chilledbear 16 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Don't see this on the Forum, some will not like it, but it is worth discussing. JAMES TRAYNOR CRAIG Whyte was spot on. He used selected Sunday's papers to hint that the worst was still to come for Rangers and he wasn't wrong. By mid afternoon yesterday Rangers were out of the Scottish Cup and their fans were storming away from Ibrox. Actually, most of them didn't even bother yesterday. Fewer than 17,000 watched Rangers being dumped out of the Scottish Cup and in my opinion you can't fool all of the people all of the time. He'll probably try again anyway but who does the owner blame this morning? The old board again? Ally McCoist, left, for failing to transform cheap options who can barely run with the ball or even pass it into genuine players? No point in circling the wagons or high-tailing it to one of your bolt holes this time, Craig. Do the right thing. Do the decent thing and come clean about the business plan. Although there were acres of empty seats at Ibrox yesterday Whyte had the cojones to show up but now he has to speak up. Rangers fans are due explanations rather than exclamations. The people whose loyalty has been cashed in to raise £24.4million have been shown indifference when they are due respect. Just look again at that £24.4m figure Craig and tell me you don't owe these people. Give them the truth no matter how painful it might be for you or them. Keep it plain and simple and let them decide if they want to continue buying into your regime. You've already admitted you've made mistakes so just let it all out, starting perhaps with the working capital and cash-flow projections pre-takeover. With a bit of luck Whyte will have looked at the coverage his attempt to rubbish Record Sport's exclusive about selling off future season tickets received and realised that the papers, apart from the subservient Sun, aren't swallowing the bilge any longer. The game's just about up. The fans know the chairman has "securitised" - let's just call it borrowed - a fortune on season-ticket sales but they aren't sure where this money has gone. Or why it was necessary to borrow it in the first place. After all, Whyte and his team of advisers took an age on their due diligence so they should have realised there would be this £10m funding gap which he has thrown up as the cause of some of the problems. Yet he talks about it as though it suddenly made a blind-side run through his business plan. The fact is the takeover group were warned by Rangers' Independent Board, set up to examine potential buyers' offers, that their projected figures were too low. That advice was ignored, as was the intelligence given on the amount required for a transfer budget. Someone with bags of knowledge on how to cut business costs and avoid payments must have shaped Whyte's strategy. Unfortunately we can now see that same person hadn't much of a clue about how to do that within a football club and keep the customers happy at the same time. So much for takeover specialists. If Whyte suddenly found the figures were miles, millions of them, off what exactly did he and his people do with all that due diligence time they demanded? Who recommended the figures? Who missed the £10m funding pit into which Rangers have fallen? He must be a bright boy. As part of the transaction to acquire the club Whyte had to provide a working capital and cash-flow document to show how he would take the business on but the Independent Board warned him he was well out on his projections. And not just by £10m. They told him he was off by £22m but their warning fell on deaf ears. Yet how much healthier would Rangers' finances be right now if just one within the takeover group had listened? They would still be in bother, of course, but they wouldn't have had to sell off as many of the season tickets that's for sure. No matter what Whyte says or how much overtime his spin doctors put in to divert blame, the bottom line is the owner went into this with his eyes open. He knew the risks. For reasons known only to himself he was happy to pay Lloyds Bank 100 pence in the pound when no one else could understand why and he was also prepared to take on the potential tax liability. That could be as much as £49m. He even said he would pay the smaller tax bill, the one for £2.8m, but he didn't and that tab is currently running at £4.1m because of penalties for non-payment. Whyte has yet to explain the business sense in allowing a bill, which he had accepted as legitimate, to jump by such an amount. And he should justify why he told the papers the old board had left him with £7m from a previous deal with Ticketus, the company he has used to raise money against season tickets over the current campaign and the next three. According to documents, which he must have seen or known about, that isn't the case. Rangers' management accounts from last April show that the balance due to Ticketus at the end of that month was £1.8m. But it was also made clear this amount was to be paid in May, 2011. So where did Whyte get the figure of £7m? And when he said in his friendly interviews with the Sundays that he had to pay £1m to Rapid Vienna as part of the Nikica Jelavic transfer he didn't mention Rangers were due £3m on transfer fees around April/May last year.Well, with so much going on he can't be expected to remember everything although if he wants another look at the relevant documents I'll be happy to help out. However, he should try to help Rangers fans understand what is happening with their club and their money. For a kick off, if the £18m which paid off Lloyds Bank came from one of his companies why can't he explain in detail what happened to the millions raised through Ticketus? It's a question which deserves a simple and clear answer. It certainly hasn't been invested in the playing squad as even Whyte and his sidekick Ali Russell must have noticed yesterday. Also, Rangers have delayed in producing a set of audited financial statements which would show clearly cash in and cash out. He blames the EBT tax case but the previous board were always able to produce sets of accounts when they had the same cloud of uncertainty hanging over them. How about it? How about producing those fully audited accounts and calling an AGM? If you're happy enough borrowing on the strength of the support's commitment the least you can do is explain what's going on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,863 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 If only Traynor had been so worried about our finances 10 years ago, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 If only Traynor had been so worried about our finances 10 years ago, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. If it's the truth, should it matter where it comes from. I see Darrell King has a similar piece in the ET. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 4,077 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Traynor and King again asking the "must tell the truth" and "supporters must demand" stuff. It seems unless Whyte (whom Traynor jovially calls "Craig") tells them what they want to hear - e.g. Rangers are in deep shyte and I'm guilty and will burn in hell for this - they will not listen and read and think about what the chairman has to say. For that reason alone I hope the HMRC case bursts and Whyte waives the 18m debt stored in the Rangers Football Group. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 We can all live in hope, but we listened to an owner and never questioned him for years. We are where we are, because of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 If only Traynor had been so worried about our finances 10 years ago, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. Club chairmen, and certainly our previous custodian, would never have run the club finances based on the musings of a journalist. To suggest that Traynor could have somehow prevented the financial mess that SDM created, TWICE, is naive IMO. Though I do think your point is less literal Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 6,004 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 After all, Whyte and his team of advisers took an age on their due diligence so they should have realised there would be this £10m funding gap which he has thrown up as the cause of some of the problems. Yet he talks about it as though it suddenly made a blind-side run through his business plan. No he doesn't. The funding gap really emerged after we got knocked out of Europe and he would have been aware of it proor to then and spoke about required changes very soon after that. They told him he was off by £22m but their warning fell on deaf ears. He seems to be contradicting himself. the issue is that it didn't fall on deaf ears as he went and arranged the Ticketus cash. He even said he would pay the smaller tax bill, the one for £2.8m, but he didn't and that tab is currently running at £4.1m because of penalties for non-payment. This is concerning. Why isn't it being paid, particularly as CW undertook to provide the funding for its payment. He blames the EBT tax case but the previous board were always able to produce sets of accounts when they had the same cloud of uncertainty hanging over them. They only had one set of accounts with it hanging over them and the case wasn't as well developed so it's hardly comparing apples with apples. There's a few good point in the article but he obscures them with too much general mud-slinging. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 In the run up to CW taking us over was Traynor not supposed to be his Press Mole? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 4,077 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Methinks with regards to the small bill, he does not contest it as such, but the (in his opinion) far too heavy penalty ... after he found out about it and gave the relevant info to HMRC in the frist place. While the tax people can demand penalties to their hearts content, it does make you wonder that they go at us with all guns blazing here. When, as has been said, Vodafone et all got off the hook very lightly. (And yes, the penalty was imposed before HMRC got told to sharpen up late last year.) Since we know not much about the small deal, we as much as Traynor can hardly debate on a decent level about it. Since we have a right to appeal the penalty and it is not in our hands when the appeal etc. is being heard, I doubt that the fee as such will increase while it is in that state. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Why do we have to wait so long for the HMRC verdict ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.