So that’s Patrick or Queens Park then I am dyslexic and I am getting tired of your shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I didn't realise you could borrow huge sums of money against future earnings. I must ask my bank manager about that because I suspect I know what he'd say. Schadenfreude, as the royal family used to say before they changed their name from Battenburg or Saxe-Coburg or whatever it was. "Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 However, with Michel Platini being a big advocate of this financial fair play, I wonder what UEFA's view of the SPL allowing a new club to rise from the ashes of Rangers and automatically take their place in the SPL. Wishful thinking perhaps, but the SPL's hands may well be tied on the matter. Indeed, and I'd go even further than that. If the 'Big Tax Case' goes against Rangers there's a strong argument that they should be stripped of all honours won since the offshore employee payment scheme was introduced, as during that whole period it has given them an unfair competative advantage by allowing them to buy and field players that they couldn't actually afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonInDublin Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Indeed, and I'd go even further than that. If the 'Big Tax Case' goes against Rangers there's a strong argument that they should be stripped of all honous won since the offshore employee scheme was introduced, as during that whole period it has given them an unfair competative advantage. Depends 100% on the rational and reasoning for the introduction of the tax incentive. If it was a deliberate attempt to avoid paying taxes then you're right. If they received advice (albeit misguided) which they took in good faith, detailing it was a legitimate tax scheme which benefited employees (and there's hunners of them by the way !) - then - whilst guilty of not paying the tax - your position doesn't stand. Either way they would owe the money - but only in one case does your argument hold, cos if it is the latter then any club or player or business could have been equally ill advised. Indeed, I refuse to believe that it was only Rangers, or Rangers players who were in on this tax scheme. Surely players talk to each other and if others got wind that there was a tax avoidance cutting around, I'd be flabbergasted if no one else hopped on the bandwagon. Deep down I hope you're right though - but Scottish football's bosses think, rightly or wrongly, that Scottish football needs Rangers and Celtic far more than natural justice - so I can't see it happening ! Two Uniteds but the soul is one, as the Busby Babes carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonInDublin Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I didn't realise you could borrow huge sums of money against future earnings. I must ask my bank manager about that because I suspect I know what he'd say. Schadenfreude, as the royal family used to say before they changed their name from Battenburg or Saxe-Coburg or whatever it was. Of course you can - unless your bank manager or bank has never offered a car loan, or a mortgage or any other type of loan. What a daft post. Two Uniteds but the soul is one, as the Busby Babes carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Depends 100% on the rational and reasoning for the introduction of the tax incentive. If it was a deliberate attempt to avoid paying taxes then you're right. If they received advice (albeit misguided) which they took in good faith, detailing it was a legitimate tax scheme which benefited employees (and there's hunners of them by the way !) - then - whilst guilty of not paying the tax - your position doesn't stand. Either way they would owe the money - but only in one case does your argument hold, cos if it is the latter then any club or player or business could have been equally ill advised. Indeed, I refuse to believe that it was only Rangers, or Rangers players who were in on this tax scheme. Surely players talk to each other and if others got wind that there was a tax avoidance cutting around, I'd be flabbergasted if no one else hopped on the bandwagon. Deep down I hope you're right though - but Scottish football's bosses think, rightly or wrongly, that Scottish football needs Rangers and Celtic far more than natural justice - so I can't see it happening ! If the 'Big Tax Case' goes against them then I don't see how if it was done through a delibarate attempt at tax avoidance or through simple naivity makes any difference as the net effect, an unfair competative advantage, will be exactly the same. I don't think that will be contained in the forthcoming judgement anyway, it will simply decide if it was legal or not and if not how much is owed. It will not make any judgement on whether or not the motives were deliberately malicious. But simply saying 'we got advice and were told it was OK' is most definately not a defence that would stand up in any court. Getting pish poor advice does not absolve you of guilt. Nor is 'others were probably doing it aswell'. Pleas of mitigation may be used to influence the severity of punishment if found guilty, but not to determine innocence or guilt. I agree however that stripping them of past honours will never happen for the same reasons that the newco won't be made to start in the 3rd division, more's the pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasta Ton Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Of course you can - unless your bank manager or bank has never offered a car loan, or a mortgage or any other type of loan. What a daft post. Mortgages and car loans are loaned on the basis of current earnings and your ability to re-pay at the time the loan is taken out, not future earnings, hence why one may arrange a mortgage protection insurance policy. The loan is further securitised against the property or vehicle itself. This season ticket arrangement is based on projected figures that may or may not arise. What a daft post. FIRST DIVISION RUNNERS UP 2012/13 Hey Man - Enough of your Stupidness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Mortgages and car loans are loaned on the basis of current earnings and your ability to re-pay at the time the loan is taken out, not future earnings, hence why one may arrange a mortgage protection insurance policy. The loan is further securitised against the property or vehicle itself. This season ticket arrangement is based on projected figures that may or may not arise. What a daft post. It's bound to adversely effect season ticket sales as well (assuming they last that long which is highly unlikely) now that the fans know that their money won't be used to invest in the team but to pay off debt. Is that a fat lady I hear gargling in the wings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puggsy_ton Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 And now they can bring out their true colours again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Of course you can - unless your bank manager or bank has never offered a car loan, or a mortgage or any other type of loan. What a daft post. No it's not. Mortgages are secured against property or other assets, as are car loans to some extent depending on the exact type of loan. For an unsecured loan there's usually a credit check involved. What Whyte seems to have done is hand over the future revenue stream from season tickets to a third party in return for a chunk of money. I suppose it's a bit like factoring. In any case it indicates to me someone getting money by dodgy accounting because he doesn't actually have the funds to buy Rangers. Incidentally what will happen if Rangers do go bust - presumably the lender won't get the future revenue as it will be a new company that buys them back and resuscitates them, and all the debts will be written off or at best paid out at a few pence in the £. "Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 And now they can bring out their true colours again Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of neo-humans. "Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonInDublin Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Mortgages and car loans are loaned on the basis of current earnings and your ability to re-pay at the time the loan is taken out, not future earnings, hence why one may arrange a mortgage protection insurance policy. The loan is further securitised against the property or vehicle itself. This season ticket arrangement is based on projected figures that may or may not arise. What a daft post. And the Rangers loans were secured on the basis of a huge chunk of their season tickets future earnings - which a bit like your future earnings when you get a mortgage - are a leap of faith for the investor. But- to entice them - they also get a nice chunk of interest added on - same way as the bank does for your mortgage. It looks at what you can pay now, and what you can afford to pay in the future. In both cases the bank (or investment company) is gambling - which is why in both cases they get a handsome return for their upfront dough. So the principle is exactly the same, or else base economics falls on its arse. Can you afford to pay now and in the future. Are you a reasonable risk. Can I extort you for a fairly decent sum of interest. Yes to all three - here's your football club/car/mortgage/whatever. Two Uniteds but the soul is one, as the Busby Babes carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamCam Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I didn't realise you could borrow huge sums of money against future earnings. I must ask my bank manager about that because I suspect I know what he'd say. Schadenfreude, as the royal family used to say before they changed their name from Battenburg or Saxe-Coburg or whatever it was. It appears to be relatively common in the world of 'leisure' but normally only for short term cash flow issues the problem for Rangers is 3/4 years future season tickets all at the one time. Never previously appeared on the accounts as always paid back in the same year so suspicion is that is why Mr Whyte is so reluctant and/or unable to publish audited accounts. Bit like Scott - where is the money now ? No it's not. Mortgages are secured against property or other assets, as are car loans to some extent depending on the exact type of loan. For an unsecured loan there's usually a credit check involved. What Whyte seems to have done is hand over the future revenue stream from season tickets to a third party in return for a chunk of money. I suppose it's a bit like factoring. In any case it indicates to me someone getting money by dodgy accounting because he doesn't actually have the funds to buy Rangers. Incidentally what will happen if Rangers do go bust - presumably the lender won't get the future revenue as it will be a new company that buys them back and resuscitates them, and all the debts will be written off or at best paid out at a few pence in the £. But what no-one appears to know with Rangers is whether or not the borrowings are secured against something. Hard to believe the lender would offer up £24m on an unsecured basis although I suppose that is what the banks did for many years! The main point of the recent revelations is that whether or not Rangers win or lose the EBT case they could still go bust as realistically the money going out the door is way more than what is projected to come in. Sadly however you read it I expect the 'establishment' to ensure that Rangers appear in a new guise in the SPL with minimal punishment. For me it