The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
THE following information was given to BBC ahead of the broadcast of tonight's programme:

David Grier, who was the engagement partner at MCR, said: "I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the Club. This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts.

"Neither I nor any of my colleagues at MCR provided any professional assistance to Liberty, Wavetower or Craig Whyte, in raising funds, performing financial due diligence, structuring or agreeing the terms of the purchase of the Club from the Murray Group.



"Financial due diligence and other work was provided by Saffery Champness, a firm of chartered accountants who specialise in this area, and our primary role was to provide assistance to Liberty Capital in negotiating a settlement and assignment of the debt due to Lloyds Bank.

"The reality is that when my concerns about the use of Ticketus funding crystallised over the summer of 2011, I took immediate steps to raise these concerns with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC.

"I had no direct contact with Ticketus prior to the takeover by Wavetower, however we were aware and were party to discussions regarding Ticketus as a recognised source of short term working capital that was used by the Club and that could be a source of such continued funding. These discussions are well-minuted.

"At the time there was significant uncertainty surrounding the potential outcome of the 'big' tax case, which could result in the Club being unable to meet a potential liability and therefore face insolvency. As a result we were asked by Liberty Capital in April 2011 to provide advice in writing to them in relation to our view on the possibility of agreeing a time to pay arrangement with HMRC.

"At the same time we were also asked to confirm our opinion of what rights a funder of future season tickets would have in the event of an insolvency. This was in contemplation of funding a time to pay arrangement with HMRC.

"As we were not aware of the nature and extent of any arrangements for season ticket sales we were unable to provide specific advice without full detail and our letter of 7 April 2011 is clear on this point.

"Indeed we state in this letter that we had not had access to documents or knowledge of contractual terms either of any proposed ticketing agreement or proposed purchase from the Murray Group and as a consequence we could not provide further advice without this detail. We did not receive further information and therefore we could not provide further advice on this matter.

"At the time of the acquisition, Craig Whyte indicated that he would be able to fund settlement of the big tax case of up to £15 million but we were not involved in the raising of funds or providing corporate finance advice.

"We were provided with a copy of a draft email to Ticketus dated 19 April 2011 that mentions the possibility of raising funds, but does not provide any information of quantum or terms of such a proposal. To suggest this email establishes an awareness of Ticketus providing acquisition funding is absurd and ridiculous.

"We, along with solicitors acting for the Murray Group and Lloyds Bank, were provided with information from Collyer Bristow to confirm that Liberty Capital had funds at their disposal to both acquire the debt of Lloyds Bank and provide sufficient working capital to satisfy the concerns raised by the independent committee of the Club. The financial forecasts that we had sight of showed the original cash injection to acquire the Club was from Wavetower and not Ticketus.

"It is clear now, with the benefit of hindsight, that material information was withheld from us, and others, prior to the acquisition of the Club and, once we discovered the full extent of the funding relationship between Ticketus, Liberty Capital and the Club, we took immediate steps to raise our concern with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC.

"Throughout this process we have acted professionally and provided opinion and recommendations to avoid an insolvency of the Club by outlining alternative courses of action to the directors. We did provide the controlling directors and company secretary of the Club with our written concern that failure to meet their statutory duties could lead to a claim of wrongful trading, however the controlling directors and company secretary always maintained that insolvency could be avoided through the introduction of new capital and/or fundraising with supporters of the Club."

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "For the BBC to suggest that I deliberately misled or lied to Mark Daly is both grossly insulting and unacceptable to me as an officer of the court. During my conversation with Mr Daly on Feb 22, which was off the record, I said I thought that MCR became aware of the full scale of Ticketus funding in July or August. I gave an honest answer to the best of my recollection as I had not been closely involved in the Rangers takeover work at the time.

"For the BBC now to accuse Duff and Phelps of conflicts of interest and unprofessional conduct based on a deep misunderstanding of the true picture is downright irresponsible and defamatory and we will not let the matter rest there.

"There is a world of difference between knowing that Ticketus was a potential source of working capital funding for the Club and its new owners (Craig Whyte/Wavetower) - which is our position - and knowing that funding from ticket sales had been effectively used to purchase the Club. The BBC have failed miserably to make that distinction.

