The Circular

[WWTC 2,257]

So, we're getting £5M for players. Sorry, but does that not worry anyone?

[PaulRFC1 115]

Cant be bothered reading this thread so dont know if its been said.

The Record says we have up to 12million to spend on Transfers this season, Ally has 5million to spend right now but if he needs more then he can get it.

And also read in one of the papers our wage bill will be increased from 14m to 18m.

[TheMotor 2,208]

From the statement:

The Rangers FC Group has stated its intention to invest, or procure an investment of, £20

million by 2016 for investment in the playing squad. If, as part of any player acquisition, the

Club agrees to make a transfer payment in a future year before 2016, The Rangers FC Group

will be obliged to invest cash to cover such transfer payment, up to £5 million per year; such

amounts coming out of the £20 million investment that The Rangers FC Group has stated its

intention to invest;

This allows for up to 5 million net investment per annum in any given year up until 2016 over and above the 5 million already promised for this close season. The "front-ending" will refer then to the possibility for 5 million of that additional 20 million to be used this summer as well, it will just be taken away from one of the other years.

I reckon it is therefore likely that Ally has 10 million plus whatever he generates through sales.

[TeamHero 62]

Has anyone even mentioned that it mentions he's going to upgrade the food at Ibrox aswell...

[Ibroxblue 122]

No real surprises (apart from it being on time )

He was never just going to pay off our debt and this deal was always going to be more about protecting himself more than the club. I hope people now understand he is in it to make money (not that there is anything wrong with that as long as it's not to the detrement of the club) , he is not an old style football club benefactor (he doesn't have the money to be).

Now we sit and wait for the result of the tax case and take it from there.

I don't think for one second that he is the con man the tims are trying to make out but he has seen an opportunity to pick the club up on the cheap, protect himself from the fall out if we lose the tax case or sell the club on at a profit if we win it.

We could both come out of this well but i don't think he will be around for too long either way.

The question is what happens to the club if we lose the tax case. That was always going to be a problem whoever was in charge. But now it's Whyte. Is there any way he can get a very large HMRC bill paid? If not, the club would have a very serious problem.

[WWTC 2,257]

Cant be bothered reading this thread so dont know if its been said.

The Record says we have up to 12million to spend on Transfers this season, Ally has 5million to spend right now but if he needs more then he can get it.

And also read in one of the papers our wage bill will be increased from 14m to 18m.

Dont mean to be picky, but the record does not say that we have up to £12M to soend on transfers this season. This seems to be a common misconception, the record says we will have £5M to spend on players, the £12m comes from £5M, £5M capital or working capital, and £1.8M towards upgrading the stadium.

[WWTC 2,257]

The question is what happens to the club if we lose the tax case. That was always going to be a problem whoever was in charge. But now it's Whyte. Is there any way he can get a very large HMRC bill paid? If not, the club would have a very serious problem.

Thats called insolvecy. But given the position whyte has put us in, thats nowhere near as bad as it sounds, or the tims will have you believe. Craig Whyte is now our only secured creditor, in insolvency he's guaranteed his debt to be repaid by rangers. That, ofcourse if he wanted, could include the £25M hes about to put into rangers, giving us a large debt to him, and him only. Believe it or not, its actually not as bad it seems. HMRC would, in the end, be forced to sell rangers to recover as much of there debt as possible, whyte could simply buy them again,

[Ibroxblue 122]

Thats called insolvecy. But given the position whyte has put us in, thats nowhere near as bad as it sounds, or the tims will have you believe. Craig Whyte is now our only secured creditor, in insolvency he's guaranteed his debt to be repaid by rangers. That, ofcourse if he wanted, could include the £25M hes about to put into rangers, giving us a large debt to him, and him only. Believe it or not, its actually not as bad it seems. HMRC would, in the end, be forced to sell rangers to recover as much of there debt as possible, whyte could simply buy them again,

If HMRC aren't getting much out of it, could they liquidate the club?

[WWTC 2,257]

If HMRC aren't getting much out of it, could they liquidate the club?

Given the amount of property and asset experience we have at our club now, our overal value can and will be vastly reduced i would imagine. Our valuation has always been inaccurate, especially assets like the stadium. Ibrox has never been worth what murray was quoting, and theres far two many people believe ibrox is valued even more because its a listed building. As far as im aware, ibrox is grade 2 or 3, which means it can actually be bulldosed, although its not a simple process. Anyway, my point is, if we're worth less, there wont be much left for HMRC to liquidate.

