PaddockLad 14638 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Nar they were more or less self sufficient in the Gazza/Laudrup years, they were Champions League regulars, had full houses, and with the help of a certain Freddie Fletcher were marketed superbly. The downfall of Rangers financially came in the Advocaat years. They spent nigh on £100m, £12m alone on Tore Andre Flo, the de Boer's, van Bronckhorst, Artur Numan the list is endless and this is where their financial woes started. If you remember by the time MON took over Celtic they were spending all of the money and McPish had to rely on frees like Nacho Novo. It's amazing McPish won two titles, and Rangers have been struggling financially ever since. I bet Souness knew the seriousness of their plight when he gave them £8m of OUR MONEY for Boumsong. Scum bag and scum bags. My heart bleeds. All true, but as Toonpack says players were being induced to join the club with the promise of "double contracts" virtually from as soon as David Murray bought the club in 1986. This forms the basis of "the big tax case", which is different to the Craig White affair that has caused them to be liquidated. Its cheating,and if the court finds against the club and in favour of the taxman they'll be struck from the records books from 1987-2012, which will hurt your average Hun a lot more than having to play Forfar and Brechin for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Advocaat spent £82m in three seasons. Now more than a decade on, even a big Premiership club would be quite happy with that type of financial clobber, never mind a SPL club then. Smith didn't have anywhere near that in either of his tenures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 All true, but as Toonpack says players were being induced to join the club with the promise of "double contracts" virtually from as soon as David Murray bought the club in 1986. This forms the basis of "the big tax case", which is different to the Craig White affair that has caused them to be liquidated. Its cheating,and if the court finds against the club and in favour of the taxman they'll be struck from the records books from 1987-2012, which will hurt your average Hun a lot more than having to play Forfar and Brechin for a few years. To be totally honest with you, I don't understand the concept of "double contracts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26479 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Advocaat spent £82m in three seasons. Now more than a decade on, even a big Premiership club would be quite happy with that type of financial clobber, never mind a SPL club then. Smith didn't have anywhere near that in either of his tenures. In Smith's first period in charge he spent more money than any club in Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 In Smith's first period in charge he spent more money than any club in Britain. He didn't spend more than Blackburn or Man Utd, but they could afford it. The most he ever spent on a player was £4m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14638 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 To be totally honest with you, I don't understand the concept of "double contracts". Neither do I mate :iol: but if all the English players they got in the late 80s and early 90s werent just there for European football but were induced to sign because of what are basically,in the eyes of HMRC, illegal payments, then thats cheating. The last 25 years of RFC will then be removed from history. But the case hasnt got to court yet, Toonpack may be able to rell us why he thinks its nailed on that theyre toast?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Neither do I mate :iol: but if all the English players they got in the late 80s and early 90s werent just there for European football but were induced to sign because of what are basically,in the eyes of HMRC, illegal payments, then thats cheating. The last 25 years of RFC will then be removed from history. But the case hasnt got to court yet, Toonpack may be able to rell us why he thinks its nailed on that theyre toast?... As much as Rangers are a scummy club, I tell you what I can't understand as well, we've all been to Ibrox, it is without any doubt one of the most beautiful stadiums in the world. The main stand there is in fact my favourite stand anywhere. So this consortium will buy the club for £5.5m once its been liquidated, how the fuck is Ibrox not worth £100m? Even the land must be worth an unbelievable amount of money. Is Ibrox not owned by Rangers FC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26479 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 He didn't spend more than Blackburn or Man Utd, but they could afford it. The most he ever spent on a player was £4m. I haven't got the figures to compare net spend. And he was spending £4m on players back when he broke the British transfer record with Duncan Ferguson. To say that Rangers weren't spending beyond their means simply isn't true. They had been doing it for years under Smith, backed by Murray and the banks. The whole thing came to a head when they went mental under Advocaat and the banks realised that football wasn't going to be the incredibly profitable industry that they had hoped it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I haven't got the figures to compare net spend. And he was spending £4m on players back when he broke the British transfer record with Duncan Ferguson. To say that Rangers weren't spending beyond their means simply isn't true. They had been doing it for years under Smith, backed by Murray and the banks. The whole thing came to a head when they went mental under Advocaat and the banks realised that football wasn't going to be the incredibly profitable industry that they had hoped it would be. Obviously, you're a bit younger so you might not remember, but it's not even an argument from anyone that Rangers were living beyond their means in the early 90's, they weren't. You use the example of Duncan Ferguson. They got every penny back