"At all times during our involvement with Rangers, we have kept HMRC, the Club's largest potential creditor fully informed of developments. These communications included several meetings. When the question of our appointment was considered by the Court of Session on 14 February 2012, HMRC decided to withdraw their application for their own nominees to be appointed as administrators, instead allowing our appointment to proceed. We have continued to keep HMRC fully appraised of our work as Administrators since 14 February."
Click to expand...


Looks like the BBC have been up to their old tricks again..
 
JOINT administrators Duff and Phelps made the following statement:

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The allegations made in tonight's programme against Duff and Phelps are untrue, a distortion of the facts and highly defamatory. Discussions are already underway with our solicitors with a view to bringing legal proceedings against the BBC.

"We are also hugely disappointed with the irresponsible comments made by Mr Roger Isaacs who is clearly not in possession of the facts.


"We made a number of offers to assist the BBC in order they would not make the fundamental errors broadcast this evening and for some inexplicable reason the reporter Mark Daly declined these.

"We had also hoped to give interviews stating our case on camera but received strong legal advice against this course of action, bearing in mind the legal proceedings Duff and Phelps have raised against Collyer Bristow. The BBC were informed in writing from our solicitors.

"We did however provide the BBC with lengthy written statements stating our position and we are publishing these on the Rangers website.

"In broad terms Mr Daly failed miserably to understand the difference between working capital arrangements for the Club and acquisition funding."

David Grier, said: "I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the Club. This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts.

"Neither I nor any of my colleagues at MCR provided any professional assistance to Liberty, Wavetower or Craig Whyte, in raising funds, performing financial due diligence, structuring or agreeing the terms of the purchase of the Club from the Murray Group.

"Financial due diligence and other work was provided by Saffery Champness, a firm of chartered accountants who specialise in this area and our primary role was to provide assistance to Liberty Capital in negotiating a settlement and assignment of the debt due to Lloyds Bank.

"The reality is that when my concerns about the use of Ticketus funding crystallised over the summer of 2011, I took immediate steps to raise these concerns with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC.

"The email referred to in tonight's programme to Ticketus dated 19 April 2011 mentions the possibility of raising funds for working capital but does not provide any information of quantum or terms of such a proposal. To suggest this email establishes an awareness of Ticketus providing acquisition funding is absurd and ridiculous.

"Once we discovered the full extent of the funding relationship between Ticketus, Liberty Capital and the club, we took immediate steps to raise our concern with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC."

Mr Clark said the administrators would not comment on the BBC's EBT allegations while the first tier tax tribunal was still active.
Click to expand...


Making a story fit round their warped imagination..... And to think that our licence fee pays for this drivel....
 
Last edited:
I read
I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the Club. This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts.
Click to expand...

as
I categorically deny that Craig Whyte took over Rangers
Click to expand...

Thought the BBC had pulled off a master stroke of interviewing... :p

Can't wait for this show to come up on iplayer, looks a laugh to see what the BBC have to say,
 
A lot of if's in it. Could be true might not be. As for SDM and his 6.5 million. The EBT's were run by MIH and Rangers put into the pot. I'm not a SDM fan but its most likely his EBT was funded by MIH not Rangers.

What I want to know is how the BBC know this yet Strathclydes finest have been "investigating" the takeover and as yet have done/found hee haw. Maybe BBC should take over the running of the police.
 
It's been the same with the dual contracts

the "if" Rangers have been found guilty becomes

"Rangers have cheated" in the eyes of some.

Also the EBTs ran from 2001 to 2010 yet I've also read and heard "Rangers have cheated for decades" and should be punished again creating punishment for a crime that's not yet proven.
 
Obviously if they had side contracts then something should be done, at the moment though what really could be done to punish Rangers? Dont keep hurting a wounded animal, you put it down.
 
BBC Scotland Investigates wrote to all of the Scottish Premier League’s member clubs and asked whether they had ever operated an EBT scheme.

Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League.
Click to expand...


I guess this means that Celtic and their fans can no longer take the moral high ground.....

Surely the SFA will now be investigating their use of dual contracts? Or will it be swept under the carpet?
 