would be a travesty of justice, if this happened, but when ever did the SPL think of anyone other than themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 And the Rangers loans were secured on the basis of a huge chunk of their season tickets future earnings - which a bit like your future earnings when you get a mortgage - are a leap of faith for the investor. But- to entice them - they also get a nice chunk of interest added on - same way as the bank does for your mortgage. It looks at what you can pay now, and what you can afford to pay in the future. In both cases the bank (or investment company) is gambling - which is why in both cases they get a handsome return for their upfront dough. So the principle is exactly the same, or else base economics falls on its arse. Can you afford to pay now and in the future. Are you a reasonable risk. Can I extort you for a fairly decent sum of interest. Yes to all three - here's your football club/car/mortgage/whatever. I'm sure I couldn't borrow money against future earnings as they are something of an unknown. To be fair it's probably a reasonable assumption that Rangers will have guaranteed season ticket income if they are still in business and that's maybe what was taken into account, but I suspect the lender is now a wee bit peeved at finding out the true financial situation as they stand to lose a lot of money. Unless as you say they put up something as security, such as the ground, and it's on a preferred creditor basis. "Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro.mcghee Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Your football team is at risk if you do not keep up repayments of your session ticket or any other loans secured on it Whitten details on request brand new customers only I am dyslexic and I am getting tired of your shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonsilitis Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Depends 100% on the rational and reasoning for the introduction of the tax incentive. If it was a deliberate attempt to avoid paying taxes then you're right. If they received advice (albeit misguided) which they took in good faith, detailing it was a legitimate tax scheme which benefited employees (and there's hunners of them by the way !) - then - whilst guilty of not paying the tax - your position doesn't stand. Either way they would owe the money - but only in one case does your argument hold, cos if it is the latter then any club or player or business could have been equally ill advised. Indeed, I refuse to believe that it was only Rangers, or Rangers players who were in on this tax scheme. Surely players talk to each other and if others got wind that there was a tax avoidance cutting around, I'd be flabbergasted if no one else hopped on the bandwagon. Deep down I hope you're right though - but Scottish football's bosses think, rightly or wrongly, that Scottish football needs Rangers and Celtic far more than natural justice - so I can't see it happening ! From what I have heard, the tax schemes were workable but improperly implemented by Rangers - nobody's fault but their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonsilitis Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Re the pawning of future season ticket sales, it will be interesting to see what happens to that debt i.e. the debt to Ticketus. There is a general rule in Scots Law that you cannot create a security over moveable property. Moveable property is basically anything that's not land or buildings. Its debateable whether future season ticket sales are even assets in the conventional sense. Nothing can be collected on them until the season in question and then only then if there is a team to watch. Would a post admin Rangers have to honour this agreement? I can't get my head around why they would and so Ticketus will have to have deep pockets/be sh1tting themselves. Everything in Craig Whyte's history suggest a large scale wide boy. You don't get 8 year bans from being a director without serious misdemeanours. I don't fancy the other guys in the frame to take over either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 However, with Michel Platini being a big advocate of this financial fair play, I wonder what UEFA's view of the SPL allowing a new club to rise from the ashes of Rangers and automatically take their place in the SPL. Wishful thinking perhaps, but the SPL's hands may well be tied on the matter. Certainly, there failure to publish accounts would stop them competing in Europe 2012/13. There even has to be questions asked as to why they were given a european liscence this season, considering the grave state of there finances over recent years. Even if they do survive until November, which is when this tax case is due to be settled. I suspect they will fold in the summer, a new club will form and start in the SPL, with no european football. I dont know if Platini can really stop that process? A new club, new set of accounts? May be wrong though. Total guess work on my part. Only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Indeed, and I'd go even further than that. If the 'Big Tax Case' goes against Rangers there's a strong argument that they should be stripped of all honours won since the offshore employee payment scheme was introduced, as during that whole period it has given them an unfair competative advantage by allowing them to buy and field players that they couldn't actually afford. I would do that just to get it up every t*** who has a 5 star tattoo. Nacho Novo and Kyle Laffatme included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Even if they do survive until November, which is when this tax case is due to be settled. Decision is due a lot sooner than that, in 4-6 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.