White is at fault but is obviously the scapegoat for the whole situation. Did the spl or previous owners not think to check his previous business history before he took over at rangers? Seems like he showed them his matalan card and off he went.
Joke? What are the chances of The FA treating a big team down here like that and The Old Firm are far more important to them than the Sky 4 are here. Look how many times Portsmouth have been let off lightly.
whats the point of fining a club in administration, owing millions, £160000
Such is life mate. It's usually those who are down at heel who end up having to pay more (for any service) and those that have funds, who manage to part with as little as possible!
Given rangers track record though...are they likely to pay??
As for the stewardship of the club. How did Whyte pass any "fit" test? A simple check of Companies House or a credit reference agency will show up disqualifications. And I can't for the life of me see why Murray seems to be getting off scot (no pun intended) free...he's the one who racked up the bulk of the tax bill that's due!
Reading the BBC news story it seems all the various Rangers fans groups are really throwing their toys out of the pram about this.
Their point of view seems to be akin to a conman saying "Yes, I know I ripped off loads of people, but I blew the money, so instead of going to prison what I really want is a loan".
They really believe that no matter what the club and it's various owners have done wrong that the SFA should be helping them out, not punishing them. I can understand why to a certain extent, the SFA have colluded with the Old Firm for more than 30 years to systematically destroy any possible competition. They weren't complaining the whole time that dominance meant they were rolling in cash and trophies. Now the cash has dried up suddenly the SFA is the bad guy for not being lenient with Rangers.
In fact, I may have been harsh on the SFA saying "colluded with the old firm". These actions would hint that Rangers have had the SFA over a barrel and the SFA are now taking their chance to stick the boot in a bit.
Couldn't agree less Randy Andy. The only people being punished now are the fans. Whyte no longer has de facto control of the club, his ban makes no difference. The main culprit is obviously Whyte but the SFA passed him as a reasonable person to run a club - that makes a mockery of them and this they must shoulder some of the blame also. Imposing sanctions now that their test had been proven inadequate is merely shifting the blame.
Let's take out who the club is and insert Charlton.
Murray can't find a buyer, we go into admin, Murray is banned for life, the club is fined and deducted points, then we are given a transfer embargo for 12 months.
All those ringing their hands because it's Rangers should be thinking this could have been us.
Not sure why Murray would be banned. Your thinking here isn't quite right. The issue with rangers is a complete disregard for their obligation to pay their dues.
We may well have gone under without new buyers, but I don't think it's ever been suggested that we haven't been paying our taxes or PAYE or that Murray has ever been anything but fit & proper.
Think of it another way...it's about time that football clubs all ran on a level playing field and all were subject to the same rules and punishments. It's going to take a few years, but I hope this is the first step in getting all clubs in line so that we know that our clubs are being run properly and will not be put in these positions by fraudulent owners.
It's not a simple as administration though. There has been serious breaches of SFA rules. They were found guilty of 5 of 6 charges, the other only not guilty because of lack of evidence it seems.
No I wouldn't like it if it was us, but equally who else but the club is going to be punished? Whyte has been given a lift time ban, should Rangers profit from his misdeeds and escape punishment simply because they are in a bad way? Punishing a club is never going to popular with it's fans, but clubs must be punished else nothing will ever change.
And yes, the SFA do need to shoulder some of the blame. As has been mentioned above (though how accurate it is I'm not sure), the SFA could have relegated them and other worse sanctions, but didn't. A transfer embargo on a club that has serious financial mismanagement doesn't seem disproportionate to me.
Let's take out who the club is and insert Charlton.
Murray can't find a buyer, we go into admin, Murray is banned for life, the club is fined and deducted points, then we are given a transfer embargo for 12 months.
All those ringing their hands because it's Rangers should be thinking this could have been us.
Completely different case to what has happened at Rangers, I don't get your point at all. If we went in to admin we would lose points because they're the rules, in my opinion they're not strong enough.
Rangers never avoided paying PAYE as a deception, they were using what they considered to be a tax efficient vehicle, one which lots of English clubs are also using - Rangers are a test case for HMRC to evaluate the validity of that agreement. Where it's really gone wrong is under Whyte, who (David) Murray should never sold to and who the SFA should never have declared a fit and proper person.
I take no delight that it's ranger per se, but I am glad a big club has come a cropper. The situation is Scotland is unique and both the Old Firm clubs have certainly used their dominance and influence over the years to maintain the status quo. Too many clubs play fast a lose with finances. Rangers were advised when they set out on this course many years ago that the legality of the financial instrument they were using was questionable at best and they pressed on with it. That's nothing to do with the current owners and it could be argued that a great deal of their success over the last 10 years has been in part funded by the tax payer.