on Ferguson when he signed for Everton for £4m. They basically got their money back on Gazza too, and a whole host of other players. They were haemoraging money left right and centre under Advocaat. Flo depreciated by £6m in 18 months for example. They weren't living beyond their means under Smith, in 1993, they were raking in the CL money, they should've actually won the CL imo, they had the biggest sponsorship deals in British football, and that era is incomparable to Dick Advocaat's spending which the club have lived with ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26479 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 As much as Rangers are a scummy club, I tell you what I can't understand as well, we've all been to Ibrox, it is without any doubt one of the most beautiful stadiums in the world. The main stand there is in fact my favourite stand anywhere. So this consortium will buy the club for £5.5m once its been liquidated, how the fuck is Ibrox not worth £100m? Even the land must be worth an unbelievable amount of money. Is Ibrox not owned by Rangers FC? Why is Charles Green's bid worth only £5.5m? You might think Rangers' assets are worth more when they don't have the litigation hanging over the old company, so the liquidation price could be higher than the CVA. However, the lower price seems to reflect the reduced value of assets that are out of Europe for three seasons, with the risk of reduced income from TV rights while getting low gate receipts in the Third Division. Creditors could challenge the legal deal between Charles Green and Duff and Phelps, and ask for the bidding for the liquidated assets to be opened up to others. Insolvency experts don't expect that to happen, not least because it risks Charles Green walking away, with even less money being made available. The new owner will also require working capital to keep the club ticking over, and to invest and grow it. Charles Green hasn't detailed how much he's planning to make available, or where it's coming from. But I'm told the new management is already sounding out small-scale investors through Independent Financial Advisers in Glasgow. Seems low to me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6891 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) To be totally honest with you, I don't understand the concept of "double contracts". Basically it’s like this, rough example: If you pay a player £20,000 a week he pays 50% tax so his take is £10K a week Rangers offered £20K a week but paid £10K a week through his contract and £10K a week through an EBT (which is legal when an EBT is a loan with an expectation that it be paid back) the EBT is tax free so for the same £20K a week the player pays £5K tax so his take is £15K a week. The double contract is because some (the BBC identified loads but probably all had them) the EBT’s had “side letters” which stated the loan wouldn’t ever be needed to be repaid. Which makes it illegal and makes the EBTa second contract of employment and the income taxable. Basically because of the miss-use of EBT’s Rangers could offer the same salary as other clubs but maximised illegally the players take, therefore making them more attractive. Team “A” offers £20k a week or Ranger offer £20K a week, who you going to join ?? That’s what the big tax case is about. In terms of the football side: All contracts must be declared to the governing Association, (the side letters weren't declared) if there is a any contract in place that isn’t known at the association the player is ineligible to play, the penalty for which is forfeiture of any fixture as a 3-0 loss that the ineligible player plays in. We’re talking 75-ish players over the thick end of 20 years, in a cup final someone worked out all 11 players (that won) were ineligible. Paddock Lad – the names of possible title winners I stated is after the results are changed due to the ineligibility, not just promoting who finished second. (someone on a SPL board did the maths, I am quoting from memory though) Edited June 13, 2012 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Basically it’s like this, rough example: If you pay a player £20,000 a week he pays 50% tax so his take is £10K a week Rangers offered £20K a week but paid £10K a week through his contract and £10K a week through an EBT (which is legal when an EBT is a loan with an expectation that it be paid back) the EBT is tax free so for the same £20K a week the player pays £5K tax so his take is £15K a week. The double contract is because some (the BBC identified loads but probably all had them) the EBT’s had “side letters” which stated the loan wouldn’t ever be needed to be repaid. Which makes it illegal and makes the EBTa second contract of employment and the income taxable. Basically because of the miss-use of EBT’s Rangers could offer the same salary as other clubs but maximised illegally the players take, therefore making them more attractive. Team “A” offers £20k a week or Ranger offer £20K a week, who you going to join ?? That’s what the big tax case is about. In terms of the football side: All contracts must be declared to the governing Association, (the side letters weren't declared) if there is a any contract in place that isn’t known at the association the player is ineligible to play, the penalty for which is forfeiture of any fixture as a 3-0 loss that the ineligible player plays in. We’re talking 75-ish players over the thick end of 20 years, in a cup final someone worked out all 11 players (that won) were ineligible. Paddock Lad – the names of possible title winners I stated is after the results are changed due to the ineligibility, not just promoting who finished second. (someone on a SPL board did the maths, I am quoting from memory though) Hmmm you explained that well. So people are claiming this practise has been going on for two decades? No wonder the claim is so high. Surely Murray has to be accountable for some of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14638 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Paddock Lad – the names of possible title winners I stated is after the results are changed due to the ineligibility, not just promoting who finished second. (someone on a SPL board did the maths, I am quoting from memory though) Makes more sense now,it sounds like your list may be those affected by cup finals,European places etc etc....fuckin hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Makes more sense now,it sounds like your list may be those affected by cup finals,European places etc etc....fuckin hell Makes more sense now,it sounds like your list may be those affected by cup finals,European places etc etc....fuckin hell This will mean that Gazza has one credible medal from his career, and he was carried off after 21 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14638 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Hmmm you explained that well. So people are claiming this practise has been going on for two decades? No wonder the claim is so high. Surely Murray has to be accountable for some of this? 99.5% of it....they went under because of the debts and the way Craig White bought the club, nothing to do with this "big tax" carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14638 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 This will mean that Gazza has one credible medal from his career, and he was carried off after 21 minutes. Ex mackem reserve McCoist won fuck all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Ex mackem reserve McCoist won fuck all Ex mackem reserve McCoist won fuck all Ex mackem reserve McCoist won fuck all Ex mackem reserve McCoist won fuck all hehehe and surely now Celtic have won 17 titles in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6891 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 hehehe and surely now Celtic have won 17 titles in a row. Nope Hearts Hibs Motherwell Aberdeen and Dundee Utd are in there somewhere as well. Murray is more culpable than Whyte tbh, Whyte's antics just pulled the trigger although he's going to be carrying the can. Hopefully HMRC go after Murray as well though. Souness had an EBT set up for £10K years after he left Rangers just before he bought a player (who's name I forget) for Blackburn for £6Mill !!! If memory serves from the BBC Panorama programe they did on BBC Scotland, Boumsong was paid circa 1/2 a mill via his EBT. Gordon Smith former head of the SFA had an EBT when he was a director of Rangers (as did current SFA or SFL chief I believe). You can probably see why other teams fans are so up in arms about "corruption" and OF favouritism, when you consider the SPL voting situation on top of all the nefarious goings on. Romanov's (Hearts owner) famous "the SPL is run by a mafia" rant which was laughed at and derided, a year or so ago, is actually being proven 100% spot on. They also cheated European teams, when they did occasionaly get into the group stages of the CL, ineligible players were bound to have featured in the playoff that got them there. Then the money they got from Europe went even further than it should have because of the EBT's. It absolutely stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Barry Ferguson Souness bought for Blackburn. Also yes. Celtic have finished 1st or 2nd since 1995 so that's 17 in a row in my book, the only team to come 2nd in that time was Hearts in 2006 and Rangers came third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Barry Ferguson Souness bought for Blackburn. Also yes. Celtic have finished 1st or 2nd since 1995 so that's 17 in a row in my book, the only team to come 2nd in that time was Hearts in 2006 and Rangers came third. Not that easy as you'd have to take off Rangers points against each team. Leeway of 12 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34631 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Aye say Celtic finished 10 points clear of the team in third. But Celtic beat Rangers 4 times and the team in third lost to Rangers 4 times. The team in third would leapfrog Celtic and win the League by 2 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 You'll be able to count on one finger the amount of times a team have come within 12 points of Celtic though other than Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6891 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Aye say Celtic finished 10 points clear of the team in third. But Celtic beat Rangers 4 times and the team in third lost to Rangers 4 times. The team in third would leapfrog Celtic and win the League by 2 points. Someone did all the maths on an SPL team board, there'd have been multiple winners going back nearly 20 years. There was a report some weeks ago that Porto (I think) were going mental as Rangers beat them in the Uefa semi final with "ineligibles" in the team, were talking of suing through UEFA. For the EBT's see: http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-18148818 Edited June 13, 2012 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6891 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 You'll be able to count on one finger the amount of times a team have come within 12 points of Celtic though other than Rangers. In fairness theyr'e nearly as bent as Rangers, two cheeks of the same arse tbh Celtic had EBT's set up the same as Rangers but coughed it pretty soon after they started using them and then paid up the tax etc. All brushed under the carpet of course. HMRC were after Rangers as they really pushed the boundaries way beyond anything else, but rumours up north reckon there's 6 English clubs in the sights as well who have used EBT's if some of them also have done the side letter thing........................... The big tax case result is the trigger/test case HMRC are waiting for, to go after them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14638 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Can of worms......"no one likes us"....wait till its confirmed youve cost half a dozen clubs at least one league title you fuckin cheating bastards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now