Rangers Finances 2

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


(single word yields best result)
 

Correct Score Competition Entry

16 Mar 2017 16:00:39
So I'm just looking for info about the ebts

Nearly £50millon was paid out but surely if the court rules that they where I correctly used then only the tax due on this had too be paid I'm guessing would be around 40/ 50%

So I'm just wondering why al the papers and other people have said we owe the tax man £50million

Have I read it all wrong?

Any info would be good lads cheers.

Agree0 Disagree1

23 Mar 2017 13:20:03
HMRC will levy penalties/ fines and late interest charges on the overdue tax of somewhere between 30% and 100% depending on the nature of the offence. If EBT's are found to be subject to income tax by the supreme court then that will be deemed tax evasion (or at very least serious tax avoidance) in which case it'll no doubt be full 100%. the EBT values are in excess of £50m at higher band tax rate + national insurance will mean around £25m in tax could be owed plus 100% penalty on that, so an additional £25m taking you to the £50m that's been reported.

13 Mar 2017 22:22:18
So read the articles about king having to buy pith shares and don't really understand it can someone with a bit of financial savvy who isn't going to just runs down king and the board explain this please? Is it a good thing? How does it effect the club, is it a step into trouble again?
My limited understanding of it is that it might effect the money made available for transfers next season is that right?
I'm a bit lost lol

Agree0 Disagree0

14 Mar 2017 00:23:37
Mm1990 the reality is, giving you an understanding of this and running down King and the board amounts to the same thing in this instance. So prepare to be disappointed in mendacious Dave.

The law does not allow any parties to come in and try and buy up a company till a point where they have influence (or ownership) without them disclosing if they are indeed partners. There are any number of reasons why that would be illegal but once any shareholding purchase goes over 30% of the shares BY LAW you must make a bid for all of the shareholding.

The three bears and King had 33% combined but did all they can including some creative asset moving to the Virgin Islands, Gibraltar and Guernsey to hide the actual ownership of these shares. So after being caught by inexplicably leaving a fairly rudimentary paper trail he now has to offer all shareholders 20p for each share, will this impact Rangers? Yes and none of the ways are good in the short term.

1) If there was to be a "warchest" then sure it may have to be spent on this instead but it's mendacious Dave I reckon you were getting buttons this year if anything anyway.

2) It opens the door for anyone who thinks 20p a share is a bargain, that includes Mike Ashley needless to say.

3) And this is what Pauline alludes to, it shows your board or certainly 4 members of it to be law-breaking, dodgy dealing, crooks who got caught by TAB. Sorry if I ran the board down there Mm, I gave you the facts and TAB's conclusion. sometimes the two things will point to the same thing, you are still run by crooks.

14 Mar 2017 10:25:38
Gazo you say it opens the door for anyone that thinks 20 a share is a bargain including ashley i take it you mean for ashley and who ever else to sell there shares.
as my understanding of it david king is the only one that will be aloud to buy these shares along with letham park ect as they are part of his consurtuim not anyone else.
so if king ect are serious about rangers they now have a fantastic chance to try buy up the shares if people are willing to sell so this would give them more power to get the share issue rights threw ect and do things they want in the club without getting knocked back at votes so this is a plus.
one big problem tho is can we raise the funds to try purchase these shares and will this now have a effect on squad investment and scouting network plans.

king ect in my opinion should grab this chance and try purchase the rest of the shares.

14 Mar 2017 10:55:31
Craig,

King has to make an offer to buy ALL the shares, basically it is a waste of time. Very few are going to agree to the deal.

14 Mar 2017 12:03:38
Onlyshowaround if you think how much we misd out on the vote at agm even if only a small percentage sold that could swing things in our boards favour so is definitely worth making this offers

14 Mar 2017 12:29:32
Haven't had time to get into this but can anybody explain why if King and the 3 Bears have been found to be a concert party it is being reported that it is only King that has to offer to buy all the shares?

Also who has to pay for the cost of the prospectus for this, only King? I believe this kind of thing would cost tens of thousands.

14 Mar 2017 13:26:30
Craig, that isn't how it works. he needs to put it forward to a vote for one, which will be rejected. it's a massive waste of time.