Id like to point out im no expert on this

[Ibroxblue 122]

Given the amount of property and asset experience we have at our club now, our overal value can and will be vastly reduced i would imagine. Our valuation has always been inaccurate, especially assets like the stadium. Ibrox has never been worth what murray was quoting, and theres far two many people believe ibrox is valued even more because its a listed building. As far as im aware, ibrox is grade 2 or 3, which means it can actually be bulldosed, although its not a simple process. Anyway, my point is, if we're worth less, there wont be much left for HMRC to liquidate.

Id like to point out im no expert on this

Thanks for that. Maybe you're a bit more of an expert than me!

[WWTC 2,257]

Thanks for that. Maybe you're a bit more of an expert than me!

What would i know, im just a member of the laptoo loyal...

[harry handsome 629]

Its all smoke and mirrors.

Whyte has bought the club via a company formed to specifically buy Rangers, this company has now been wound up and we cant access any financial history to ascertain where the money to buy us has come from. We are now owned by a company controlled by a company based in a tax haven, again we cant find out anything about the financial history of this holding company.

He has moved the debt from one place to another, not paid it off as has previously been stated, and we could still be liable for it. He has structured the deal to ensure that if we get stung by the tax man he minimises his losses and retains control of the club.

It may be easier for the financial specialists to clarify the following.

a. He bought the club for a pound, i presume this was paid in cash and he received a receipt.

b. He paid off our debt to Lloyds, this debt is now sitting somewhere in his quango of companies waiting to be paid by us or liquidated if we get stung by the tax man.

c. He has mortgaged a portion of the season ticket sales to garner funds for future growth and marketing costs incurred by the club.(Leeds Utd anyone)

d. What cash did he use to buy the club and who is liable for the re-payment of that cash and interest incurred.

e. He hasnt said one thing of substance in his circular that makes me feel he has the means to buy and operate our club, has anyone found out where his piggy bank is.

I know this seems negative, it isnt, i just cant see anything through the smoke and mirrors.

I wouldnt be surprised if we are liquidated and a certain previous owner comes back to the rescue.

[Bluedell 14]

Its all smoke and mirrors.

Whyte has bought the club via a company formed to specifically buy Rangers, this company has now been wound up and we cant access any financial history to ascertain where the money to buy us has come from.

The company hasn't been wound up.

We are now owned by a company controlled by a company based in a tax haven, again we cant find out anything about the financial history of this holding company.

What would we do with the information if we had it? Do we really need it?

He has moved the debt from one place to another, not paid it off as has previously been stated, and we could still be liable for it. He has structured the deal to ensure that if we get stung by the tax man he minimises his losses and retains control of the club.

It was always thought that the debt still existed given MIH's comments at the time of the takeover. We would only be liable for it if the tax case goes against us. What is actually wrong about the way he has structured the deal? Are you suggesting that we would be better off if he had structured it in another way?

It may be easier for the financial specialists to clarify the following.

a. He bought the club for a pound, i presume this was paid in cash and he received a receipt

b. He paid off our debt to Lloyds, this debt is now sitting somewhere in his quango of companies waiting to be paid by us or liquidated if we get stung by the tax man.

c. He has mortgaged a portion of the season ticket sales to garner funds for future growth and marketing costs incurred by the club.(Leeds Utd anyone)

d. What cash did he use to buy the club and who is liable for the re-payment of that cash and interest incurred.

e. He hasnt said one thing of substance in his circular that makes me feel he has the means to buy and operate our club, has anyone found out where his piggy bank is.

a. It's already been clarified that he paid in cash. A receipt? Yes there would be legal documents to state that he has paid the cash and now owns the shares.

b. The debt is sitting with TRFCG. It's not waiting to be paid by us unless the tax case goes against us.

c. No he hasn't. Nothing like the Leeds case.

d. TRFCG is liable for the repayment of the cash and interest.

e. So that fact that the loan will be written off if we win the tax case isn't a thing of substance?

I know this seems negative, it isnt,

I wouldnt be surprised if we are liquidated and a certain previous owner comes back to the rescue.

It is negative and I would be surprised

[WWTC 2,257]

The company hasn't been wound up.

What would we do with the information if we had it? Do we really need it?

It was always thought that the debt still existed given MIH's comments at the time of the takeover. We would only be liable for it if the tax case goes against us. What is actually wrong about the way he has structured the deal? Are you suggesting that we would be better off if he had structured it in another way?

a. It's already been clarified that he paid in cash. A receipt? Yes there would be legal documents to state that he has paid the cash and now owns the shares.

b. The debt is sitting with TRFCG. It's not waiting to be paid by us unless the tax case goes against us.

c. No he hasn't. Nothing like the Leeds case.

d. TRFCG is liable for the repayment of the cash and interest.

e. So that fact that the loan will be written off if we win the tax case isn't a thing of substance?