Well, you claim Celtic have admitted to using one EBT scheme, whereas Rangers have deined, deflected and denied again. It's hardly the same. Celtic can easily take the moral high ground. :)
 
eddiemcgarrigle said:
Well, you claim Celtic have admitted to using one EBT scheme, whereas Rangers have deined, deflected and denied again. It's hardly the same. Celtic can easily take the moral high ground. :)
Click to expand...

I claim nothing.. The BBC contacted Celtic and they replied.....

So from what your saying... Celtic should be forgiven for their use of EBT's and possibly dual contracts?

Sounds like double standards to me....
 
eddiemcgarrigle said:
Well, you claim Celtic have admitted to using one EBT scheme, whereas Rangers have deined, deflected and denied again. It's hardly the same. Celtic can easily take the moral high ground. :)
Click to expand...

Rangers have never denied using an EBT scheme Eddie where did you dream that one up?? It was published in full audited accounts it was in use?

The fact that Celtic used it and have Admitted they never told the SFA/SPL should leave them open to the same punishemtn afford to Rangers if dual contracts are ever proved.

I've tallied up all the EBT's that the BBC "claim" to have side letters for and it totals £29 million. So income tax on that at 40% as I believe it was at the time would be circa £11-12 million (not £50 million). I also believe that a company using EBT's pays corporation tax on the money it puts into the EBT fund at a rate of about 26% (maybe highe) so that would leave a tax shortfall of 14% or around £4-5 million. But even if they dont pay the corporation tax the outstanding tax would be £11-12 million.

Obviously though its not that straight forward as its taken 3 judges months sofar with no outcome.
 
Gav said:
I claim nothing.. The BBC contacted Celtic and they replied.....

So from what your saying... Celtic should be forgiven for their use of EBT's and possibly dual contracts?

Sounds like double standards to me....
Click to expand...

Celtic have admitted to using one EBT for a player and once they realised that they might be dodgy they settled with HMRC. The only case they have to answer is whether they informed the SFA/SPL at the time though in their case they dealt with payments when required.

Rangers' payments have gone on for years running into millions of pounds and will likely be hammered by the judgement, likely only those with paper evidence applying in the appeal. Rangers fans claiming Celtic should be punished as well is just making them look even more ridiculous.

Now that it's been made public, you have to ask why the SPL haven't been more rigorous in their investigation other than asking the club for the evidence, when it was available from the courts in the big tax case. Criminal proceedings will be likely now that the police can't sit and wait for the SPL to get their act together.
 
McMav said:
Rangers have never denied using an EBT scheme Eddie where did you dream that one up?? It was published in full audited accounts it was in use?

The fact that Celtic used it and have Admitted they never told the SFA/SPL should leave them open to the same punishemtn afford to Rangers if dual contracts are ever proved.

I've tallied up all the EBT's that the BBC "claim" to have side letters for and it totals £29 million. So income tax on that at 40% as I believe it was at the time would be circa £11-12 million (not £50 million). I also believe that a company using EBT's pays corporation tax on the money it puts into the EBT fund at a rate of about 26% (maybe highe) so that would leave a tax shortfall of 14% or around £4-5 million. But even if they dont pay the corporation tax the outstanding tax would be £11-12 million.

Obviously though its not that straight forward as its taken 3 judges months sofar with no outcome.
Click to expand...

There is also employers NI contributions percentage which is what, 12%.

Celtic paid the tax on Juninho's EBT, whether or not he had one or two contracts we dont know, just as we dont know whether or not Rangers players had two contracts yet.

As for being left open to the same punishment as Rangers, your right they should, any game registered where a player had two contracts should result in a 0-3 to the opposing team.
 
Gav said:
I claim nothing.. The BBC contacted Celtic and they replied.....

So from what your saying... Celtic should be forgiven for their use of EBT's and possibly dual contracts?

Sounds like double standards to me....
Click to expand...

Gav said:
I guess this means that Celtic and their fans can no longer take the moral high ground.....

Surely the SFA will now be investigating their use of dual contracts? Or will it be swept under the carpet?
Click to expand...

Were you not aware this was not new news? Its been known for over a year that Juninho had an EBT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom