StevieBC  June 21, 2017 at 16:27  From the DR… “Rangers agree one-year …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by easyJambo.

StevieBC  June 21, 2017 at 16:27 
From the DR…
“Rangers agree one-year deal with Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct allowing fans to buy strips again It is understood a previous seven year contract has been ripped up and both parties have agreed on a new one-year agreement…”
There’s nothing in the statement about it being a one year agreement, only that there is no fixed term.

THE Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFC) and Sports Direct (SD) are pleased to announce that they have terminated all prior agreements between them and entered into a new commercial arrangement on terms substantially different from the terminated agreements. As part of the new arrangements, the Rangers Retail Limited (RRL) joint venture between TRFC and SD has ended and, going forward, TRFC will deal directly with SD.

The negotiations between the parties have been protracted and have not been smooth. In that regard, TRFC and SD thank PUMA for its assistance and patience during a period that has been difficult for them as official kit supplier to the Club.

TRFC has also expressed its thanks to SD for its willingness to restructure the arrangements between the parties. TRFC recognises that SD entered into legal agreements with a prior board at a time in the Club’s history when the future was very uncertain. SD’s willingness to restructure the relationship reflects confidence in the way the Club is now being managed.

For obvious reasons it is not the practice for the details of commercial arrangements to be made public.  However, in view of the publicity surrounding the previous agreements and the resultant boycott by supporters of kit purchases we consider it appropriate to give supporters some insight into the new arrangements.

The new arrangements represent a fresh start for the Rangers Megastore, the relaunch of the Rangers Webstore and the sale of Rangers kit and products throughout SD’s stores.

The financial arrangements between the parties are transformed.  TRFC will now receive by far the majority of net profits from the retail operations at the Megastore and Webstore together with an equal share of all net profits from sales through SD. TRFC will also obtain a priority dividend on the winding up of RRL.

The new deal will deliver real value for TRFC and SD. Supporters now have certainty that any money they spend on Rangers products will be hugely beneficial for the Club. SD will benefit from the increased sales and from the opportunity of demonstrating the part its retail skills can play in building and commercialising the Rangers brand which was always SD’s intention.

Both parties are delighted to achieve a successful resolution to the issues that have previously marred the relationship between them and bring an end to the protracted and costly litigation.

TRFC and SD hope that the new arrangements will be long standing but there is no longer a fixed commitment on that front. We will rely on our combined commercial performance and drive to cement the relationship going forward.

Rangers has traditionally been one of the best performing brands in British football and the Club believes the new arrangements can restore it to that position, providing funds to invest in the team and facilities at Ibrox and Auchenhowie.

easyJambo Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
It looks as if Henderson & Jones still see some mileage in their claim against the Oldco.

There has been a document lodged at Companies House seeking to resurrect TRFCG (Wavetower) from its recent dissolution.

20 Jul 2017 RT01 Administrative restoration application

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
JJ’s latest blog and email chain from the days following the LNS decision are illuminating. Well done to him for sourcing and publishing the information.
The Anatomy of a Cover Up

We have the following board members commenting as follows:

Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock) – In my view, we should NOT appeal. 

Stephen Thomson (Dundee United) – I personally wish to ‘draw a line under this’ and move on.

Ralph Topping (Independent chairman) – The outcome in my view is still not proportionate.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) – I am at pains to point out that I, like Ralph, find the size of the fine and therefore the punishment to be disproportionate to the scale of the actions undertaken. 

….. and in conclusion:

Ralph Topping – The consensus is clear on an appeal. There is a majority against.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Den July 16, 2017 at 23:08 
It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.
Most of the details have been disclosed in various statutory documents, e.g. Companies House, court documents or creditors reports.  The figures vary somewhat from one to another, but the essence of the arrangements can be established.

Rangers use of Ticketus prior to Whyte was normally done on a fee only basis, e.g Ticketus will advance you £3M for three months against ST sales for a fee of £160k. Those figures came from Rangers Financial Director, Donald McIntyre, in court.

