Rangers: Doing The Right Thing

[der Berliner 3,387]

Maybe I am mistaken here ...

 

Bluedell

So what have we as a club done wrong? Gone into administration because we didn't pay our debts and we have been punished for that with the 10 point penalty.

 

... or just nitpicking, but these weren't "debts". We failed to pay tax bills to HMRC (though some quarters say that HMRC declined some of our payment offers) and after a number of warnings their threat forced us into administration. The "real debts" of unknown quantity were not due at the time, since they were and are not established to this day. At least those "debts" that would bring many a club to its knees. We should always distinguish between what brought the club into administration ... and it was not the big case about the EBTs. It would probably have, but "woulds" are not "haves". It would have saved us and the admins a lot of time and money had HMRC said from the beginning that a CVA was out of the equation.

[amms 0]

OK, so you believe that everybody who enters administration should get relegated down to division 3, and not not just suffer the current 10 points deduction? Fair enough, although it seems excessive to me. However we don't make the rules and the rules are the 10 points deduction. They apply to everyone.

Indeed, which is why I think we should do it ourselves. It's up to others what they do in the future.

[amms 0]

It's tough to separate and apportion legal wrong-doing/responsibility from moral wrong-doing/responsibility in this. But here's my attempt:

 

Legally (according to the principles of corporate law) Rangers as a whole are responsible for the debt, but by the same principles liquidation resolves that. Not very morally satisfying, but that's the law.

 

Morally (in my eyes at least) Craig Whyte is responsible for the debt and I wish their was some way he could be punished. But just because the law doesn't satisfactorily dish out blame and punishment, doesn't mean Rangers Football Club have to.

 

The EBT situation may turn out to be different if (as King said the other day) Rangers received a sporting advantage due to (allbeit unwitting) illegal activity. But the club gained no advantage from Whyte's actions. He was contractually obliged to invest £21m(?) but instead diverted tax money to do it and that resulted in our liquidation. I'm pretty sure that was his aim from the word go - he deliberately harmed the club for his own gain. I don't feel morally indebted to anyone over that.

 

Thanks for your reply. As I said to Bluedel above I don't think we can pick and choose who is part of Rangers and who acts alone. Whyte owned the club, he acted in our name, whether we like it or not. I think we do have an obligation to make right his wrongs as best we can.

[andy steel 0]

Does anyone actually thinks that once we are back from the doldrums, anyone will say "well done, you worked your way up again and served your punishment, that dark spot on your CV is gone now. Here's your unblemished reputation!"?

 

For me it's not about what anyone else will say or think. It's about how I feel about it. Despite having no time for religion, it seems the BB & Sunday School had some sort of Calvanist effect on me, coz I can't get comfy with...kind of...sneaking away from the money issue rather than at least trying to resolve it. Bluedell's work in accounts no doubt allows him to see a wider capitalist business practice where this sort of thing happens a fair bit but to this outsider looking in it just doesn't sit right.

[Bluedell 5,376]

Maybe I am mistaken here ...

 

Bluedell

 

 

... or just nitpicking, but these weren't "debts". We failed to pay tax bills to HMRC (though some quarters say that HMRC declined some of our payment offers) and after a number of warnings their threat forced us into administration. The "real debts" of unknown quantity were not due at the time, since they were and are not established to this day. At least those "debts" that would bring many a club to its knees. We should always distinguish between what brought the club into administration ... and it was not the big case about the EBTs. It would probably have, but "woulds" are not "haves". It would have saved us and the admins a lot of time and money had HMRC said from the beginning that a CVA was out of the equation.

 

Yes, nit-picking. We didn't pay our debts, which included HMRC.

 

Agreed it was not the big tax case, of which we have still not been found guilty

[calscot 0]

Bluedel - For me what we’ve done wrong is walk away from our debts. I’m hugely uncomfortable with that. We’re now, potentially at least, in a position of having no debt despite not paying it back. It’s a legal and broadly accepted business practice I know, but I still feel it’s wrong, particularly for an organisation such as Rangers.

 

I think the problem here is that we have to define our debts and also what it mean by walking away and how we are actually paying for it.

 

For me, as I've explained many times, the big tax case is just not a valid debt. I accept the first year's debt but contend that if HMRC had a problem with it they should have dealt with it right then as it was done in full view, instead of allowing companies to continue for 10 years, thinking what they were doing was legitimate. If we'd been told it was naughty we would have stopped. Simple.

 

If it wasn't for that case we'd have traded normally and paid everything that was due. But when you are unfairly pushed into a corner and threatened with what is tantamount to death, it is not surprising someone of a lower moral code comes along and acts desperately so others get caught in the collatoral damage.

 

If you're talking morals of not paying debts you have to also look at the morals of the debts themselves.

 

The next biggest debt was Ticketus, which although they signed a contract, it was of the payday loan kind which is highly immoral in itself and I struggle to have any sympathy for them - which goes to zero as I see how they funded CW before he bought the club as something that should be illegal. They tried to scam us and got scammed themselves. Tough titty.

 

So for me, I only have remorse waling away from about £25m of debt - but contend that if we were treated fairly by others, that debt would have been paid. However, due to the circumstances how have we benefitted?

 

We have no European income for at least three years, we have a lot of rebuilding of our squad to pay for, we've lost millions worth of transfer values, we've had to write off a title challenge and may have to do so for some time to come. Our credit rating is through the floor and for the club and fans, it looks like whoever buys us are taking the money back out of the club and more.

