NAWLITE APRIL 6, 2016 at 11:51 2 0 Rate This They refused …

Comment on Look Back to Look Forward by Homunculus.

APRIL 6, 2016 at 11:51
2 0 Rate This

They refused to answer my follow up asking how the club was separate.


They cannot answer it because it simply isn’t true. The club merely changed the type of entity it was. It’s all there in the history.

Four young chaps had a dream and started a football team. That team became a members club (1872) and in the fullness of time it changed into a private limited company (1899). The private limited company then went public, floated on the stock exchange and became a public limited company (2000). For absolute clarity at the time that PLC failed to obtain a CVA and was placed into (ongoing) liquidation (2012) it did have a holding company. Wavetower (as was) owned something like 85% of the shares in the PLC.

They will not answer the question because they do not like the honest answer. They are more fond of the myth Charles Green created, the separate club / company. The continuity myth is strong because it suits a lot of agendas, it being a lie is just an uncomfortable truth. There was no point at which the PLC owned the Club, it’s just nonsense.

Homunculus Also Commented

Look Back to Look Forward
APRIL 6, 2016 at 12:45


Rangers, currently in liquidation have debts of (best guess) around £120,000,000. Only a fraction, if any of that will ever be paid.

The Rangers who have existed for around 3-4 years have overspent by around £34,000,000 (so far) in that short time. They currently have debts of around £11,000,000. That’s the PLC, the subsidiary have debts of around £18,000,000 but that is to the parent company so genuinely is an internal matter, it’s really the groups debt which is important.

The overspending and building of debt is only getting worse, they are spending more than they earn and seem unable to do anything about it. As far as I can see this will continue for as long as major shareholders and supporters are willing to provide the board with more money. If they want to strengthen the squad in the summer, and everyone seems to think they will, it will have to come from borrowing, a share/rights issue or selling other assets.

It’s an incredible story, which is only really surpassed by the media’s apparent ability to totally ignore the most important parts of it. Rangers bought the championship, at the second attempt, by overspending what will probably be about £40,000,000 by the end of the season. That is not an achievement, it is madness.

Look Back to Look Forward
APRIL 3, 2016 at 16:51

To be honest I’m still not quite clear what the “trap” was.

He said that the new legislation would fall foul of ECHR

I asked which article.

He said Article 7 (for starters)

I said I thought Article 7 related to criminality.

Maybe it’s just me but I really don’t see the trap or how I was taken in by it.

Look Back to Look Forward
APRIL 3, 2016 at 00:44
4 6 Rate This

Homuncilus – you say you are a lawyer but you immediately pounced on me – trying to devalue my opinion on the possible role of the ECHR. That was a trap – you fell into it.
Tax “schemes”/avoidance are legal at the time because the vendors of them seek leading tax counsels opinion who are willing to opine that they are legit and they will see HMRC in Court to fight the case over legal technicalities/perceived ” loopholes”.


1. Why would I say I was a lawyer, I am no such thing.

2. I didn’t try to “devalue your opinion on the possible role of the ECHR.” I simply asked what particular article of the ECHR would come into play. You said Article 7. I merely pointed out that Article 7 related to retrospective legislation with regards criminality. Tax avoidance, as far as I am aware is not a criminal act.

3, “Tax “schemes”/avoidance are legal at the time because the vendors of them seek leading tax counsels opinion …”. I think you will find that Parliament and the courts decide what is legal and what isn’t. The people you describe as “leading tax counsel” are highly trained and highly paid lawyers, however they are not legislators. They neither make nor enforce the law. Getting their opinion on something does not make it legal. It just gives you someone you can blame when things go wrong.

Tax avoidance is not legal. A lawyer giving an opinion that a certain scheme is not avoidance it is legitimate tax management does not change that.

Recent Comments by Homunculus

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
In order to maintain a percentage shareholding (which is the important thing rather than the number of shares) then the shareholder has to buy the commensurate amount. 

So to make things simple lets assume they issue about 80m shares that doubles the number (as near as makes no difference)

Club1872 currently hold 8.7m shares so they would have to buy a further 8.7m.

If the shares are sold at say 25p that means they will need to come up with about £2.2m, just to stay in exactly the position they are in just now. They will have no more say, no more influence.

The above numbers are rounded and guesstimates but I think it gives a decent idea of what we are talking about.

As an aside, Dave King has now given lie to any pretence that this fan group is anything even remotely like independent. 

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
MARCH 21, 2018 at 21:38

Thanks, that’s what I thought.

I will draw no negative inference if they decide not to release interim accounts. 

I am sure the SFA will ensure that Rangers are meeting the SFA’s stringent rules before granting them the licence to play in European competition.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
Anyone who thinks Rangers have performed anything other than shockingly on a financial level is kidding themselves on.

They have run at a trading loss in every year of their existence, will do the same this season and are predicting doing the same next season. 

Their “internal debt” is also a nonsense. The club will owe the holding company something like £20m by the end of this season. The PLC in turn owes a similar amount to it’s shareholders and their associates. If they convert that to equity then it means the first £20m in any share issue brings in absolutely nothing. It’s already spent.

Even when it’s done the club still owes the PLC about £20m. A share issue and an equity swap clears the debt from the PLC to the shareholders etc. It does nothing for the debt from the club to the holding company unless I have picked that up wrong. 

They now have the debt to Close, still have no proper banking facilities and are operating on a “cash basis”. Seriously, it’s a mess and has been since the club was formed at the beginning of the decade.

Any sign of the PLC interim accounts for Dec 2017, do they actually have to release something, or is that optional.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
MARCH 20, 2018 at 20:39
If JJ continues to replicate my posts in full on his own site, I may have to consider introducing password protection. 


Please send me your name, bank account number, sort code and password and I will happily pay to access that material. 

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
MARCH 18, 2018 at 13:56

Just so you know, the arch plagiarist, fantasist, conspiracy theorists and user of sock-puppets to praise himself doesn’t appreciate your work.

“The aforementioned comment is from a truly odious individual from another site. He is openly soliciting praise for how clever he is and sit back with a self-satisfied and smug grin. The kind of guy who would attempt to inflict love bites on his mirror. Forgive me if I choose to demur.”

Welcome to the club, take it as high praise that he feels so strongly about you. 

Or, more realistically, take the comments and apply them to him. It works really well. 

SSL Certificates