You are right in saying HMRC are using this as a test case. They are determined to make football follow the rules the rest of us have follow. Pompey will be lucky to survive, Rangers are a nice big juicy target for HMRC to prove a point with.
When Leeds went down and into financial melt-down many of us hoped it was the wake-up call football badly needed. It wasn't, the big clubs just rewrote the rules to ensure they got a bigger share of the money so they were protected. I personally think this whole fashion for owners lending the club money is wrong. If you own a club, then you own it and you invest in it, you don't loan it money.
I'm self employed, what I should do is set-up a limited company, pay myself 150% of turnover and load the company the 50% it's short. Then all I have to do is not pay any taxes or NI the company owes, declare the company bankrupt with myself as the major creditor, thus ensuring HMRC gets nothing. Of course that's all complete rubbish, but it's similar logic football clubs are using to move money around. I buy a club, I loan it money to make up any shortfall in income, and then when it's sold the new owners have to buy both the club and my debt, I basically get double my money, the price of the club and all the money I spent running it back. Did I really own it? I certainly didn't act like I did, I just used it as a vehicle to move funds around with and to build up a debt back to myself that any future owner would need to pay.
It's all going to come crashing down soon, once a few clubs go then it will create a domino effect and all these money moving and debt creating vehicle won't have money to move around, and nobody to pay those artificially created owner debts.
All rangers players worth anything will leave this summer Grandpa, there's a couple of decent youngsters, however the more senior players will be looking for a payday.
What your describing is accurate, but the point here isn't what's happened, it's the punishment thaf follows. Extending you analogy, if you behaved like that who should ultimately be punished ? A) your customers, b) the person who buys or seeks to buy the company off of you or, c) you ? Also, if there was a regulatory body who had said you were just the sort of bloke who should run a business, wouldn't you find it odd that that same body started imposing punishments on a, b & c when it turned out you were a joker. ?
Can we stop talking about Scottish football and talk about the Welsh league ? However, while were hear, I have just slapped £330 quid on Celtic to win the Scottish Premier next year and 1/33 on. Easy £10..........
Can we stop talking about Scottish football and talk about the Welsh league ? However, while were hear, I have just slapped £330 quid on Celtic to win the Scottish Premier next year and 1/33 on. Easy £10..........
I'm self employed, what I should do is set-up a limited company, pay myself 150% of turnover and load the company the 50% it's short. Then all I have to do is not pay any taxes or NI the company owes, declare the company bankrupt with myself as the major creditor, thus ensuring HMRC gets nothing. Of course that's all complete rubbish, but it's similar logic football clubs are using to move money around. I buy a club, I loan it money to make up any shortfall in income, and then when it's sold the new owners have to buy both the club and my debt, I basically get double my money, the price of the club and all the money I spent running it back. Did I really own it? I certainly didn't act like I did, I just used it as a vehicle to move funds around with and to build up a debt back to myself that any future owner would need to pay.
Except you would not get the 50% back. You would be a creditor and would get the same 10p in the £ that HMRC gets. Also you would have had the tax deducted which would erode any allowances you had.
The point here is that the Chairmen that do this, do lose money. They don't get their loans back. Even if they manage to sell them on with the club, in the end the club will default on them when they go into Administration, like what happened with Portsmouth.
The sad thing is that in most cases the owners put most of their 'spare' money into the club, then they lend it money they can't afford to lose when the investment 'gift' turns out to be insufficient.
All the while the calls from the fans for more and more spending just carry on coming. Do you really think that these complaining Rangers fans would have accepted it if they'd been told five years ago that their club needed to reduce costs and pay down debt, virtually guaranteeing Celtic the title for the next fifteen or twenty seasons?
Would they have said, "Ok, let's set about building a club fit for purpose that can challenge Celtic in 2030 and beyond. Let's clear our debt like responsible businesses should"?
No chance, they would have marched on Ibrox and lynched anyone that refused to back down and keep the whole pack of cards standing.
To complain now when their club has won trophy after trophy spending someone else's money is a bit rich.
They need to be held accountable, and they need to be held up as an example to anyone (owners, payers or fans) who think that continuing to spend when you can't repay your debts is acceptable.
Comments
Good move by the SFA, please take note FA.
Given rangers track record though...are they likely to pay??
As for the stewardship of the club. How did Whyte pass any "fit" test? A simple check of Companies House or a credit reference agency will show up disqualifications. And I can't for the life of me see why Murray seems to be getting off scot (no pun intended) free...he's the one who racked up the bulk of the tax bill that's due!
Their point of view seems to be akin to a conman saying "Yes, I know I ripped off loads of people, but I blew the money, so instead of going to prison what I really want is a loan".
They really believe that no matter what the club and it's various owners have done wrong that the SFA should be helping them out, not punishing them. I can understand why to a certain extent, the SFA have colluded with the Old Firm for more than 30 years to systematically destroy any possible competition. They weren't complaining the whole time that dominance meant they were rolling in cash and trophies. Now the cash has dried up suddenly the SFA is the bad guy for not being lenient with Rangers.
In fact, I may have been harsh on the SFA saying "colluded with the old firm". These actions would hint that Rangers have had the SFA over a barrel and the SFA are now taking their chance to stick the boot in a bit.
Murray can't find a buyer, we go into admin, Murray is banned for life, the club is fined and deducted points, then we are given a transfer embargo for 12 months.
All those ringing their hands because it's Rangers should be thinking this could have been us.
We may well have gone under without new buyers, but I don't think it's ever been suggested that we haven't been paying our taxes or PAYE or that Murray has ever been anything but fit & proper.
Think of it another way...it's about time that football clubs all ran on a level playing field and all were subject to the same rules and punishments. It's going to take a few years, but I hope this is the first step in getting all clubs in line so that we know that our clubs are being run properly and will not be put in these positions by fraudulent owners.
No I wouldn't like it if it was us, but equally who else but the club is going to be punished? Whyte has been given a lift time ban, should Rangers profit from his misdeeds and escape punishment simply because they are in a bad way? Punishing a club is never going to popular with it's fans, but clubs must be punished else nothing will ever change.
And yes, the SFA do need to shoulder some of the blame. As has been mentioned above (though how accurate it is I'm not sure), the SFA could have relegated them and other worse sanctions, but didn't. A transfer embargo on a club that has serious financial mismanagement doesn't seem disproportionate to me.
Agree that the Charlton analogy is flawed.
I was just trying to get the point over that some on here seem happy because it's Rangers.
You are right in saying HMRC are using this as a test case. They are determined to make football follow the rules the rest of us have follow. Pompey will be lucky to survive, Rangers are a nice big juicy target for HMRC to prove a point with.
When Leeds went down and into financial melt-down many of us hoped it was the wake-up call football badly needed. It wasn't, the big clubs just rewrote the rules to ensure they got a bigger share of the money so they were protected. I personally think this whole fashion for owners lending the club money is wrong. If you own a club, then you own it and you invest in it, you don't loan it money.
I'm self employed, what I should do is set-up a limited company, pay myself 150% of turnover and load the company the 50% it's short. Then all I have to do is not pay any taxes or NI the company owes, declare the company bankrupt with myself as the major creditor, thus ensuring HMRC gets nothing. Of course that's all complete rubbish, but it's similar logic football clubs are using to move money around. I buy a club, I loan it money to make up any shortfall in income, and then when it's sold the new owners have to buy both the club and my debt, I basically get double my money, the price of the club and all the money I spent running it back. Did I really own it? I certainly didn't act like I did, I just used it as a vehicle to move funds around with and to build up a debt back to myself that any future owner would need to pay.
It's all going to come crashing down soon, once a few clubs go then it will create a domino effect and all these money moving and debt creating vehicle won't have money to move around, and nobody to pay those artificially created owner debts.
What your describing is accurate, but the point here isn't what's happened, it's the punishment thaf follows. Extending you analogy, if you behaved like that who should ultimately be punished ? A) your customers, b) the person who buys or seeks to buy the company off of you or, c) you ? Also, if there was a regulatory body who had said you were just the sort of bloke who should run a business, wouldn't you find it odd that that same body started imposing punishments on a, b & c when it turned out you were a joker. ?
Lol
The point here is that the Chairmen that do this, do lose money. They don't get their loans back. Even if they manage to sell them on with the club, in the end the club will default on them when they go into Administration, like what happened with Portsmouth.
The sad thing is that in most cases the owners put most of their 'spare' money into the club, then they lend it money they can't afford to lose when the investment 'gift' turns out to be insufficient.
All the while the calls from the fans for more and more spending just carry on coming. Do you really think that these complaining Rangers fans would have accepted it if they'd been told five years ago that their club needed to reduce costs and pay down debt, virtually guaranteeing Celtic the title for the next fifteen or twenty seasons?
Would they have said, "Ok, let's set about building a club fit for purpose that can challenge Celtic in 2030 and beyond. Let's clear our debt like responsible businesses should"?
No chance, they would have marched on Ibrox and lynched anyone that refused to back down and keep the whole pack of cards standing.
To complain now when their club has won trophy after trophy spending someone else's money is a bit rich.
They need to be held accountable, and they need to be held up as an example to anyone (owners, payers or fans) who think that continuing to spend when you can't repay your debts is acceptable.
Now that's very astute.