 

That has already cost us well over £25m, so when you go back to your moral anguish - just where have we benefited? Yes we've come out of the debt crisis but you have to wonder who are ones responsible for that? There have been many players in this strange game and some have lost and some have won. The club were incidental to most of it and it has been punished the most.

 

When you have not gained from other people's shenanigans but have already paid dearly for them, why should you be punished, punished and punished again?

 

There is plenty of precedent in other countries to look at, and I don't recall the type of witch hunt we are having now. It saddens me that even our own start to fall for the propaganda against us.

 

Calscot – This piece is my point of view, I represent no one but myself with it. Indeed I only wrote it because I was asked. I try and listen to all points of view before forming my own, my point of view changes from time to time on a whole host of subjects, this one included. It might change again, I reserve that right.

 

And I reserve the right to criticise it and counter it.

 

I’m not ignoring any facts although I might well not understand all of them I accept that. If I’ve not engaged with someone on this I apologise, I’ve not been on here regularly for that long, I don’t always choose to get involved in every debate, often I’ve nothing worthwhile to add anyway, as you can see!

 

The problem I have is that there has been plenty been said in defence of the club but you have given a straight guilty verdict while not dealing with that side of the story. Your post reads as if that defence has never been heard.

 

If your intention was to wound then the Peter Lawwell jibe did just that, although I feel the piece wasn’t nearly bombastic enough for him. Wait until you read my next piece on why wee Jinky should get a posthumous knighthood though….

 

It's not to wound, it's to get you to challenge your viewpoint. The likes of Lawwell have been using propaganda to spin and influence people against us, you're post was worded in a way that makes it look from the outside, at least from my point of view, that you have swallowed what he is saying without a proper challenge and seemingly without taking the counter viewpoints into account. When you bombard someone in a complex situation that they heinously guilty all the time, sometimes they start to believe it. However, it seems to me that there is much to challenge and mitigate the guilt in this case and it's sad when our own don't do so.

[Bluedell 5,376]

For me it's not about what anyone else will say or think. It's about how I feel about it. Despite having no time for religion, it seems the BB & Sunday School had some sort of Calvanist effect on me, coz I can't get comfy with...kind of...sneaking away from the money issue rather than at least trying to resolve it. Bluedell's work in accounts no doubt allows him to see a wider capitalist business practice where this sort of thing happens a fair bit but to this outsider looking in it just doesn't sit right.

 

It doesn't have to sit right. I'm sure nobody is entirely happy with it, bit it is what it is. Self-flagellation was mentioned in the OP. Do we have to do that to make ourselves feel right? Personally I don't think so.

 

It was one person who deliberately set out to put us into administration and even in retrospect there's little or nothing that we could have done about it. It's not right, it shouldn't have happened but he's gone and we need to carry on.

 

We need to move on. If someone want to apologise for Whyte's actions, then fine. Does it help? No. If we as a club want to meet some of the shortfall of our creditors in the future then great. That's at least something positive but I doubt our new owners will be interested in it.

 

I still don't see any reason why we need to go down to division 3. It won't make me feel better about what has happened. It doesn't punish Whyte. It's not going to prevent future administrations. It only seems to be to satisfy a lot of hysterical fans of other clubs and a few bears who want us further punished for self-flagellation reasons.

[der Berliner 3,387]

For me it's not about what anyone else will say or think. It's about how I feel about it. Despite having no time for religion, it seems the BB & Sunday School had some sort of Calvanist effect on me, coz I can't get comfy with...kind of...sneaking away from the money issue rather than at least trying to resolve it. Bluedell's work in accounts no doubt allows him to see a wider capitalist business practice where this sort of thing happens a fair bit but to this outsider looking in it just doesn't sit right.

 

Fair enough. My heart also tells me that we should pay for our sins. Yet, if we have to pay, it should be according to sensible and impartial rules. What we are getting right now is either far from that or if deemed fair, not according to the guidelines and rules. The SFA and SPL could simply look at the Leeds United case and take it as a precedent. 10 points for admin, 15 points for failure to newco/not CVA-exit of admin. We have already been placed out of Europe for potentially three seasons (which will draw less "star" players to the club, BTW), have seen a title race being derailed and whatnot. We've paid a monetary penalty too. So maybe these sane people just stop dreamin up new scenarios and simple get back to reality.

[calscot 0]

Do people think Motherwell should join us in Division 3? They've been in administration twice and exited last time with a CVA at 6p in the pound (or so I read). Should Dunfermline and Dundee join us for not paying their taxes, Hearts for not paying their players, Celtic for dual contracts and bringing the game into disrepute over the referee strike, Dundee Utd for walking away from the debt to Rangers fans?

 

Take the extreme view and the third division will be pretty much the same as the SPL.

[der Berliner 3,387]

Do people think Motherwell should join us in Division 3? They've been in administration twice and exited last time with a CVA at 6p in the pound (or so I read). Should Dunfermline and Dundee join us for not paying their taxes, Hearts for not paying their players, Celtic for dual contracts and bringing the game into disrepute over the referee strike, Dundee Utd for walking away from the debt to Rangers fans?

 

Take the extreme view and the third division will be pretty much the same as the SPL.

 

Calscot, you should expand on every case above a little and have it posted on the main site. People should know this when talking about Rangers' penalties and sanctions.