It is negative and I would be surprised

Something about the post your quiting reeks...

[harry handsome 629]

Bluedell, its all about what each individual reads into the circular.

What has it really told us.

Has he told us whether its his money etc

WWTC, what do you mean reeks....

FTR i am very happy for this guy to take over but we all wanted transparency from SDM and the old board, is this the transparency we wanted....i think not.

Is it that hard for someone with nothing to hide to speak in laymens terms,for instance.

I have bought the club with my own money and will sit the debt to the side until such times that i am satisfied we have won the tax case. If we dont win the case i will then add this debt to the tax debt and liquidate the company. If we do win the tax case i will gladly accept that this is the price i paid for the club and the debt will be transferred to my personal account.

I will not use the security of X amount of season tickets to raise capital to fund my plans for Rangers but will, as has been reported fund $5m, more if required, each season from my own account.Any monies made from the sale of players will go to the manager and other income will be used to pay wages and upgrade the stadium.

And before you fire back with, in the interest of privacy yada yada and this doesnt need to be in the public domain, fine but it wont help get the average bear on side if they cant see the big picture in their terms.

The bears want straight talking simple answers and statements so that they can understand what is happening.For too long the word masters have played games with the ordinary punter, if people dont understand it they dont trust it.

[TheMotor 2,208]

Its all smoke and mirrors.

Whyte has bought the club via a company formed to specifically buy Rangers, this company has now been wound up and we cant access any financial history to ascertain where the money to buy us has come from. We are now owned by a company controlled by a company based in a tax haven, again we cant find out anything about the financial history of this holding company.

He has moved the debt from one place to another, not paid it off as has previously been stated, and we could still be liable for it. He has structured the deal to ensure that if we get stung by the tax man he minimises his losses and retains control of the club.

It may be easier for the financial specialists to clarify the following.

a. He bought the club for a pound, i presume this was paid in cash and he received a receipt.

b. He paid off our debt to Lloyds, this debt is now sitting somewhere in his quango of companies waiting to be paid by us or liquidated if we get stung by the tax man.

c. He has mortgaged a portion of the season ticket sales to garner funds for future growth and marketing costs incurred by the club.(Leeds Utd anyone)

d. What cash did he use to buy the club and who is liable for the re-payment of that cash and interest incurred.

e. He hasnt said one thing of substance in his circular that makes me feel he has the means to buy and operate our club, has anyone found out where his piggy bank is.

I know this seems negative, it isnt, i just cant see anything through the smoke and mirrors.

I wouldnt be surprised if we are liquidated and a certain previous owner comes back to the rescue.

Either way too much time spent on the paranoids-led taxcase site or an extremely active imagination.

[reddrock 107]

In particular these couple of inserts.

Under the heading

Part III

Summary of material terms of the Acquisition:

Paragraph 1

Section c The Rangers FC Group has stated its intention to invest , or procure an investment of , £20 million by 2016 for investment in the playing squad. If , as part of any player acquisition, the Club agrees to make a transfer payment in a future year before 2016,The Rangers FC Group will be obliged to invest cash to cover such transfer payment , up to £5 million per year, such amounts coming out of the £20 million investment that The Rangers FC Group has stated its intention to invest.

Paragraph "

Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or converted into equity,if the Club suffers an insolvency event or unable to pay its debts as they fall . the debt aquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group.

footnote , the second part is covered in another paragraph and is dealing with the tax case stuff and making us aware that should we lose then they will pay it and it goes on the debt The Rangers FC Group took on.

[Frankie 505]

I'm glad BD has taken the time to write that riposte but I do sympathise with Harry's position to a degree.

It is still very early into the Whyte era but I'm hoping to see a bit more movement in a positive direction over the next few weeks. Only with clear changes in the board-room and in playing personnel will fan doubts be allayed in the short-term.

Hopefully by the end of June we'll also have a clear indication of where we are with the tax query. I'm sure that will be the time where Whyte will be a bit more transparent about where he intends to take the club. After all, there's not much point in airing a strategy to the supporters if it is to be ripped up only a few weeks later.

We're just going to have to be patient in the mean-time. By the same token, I really hope the powers at be realise and acknowledge the supporters' financial commitment to the cause despite all the uncertainty that remains.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Either way too much time spent on the paranoids-led taxcase site or an extremely active imagination.

every word is lifted from the rangers tax case site....

do people really believe phil mcgilvian is an impartial source of information about our club....