14 Mar 2017 16:34:33
Would be very happy if king and 3 bears owned 100% of club. good rangers men, but think king will offer and some will sell, some won't so just see king with more shares so a win, win.

14 Mar 2017 20:48:54
King will walk, the fsa are investigating share manipulation. King must show he has the money to buy the shares. i would imagine SARS will be watching king very closely and looking into the source of the funds he used to acquire his shareholding.

15 Mar 2017 08:12:14
All king has to do is put up £13mil and offer to buy all shares. this will be rejected by ALL share holders. This isn't a case of offer the money and some can take some can say no. It's a vote first, which will be rejected.

15 Mar 2017 11:52:16
The point is he doesn't have the money. Any money he does have is in SA. Due to the financial constraints he can't move it from SA and if he has money elsewhere SARS will be after him. If he doesn't offer to buy the shares he will be blackballed and no banks, no investors will touch him or rangers with a barge pole. No more transfers in or out and no more loan players. No clubs bank will go near will deal with them. The guy is toxic and this will just confirm it. He has to leave or this rangers will go the same way as the first rangers.

15 Mar 2017 12:15:47
Sounds good to me hope they all black ball us, we don't need them, Long live The King

15 mar 2017 23:21:34
craig it might have escaped your attention but this ruling suggests king and co did all they could to not take you up on this "fantastic chance". don't you think they would have done so at the time if they wanted to? there was absolutely nothing stopping them, indeed the law was crystal clear that they should. but they didn't, draw your own conclusions as to why, might i suggest they wanted to own the club for the smallest possible investment, they don't have the money, or are not prepared to put in the money, for a complete takeover.

i'll give you credit craig you do like your spin and you give it a good go, problem is it is garbage. this does not in any way immediately impact the resolution however had they wanted to guarantee its passing maybe they should have bought more shares themselves, oh wait that's what yesterday's ruling is about - they didn't want to buy more shares, have you got that yet? they and their illegal, tight-fisted ways led to the failure of the resolution.

so it is not a plus, they got caught breaking the law and clearly have no desire to own more than 33% of the club for whatever reason. and any failure to pass the resolution is on them.

as for what i meant about ashley, when alex ferguson fell out with magnier and his cronies over rock of gibraltar, magnier and pals started hovering up man utd shares to sort of intimidate ferguson, the glazers noticed how easy it was to pick up huge tranches of man utd shares and the rest is history. if ashley does think buying is in his interest there is nothing to stop him doing so and all he needs to say to folk now is look king can offer you 20p, i'll give you 21p or whatever, there is absolutely nothing legally to stop him, all yesterdays ruling does is insist king offers all the shareholders it doesn't stop the transfer of shares for anyone else much as your spin wants it to but god loves a trier eh craig? :)

15 Mar 2017 23:37:56
well if it has to go for a vote and get rejected then what would be the ramifictions for the club as this finding against him and the others clearly states he must make this offer to other shareholders

15 Mar 2017 23:57:36
Most of what Gazo posted is correct - except the last piece of negative spin.

The Takeover panel ruled, after appeal that King + 3 bears worked together to take control,

There is nothing dodgy or remotely illegal about this.

As their combined share ownership exceeds the threshold they must make an offer for all other share at the last price purchased - 20p.

The offer must be made (by King) and if people sell then he owns more shares.

Dave King has been very clear. The decision is wrong in principle and has the following impact:

1 - Shares are changing hands at more than 20p today so why would any of the institutional investors accept

2 - Many of the shares ate owned by individual Rangers fans who bought them to invest in their club so likely won't sell

3 - The need to offer ties up working capital for no real gain

If Ashley, the bus twins and cohorts agree to 20p then happy days - more control pf shareholding for the board

Dave King disagrees because he has control (with his partners) and in time there will be a share issue which will dilute the stake of all these hangers on

16 Mar 2017 14:20:28
david king is going to have to find the funds to make this offer regardless if its a waste of time or not
If not i am sure there will be ramifications for the club.