Figures from the Whyte period rely on official documents. The MG05S security document lodged at Companies House in May 2011, specified the no. of STs involved as:
2011/12 – 23,154
2012/13 – 27,017
2013/14 – 27,014
2014/15 – 23,154

Payments from Ticketus to RFC were recorded as follows:
The original criminal indictment.
£24,337,094 into Collyer Bristow client account on 07/04/11  (probably included VAT which Ticketus would reclaim)

Lord Hodge’s ruling on 23/04/12
£20,300,912 on 9 May 2011 (first tranche) – for first three seasons (seems like the above figure net of VAT)
£5, 075,213 on 21 Sep 2011 (second tranche) – for more STs from 2012/13 plus 2014/15

D&P Creditors Report 05/04/12
£20,300,000 Advanced May 11 – STs from 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 (first tranche net of VAT?)
£25,400,000 Revenue expected in return
£3,000,000 Repaid June 2011
£5,000,000 Advanced September 2011 – STs from 2012/13, 2014/15 (second tranche)
£9,300,000 Revenue expected in return
£5,000,000 Repaid September 2011
£26,700,000 Creditors Claim April 2012 – (equates to total revenue expected less amount repaid)

Recent Comments by easyJambo

To Comply or not to Comply ?
TheLawMan2 April 23, 2018 at 23:33
There was no bill received in March.
Are you certain of that? 

As I said my the earlier post, an HMRC assessment is payable immediately.  In Alastair Johnston’s report in the interim accounts published on 1 April 2011, he states:

“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised

If I can also quote from the February letter from HMRC to Mike McGill “the effect of the side letters require me to make PAYE assessments for years not so far assessed for these payments and I’m putting the wheels in motion to have these issued to the club”

My reading of the extract from the HMRC letter is that some assessments have already been issued, and that further ones will be issued in short order.

If you then take the testimony of witnesses at the Whyte trial, AJ’s interview and Accounts statements, together, I think there is a strong case that one or more bills had been received in March or earlier, and was certainly accepted before the end of March.

I think that Auldheid’s acceptance of the May date for the “bill” was more to do with the lack of any documentary evidence, than a genuine belief that HMRC had not sought payment before 31 March.

The court case did add to the argument that bills had crystallised before 31 March, and is the basis of the, as yet, unresolved SFA investigations into whether or not Rangers representatives lied in their disclosures to the SFA in order to obtain a UEFA licence for 20111/12. 

Do you honestly believe that Rangers didn’t lie or misrepresent the status of the wee tax bill at any of the monitoring points during 2011?

To Comply or not to Comply ?
slimjim April 23, 2018 at 21:02
Not sure if this is allowed but would be interested in Auldheids response.
Taking account of Jas Boyd’s repeated arguments, what do YOU think about the timeline as described many times over by Auldheid.

I’d ask you to consider this extract from a DR interview with Alastair Johnston published on 2 April 2011 (two days after the March 2011 licensing deadline) and tell us when YOU think the HMRC bill crystallised.   The “Agreed Terms” argument is a nonsense if a party has no intention of paying it.  My understanding is that all HMRC Assessments are payable immediately and will go into default within 30 days if not paid or appealed before then. 

The club revealed their interim figures yesterday and although they didn’t show the bank debt, it is now running close to £24m because of a surprise £2.8m tax bill.
That debt is tied to player deals which were struck 10 or 11 years ago and must be paid after a precedent was set recently when HMRC won a test case.
The bill dropped through the Ibrox front door only three weeks ago and the interims had to be hastily readjusted.
Johnston was barely able to control his rage when he announced the figures.
But he insisted the new tax bill, unconnected with the looming court battle with HMRC over other alleged unpaid taxes, will not prove a deal breaker with Whyte.
He said: “It’s a cashflow issue someone has to pay for and we don’t have it in our budget.
“That will have to be worked out. I don’t think it’s a deal breaker.
“I don’t like this, it wasn’t in any plan, it wasn’t in our budgets.”

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
It seems that it was Aidan Earley who was raided, not Craig Whyte.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
A tweet from Keith Jackson

keith jackson‏ @tedermeatballs 4m4 minutes ago
Computers and phone seized in house raid related to Craig Whyte’s Rangers takeover. Full story in tomorrow’s Daily Record.

I can’t think why such a raid would take place now.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
There was an article on Eurosport today, where an Ibrox source indicated that the Hummel deal would be worth two to three times as much as the Puma deal.

The Puma deal started five years ago, so I’d suspect that the amount involved wasn’t particularly high at that time given them being in the lower reaches of the SFL.

I’ve also seen it reported elsewhere that the Puma deal was on a royalties only basis, i.e. £x per shirt sold.

I can’t see the new deal being worth any more that £1m a year, unless they can reach out to their their half a billion fans worldwide.

SSL Certificates