[harry handsome 629]

Maybe i should have explained my post was a bit tongue in cheek in certain respects ......

I am well aware of the contents of the circular and understand what is being said, i am acutely aware of the reasoning behind certain aspects of business dealings and how in particular venture capitalists work. I am also aware of the fact that Craig Whyte will have his reasons for saying nothing, but there are a hell of a lot of bears crying out for the simple facts of the take over and not the tarted up non speak that this has been parcelled up in.

The motor... i dont do paranoia, read the post and dont get paranoid about my paranoia and i do believe you are following me.....

Thats all my post was about and nothing more.

Frankie has pretty much hit the nail in the head, its about giving the punters a bit of an idea in their own speak so that they can go to the bank and lift the cash for the season ticket. Or does blind loyalty make one guy a bigger and better Rangers fan than the next.

[Bluedell 14]

Bluedell, its all about what each individual reads into the circular.

What has it really told us.

Has he told us whether its his money etc

WWTC, what do you mean reeks....

FTR i am very happy for this guy to take over but we all wanted transparency from SDM and the old board, is this the transparency we wanted....i think not.

Is it that hard for someone with nothing to hide to speak in laymens terms,for instance.

I have bought the club with my own money and will sit the debt to the side until such times that i am satisfied we have won the tax case. If we dont win the case i will then add this debt to the tax debt and liquidate the company. If we do win the tax case i will gladly accept that this is the price i paid for the club and the debt will be transferred to my personal account.

I will not use the security of X amount of season tickets to raise capital to fund my plans for Rangers but will, as has been reported fund $5m, more if required, each season from my own account.Any monies made from the sale of players will go to the manager and other income will be used to pay wages and upgrade the stadium.

And before you fire back with, in the interest of privacy yada yada and this doesnt need to be in the public domain, fine but it wont help get the average bear on side if they cant see the big picture in their terms.

The bears want straight talking simple answers and statements so that they can understand what is happening.For too long the word masters have played games with the ordinary punter, if people dont understand it they dont trust it.

He has told us a fair bit which you seem to be ignoring. He has been quite clear about the debt, so I'm not sure what the issue is there.

It's difficult for him to state the things that he won't do as, firstly it's an infinite list, and secondly why restrict himself when he doesn't have to? He doesn't know what the future will bring.

If he had come out and said it was his own money then would that have satisfied you? It wouldn't prove that he doesn't have any personal borrowings.

It's a legal document and therefore it can't be put in layman's terms, and was also there to detail the terms of the deal and nothing more than that.

Yes, there are still many unanswered questions but I got more information from the circular than I expected and given the fact that the tax case is hanging over us, I don't believe that now is the correct time for listing all the what ifs. If we can get it sorted then hopefully there will be more clarity about future plans and funding.

[Bluedell 14]

I am well aware of the contents of the circular and understand what is being said,

Sorry but some of your comments would suggest that you didn't understand the circular.

[californiadreamin52 339]

Interesting article in the Herald in which it is stated Whyte could take us down the insolvency road to protect his investment in the event of loosing tax case to HMRC

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/more-scottish-football/whyte-open-about-threat-of-insolvency-at-rangers-1.1105480

[beelin 0]

He has told us a fair bit which you seem to be ignoring. He has been quite clear about the debt, so I'm not sure what the issue is there.

It's difficult for him to state the things that he won't do as, firstly it's an infinite list, and secondly why restrict himself when he doesn't have to? He doesn't know what the future will bring.

If he had come out and said it was his own money then would that have satisfied you? It wouldn't prove that he doesn't have any personal borrowings.

It's a legal document and therefore it can't be put in layman's terms, and was also there to detail the terms of the deal and nothing more than that.

Yes, there are still many unanswered questions but I got more information from the circular than I expected and given the fact that the tax case is hanging over us, I don't believe that now is the correct time for listing all the what ifs. If we can get it sorted then hopefully there will be more clarity about future plans and funding.

Not nitpicking, but which debt has Mr Whyte been clear about, the one we don't have or the one we may or may not have.

"As a football club and as a business we want to be successful both on and off the pitch. Rangers are now in a position that we are debt free."

• User beelin banned!
  
• Banned from: Global ban
  
• Ban reason: You've been spangled.
  
• Banned until: 07 July 2125 - 01:57 AM

[harry handsome 629]

BD, its not whats being said that bothers me its whats not being said. I have the right as others do to take an objective view of what i read. I dont think the walls are going to fall down around us and i hope CW has the best interest of the club at heart but fast forward six months and we have all followed the pied piper without thought, where will be then.

Just my point of view and based on the fact that we need more information in plain speak.