13 Mar 2017 20:48:19
Dave King told to buy out all the shareholders by the financial authority's

Agree2 Disagree2

13 Mar 2017 21:50:56
DK told to offer to buy all shares, subtle difference.

13 Mar 2017 20:44:02
I have mentioned previous posts that King was holding on to his money for some -hopefully some players.
The story in the Evening Times would appears to be the answer. It is not a hidden rule and King would know he had to make an offer for these shares so he just took a chance
Doubtful anyone will sell the shares for 20p but we will have to pay a broker to manage the exercise.

Agree0 Disagree3

13 Mar 2017 19:28:32
Re court ruling today.
If King and co have to make an offer to all share holders at 20P per share who wins and who are the losers.
Please remember on the share issue their were those the paid 70p per share I think they were call B shares and others paid 1P that were called A shares I do not wish to name them but I guess you all know who benefitted from them.
And for reference I still have the share offer prospectus at hand.
With the details of original money men/ groups and what would happen after share issue.
Dounebear.

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Mar 2017 19:04:24
I don't get why Dave king has to offer a full buy out of shares I can't see what he has done rong? For example If I seen a business and thought I'd like to go for that then emailed a pal and said if I buy 26% off this guy then you buy 25% of that guy we can take control together what's rong with that? as that's all that has appeared to have happened anybody know anymore about this?

Agree0 Disagree4

13 Mar 2017 19:48:19
You must declare your intentions as a partnership or whatever and you don't need 51%. The second you get above 30% you must make an offer because maybe a selling shareholder trusts you but not your mate so the fact that combined you will take over may put them off the sale so you must make all parties in the concert party known, King and co didn't. That's what happened here they had 33% combined with no intention of ever offering to buy the whole shareholding, doesn't matter if they can't get it, they must offer, they didn't and TAB caught them.

13 Mar 2017 20:53:20
It's simple, he tinkered around the edges of the law when buying up shares in conjunction with the 3 bears.

If he'd work on his own it would be fine but the judgement assumes that they were all working together.

I guess if MA and his cronies got wind of what was happening they would have bought more shares just to stop DK at co from gaining control.

It would be interesting to see how many more shares he could scoop up at 20p.

13 Mar 2017 22:52:04
Personally i hope someone like D Park steps up and buys Kings shares.

13 Mar 2017 22:04:11
What's wrong with it Dounebear? He conspired with Letham, Park etc to break the law. (Not 'tinkered around the edges' BR65, nice attempt at a euphamism) . They plain and simple broke a law that any businessman or first year law student knows about. Why stick up for them? If you can't see anything wrong with our Board being full of deceptive criminals (that's what today's ruling means, let's not beat about the bush) then we truly have fallen below the standards of the club I grew up supporting.

15 Mar 2017 12:56:58
Paulineblue72 I think you have the wrong Bear?
I never said anything about not being wrong.
Read my post above it was stating a fact about who got cheap shares at 1P so if they sell at even 20P a share now what a profit they would make.
Why I am very angry is because these SPIVS could take more cash out of being involved with Rangers.
The big losers would be the ordinary true fan who paid 70P a share so would be crazy to sell now.

15 Mar 2017 21:27:16
The shares are only worth what someone's willing to pay. There delisted which in the company's current state makes them practically worthless. If someone's offering 20p a share cut your losses and sell, not that I expect king to be the one offering

16 Mar 2017 21:56:26
Sorry Dounebear, I meant Deanobear. I agree with what you say, but Deano the clown is fantasising about buying up a business with a pal, while walking around with his hands over his eyes determined not to see the simple facts in front of him.

08 Mar 2017 10:47:16
Just can't understand why our institution of a football club, the famous glasgow rangers are allowing themselves to be dictated to, by a man who clearly doesn't want to come to us! Tell ross wilson where to go! He's clearly not wanting our DOF job!

Agree3 Disagree7

08 Mar 2017 11:32:41
Are you suggesting that we should not be ambitious are try to attract the best talent out there?

Ross Wilson must have been at least tempted or he would not have got into serious discussions - like the rest of us, he went for interviews, was offered the job (apparently) and now after due consideration he (apparently) has decided to stay where he is.

I'm sure there are 100's of candidates out there who would join us in a second but maybe the best need to consider their options

09 Mar 2017 22:46:51
The discussions broke down after asking the real question of the war chest

07 Mar 2017 19:03:35
It's funny it's exactly £30 million being mentioned by Ashley which is the amount Dave King said he would put in. He sure has got a massive resentment with King. News reminding me there that Ashley takeover would be a nonstarter as SFA refusing to let him own over 9% he already has.

Agree1 Disagree0

08 Mar 2017 08:27:58
Investment does not always mean shareholding. What about Ashley Park and Sports Direct Stadium. Sports Direct on the Rangers tops and full control of the catering pre-match. Just to name a few.

08 Mar 2017 12:58:05
It's 9% of the holding company Ashley's holds not shares in the club. I know the SFA fined him a couple of grand for the joint club. Personally I think the Ashley's take over is a load of bull ( no pun intended lol)

09 Mar 2017 22:49:39
King did the same. Ground down the existing and cast doubt. I don't think for a second he will/ could mount a serious takeover. He is turning the screw

07 Mar 2017 17:39:26
I havnt posted on this site since Charles green as my log in name suggests. I feel davie king is a fake, as much as I'd like it not to be true the guy hasn't delivered anything near what he said. Rangers are no more forward than what we were 5 years ago. Another administration is likely in my opinion.

Agree7 Disagree6

08 Mar 2017 08:36:19
Rangers can't go forward until the retail deal is gone. Something Dave King is trying to do.

06 Mar 2017 12:15:08
What difference does qualifying for Europe make? it's a pittance that is made in Europe unless in Champions league so don't hold your breath for a windfall there.

as for the fat man, no way should he be anywhere near us he is one of the main reasons we are where we are; kit deal that is robbing the club, a contract which allows him to rent the mega store at Ibrox for £1 a year, yes £1 a year. if he was interested in investing in Rangers why would he take so much out now he cares about his brand?

I know we can pick arguments with our board but we are in a better place now, minus the crooks who had their filthy paws all over our club, I include the fat man there.

we need to hope the courts see these contracts as unfair and we can get rid of them if we could do that, one year's kit deal money would probably pay more than what we could earn from Europe.

I for one will not return if that man gets his dirty hands on our club. I have been a season ticket holder for over fourth years and a share holder twice, but not if he is there.

Agree4 Disagree4

06 Mar 2017 13:40:45
The Europa League money would help us massively, forget the prize money, Think about the ticket sales. We could make atleast £1.2mil per home game, then the prize money too. if we made it to the group stages we could make £10mil, that would take us from a £6mil deficit per year to a few million profit. thinkaboutit - Pun intended.

06 Mar 2017 14:09:06
Theres got to be a reason ashley wants to buy the club outwright. my thoughts on this are, ashley is going to lose court cases surrounding kits, it would be the ultimate humiliation for a man that always wins. that's if indeed the rumours are true.

06 Mar 2017 14:33:10
Good answer OSA

06 Mar 2017 16:52:36
Well said onlyshowaround, if we compare like for like, it is obviously on a lower level than ECL, but it would be welcome money, none the less. Would we make the group stages though?

07 Mar 2017 08:44:41
BT just paid quite a bit for the Europa rights, I think. So the money involved could be about to go up a bit.

07 Mar 2017 09:07:25
Dawson is correct, chances are the prize pool for both competitions is about to increase. I'll happily welcome the Europa league.

07 Mar 2017 17:40:42
This current rangers team isn't good enough to get through to the europa league proper.

08 Mar 2017 19:35:04
Do the full sums, not just the half that looks nice. If we reach the group stages we might make £10mill, but how much do we need to spend on players to have a team capable of doing that, and doing it consistently? The sums don't look so pretty when you factor that in. European money isn't a quick fix. We need to build slowly and be very patient.

09 Mar 2017 08:07:39
Pauline, Can we judge the squad once a decent manager/ coach has had time with them?

09 Mar 2017 13:17:08
Oh yeah i forgot to add that into the sum. The cost of a decent manager / coach.

09 Mar 2017 23:09:06
To meet the uefa account regs rangers will have to spend what they make. By that rule there will be very little to invest in the team and meet that same criteria. Early few gate recipts exit and run, accept a board loan to buy a few players before the window shuts. I don't know if soft loans are deemed acceptable so a few rounds bag the cash then hope that king does something! 10m is a nice thought ;)

 


Rangers Finances


Rangers Finances 3

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass