Loading ...
On the 15th February we questioned why sports minister Shona Robison was having discussions with the administrators of Rangers football club by offering assistance to the Rangers employees, despite the Scottish government failing to do likewise with other football clubs in Scotland that have went into administration.
We contacted sports minister Shona Robison direct to explain her comments from the 15th and if taxpayers money would be used to help bail out the stricken Ibrox side.
The minister said: “Football is our national game and the Scottish Government is a committed supporter of Scottish football and all of our football clubs in recognition of the important positive role they play in communities throughout Scotland.”
On Rangers failure to pay their taxes, Robison added that the club must meet their obligations, she said: “I fully recognise that it is vital that both individuals and organisations pay their taxes in a timely manner as taxation is essential to the economic and social development of Scotland.
“In any statements made on Rangers, the Scottish Government has reiterated the importance of an agreement between the club and HMRC being reached which ensures that Rangers meet their obligations, including their tax liabilities and debts as well as securing as many of the jobs as possible.”
“As you will know, the club [Rangers] have now entered administration and it is far too early to predict the possible outcome of this but it is less likely that if the club is wound up that tax liabilities will be met. The task for the administrators now is to take forward the process of assessing the business and securing an outcome in the best interests of all of the creditors.”
On the discussions with the administrators tasked with dealing with the issues at Rangers, Robison added: “In a telephone conversation with the administrator, I reiterated our priorities as stated above. A key concern for us is the future of the over 250 people employed by the club and the potential economic impact of administration.
“The Government stands ready to offer assistance to anyone affected by job losses at the company and we will stay in contact with the administrator throughout the process to ensure we are informed of any developments.
“The Scottish Government has offered this type of assistance to a number of companies in the past, including other Scottish football clubs which had gone into administration, and will continue to do so with any company with employees facing redundancy.”
Despite the comments that the Scottish Government offered this type of assistance to a number of companies before, employees of the now-defunct FlyGlobespan beg to differ. The airline was Scotland’s biggest and employed around 800 staff, carried more than 1.5 million passengers and operated 12,000 flights. The Scottish Government did step in, but to help the company’s customers and rightly so. But there was no help or assistance to the employees of the company.
A Scottish government spokesman at the time, said: “This is extremely disappointing news. The Scottish government is contacting the company as a matter of urgency to seek clarification on the situation. Customers booked with Globespan either returning from holidays or about to travel can seek further advice through the Civil Aviation Authority’s website. We recognise that this will be an anxious time for employees and their families, particularly at this time of year.”
Despite the offer of assistance to Rangers employees, Robison wanted to make the point that: “While we are able to offer support as laid out above, I want to be clear that no public money would be offered to bail out any football club and this remains the case with Rangers.”
The sports minister ended by stating that the loss of the Ibrox side would have a negative impact on the Scottish game, she said: “Finally, the potential impact on Scottish football of losing Rangers was captured very well in the comments earlier this week of Inverness Manager Terry Butcher, when he expressed concern that such a loss would have a very negative impact on already difficult broadcasting and sponsorship deals. I hope you will agree that this is something we would wish, if at all possible, to avoid.”
Related posts:
- Why is the Sports Minister meeting with Rangers administrators?
- Former Celt states that Celtic need Rangers as Ibrox club await tax fate
- The Final Whistle Scottish Football Show Episode 7: Old Firm Derby, FC Sion, Rangers money troubles & Matt McGlone guests
- Money before Crowd Safety as Kilmarnock FC sell out
- Youth and Money at Hearts
RSS Feed
Email
Twitter
Facebook
UTTER NONSENSE & SPIN.
Rangers have constantly REFUSED to meet their tax liabilities, that is what put them in their current position.
Her suggestion that Rangers & HMRC come to an arrangement would mean Rangers NOT paying the TAX OWED but an agreed fraction of it.
HOW is that NOT using Public Money to help Rangers?
They owe the tax, it is PUBLIC MONEY, but uncollected, & any reduction in their liability means LESS for the PUBLIC PURSE which pays for all our social services etc.
As a responsible politician her stance should be “NO DEALS FOR TAX DODGERS” & that CHEATING is costing not only jobs in Scotland but is hampering our recovery.
I never heard ANYTHING like that from her or Salmond, just spin & deflection away from the SERIOUSNESS of Rangers cheating & it’s effect on the economy.
If Rangers are a special case, then why not others, in fact why not us all. Recalculate OUR tax in line with the Rangers shortfall & let’s see what would happen to the infrastructure of the country on THAT level playing field. Or is tax only for us wee diddy people?
She quotes TERRY BUTCHER as a source of Football Financial wisdom, Jesus wept, Chairmen of clubs have spoken of the DAMAGE that Rangers have done to THEIR clubs by the non payment of debts owed & the CEO of the BIGGEST Club in Scotland says that THEY don’t need Rangers to be successful.
That just about sums up the whole input from the SNP, IGNORE the FACTS, quote the FICTION & just spin away.
Mr Lennon, St Mirren’s Manager, says crowds to other teams will surge if Rangers fold, why does she not quote HIM?
He has a point, during the pre Souness days crowds were up for provincial clubs, the import of big stars to Ibrox brought a surge in the numbers of people supporting Rangers, where did they come from?
If Rangers can’t or won’t pay their tax & fold where would they go?
Assuming a Newco & no special deal, would some supporters gravitate back to their local teams or would they all follow the Newco in the 3rd Division?
Either way, it would be market forces deciding, NOT political interference.
So Politicians, please go away & politic somewhere else & keep your nose out of a complex issue between HMRC & a serial tax dodging company who have been caught red handed.
Excellent points made and delivered equally as well. We must all keep the pressure on as it is evident the press and politicians are now rallying behind them and Saturdays bigot fest will resemble the Nuremberg rally with the garbage of old on display.
That club is DEAD and they have many in denial,yes the name may go on however the club which everyone knows must re-invent itself and this will take decades.
Sponsers will see this as an opportunity to refuse to work with them if they continue with the levels of sectarianism previously shown. They are out on a limb and I personally would cut down that limb and burn it.
Lets calm down and get things in perspective.
Rangers payed into EBTs from 2001 to 2010 and Craig Whyte or someone at Rangers has not paid nine months tax from PAYE it is alleged.
That have not constantly refused to meet their tax liabilities. Rangers paid tax all during the time of the EBTs – what they are accused of is exploiting EBTs for tax evasion for empployees. If the tribunal goes against them, then they lose and they are guilty of it. If they win then that reduces the financial woes drastically. There is a train of thought that many companies will be nervously awaiting the outcome as HMRC are supposedly sitting on hundreds of cases of companies using them so I hope you will express your outrage so vehemently if that is the case all call for the full liquidation of all these companies regardless of job losses if they cannot pay in full. That would hugely help the economy.
I can’t find any figures to support that attendances were on the rise at other Scottish clubs (lets drop the use of provincial) pre-Souness, so if you can point me to them that would be great.
In short, many companies go bust for whatever reason. The administrators job is to try and broker a deal that will allow the club to function and continue and pay some debt back. You are determined that Rangers should pay the debt in full (and don’t forget the figures include punitive fines) or close down. The truth is Rangers will never be able to pay this debt or all the debts in full, regardless if they are liquidated or not. Indeed the debtors may be worse off through liquidation.
Lets not panic simply because the Government express an interest that it would be better that Rangers survived.
I am very calm & accurate in what I post:
Rangers undertook to pay the wee tax case & renaged.
Rangers did NOT pay tax of £9m over a period of 9 months.
Any OTHER business with similar income, & acting as Rangers have, would be classed as a serial “can pay WON’T PAY”customer, so why should Rangers be treated any differently?
Name other business that would have so many people wanting to let them off with these offences & what possible reason can they have for giving this support for blatant wrongdoing?
I have consistently said, pay up or suffer the consequences, on the Football front, Rangers should be treated like any other team, no more, no less.
Again, this is fair.
Your argument seems to consist of ” But it’s Rangers or people are only picking on Rangers cos it’s Rangers, or you can’t do without us.” I think we could.
I can’t answer for anyone else but I want an example made of Rangers because they have been deliberate in their actions & seem to think it’s ok BECAUSE they are Rangers.
They knew about the EBT confict with HMRC years ago & made NO attempt to cut costs to pay for any possible outcome.They continued with the EBTs, after HMRC told them that the way they were using them was not legal.
In fact they have continued to spend, spend, spend, contrary to the myth of a club under financial constraints.
Check out how much money Rangers spent during Walter Smith’s 2nd stint at the club, your debts would have been covered by simple cost cuts.
Since the FTT started Rangers have made no effort to to build a fund to cover the outcome, it has been more spend, spend & increased debt, to the extent that other clubs are endangered by their actions.
If you are going to quote the EBT issue, first go & learn what it is about.
It is NOT about Rangers ” EXPLOITING” EBTs, it is about the ABUSE of EBTs & the covering up of the ABUSE of the use when confronted by HMRC.
In short, there is nothing in the conduct of Rangers, as a company, which warrants giving them a deal. They were blatant in their abuses of the tax system & deserve the full force of HMRC’s powers as a reply.
On the Football front, Rangers should not, as I have already said, be given a deal no other team would be given, if they can’t pay their debts then it should be, at best, a 3rd division restart.
I am a Celtic fan, however I agree with most Rangers fans that I do not think it would be good for us or Scottish football if Rangers went bust.
Yes some Rangers fans may go on to support other teams but not in enough numbers to make a difference.
As for Peter Lawell saying we would survive withouth them, yes we will win lots of league titles but I think the glory of this would soon wear off and the crowds would dwindle. As for getting £10m every year from the Champios League thats a joke as both Celtic and Rangers currently struggle to get past the qualifiers let alone the group stages.
As for TV money, sponsorship etc would soon die away as well as the quality of football and we would end up as not much better than the Welsh league.
Very strange reasoning for a Tim !
Let me get it right, Celtic say they CAN & you say they can’t, fair enough your opinion is as valid as anyone elses.
You feel it will be good for Celtic to allow a politically gerrymandered deal to be struck whereby Rangers are free of THEIR debt but everyone else is saddled with theirs, INCLUDING the debt caused by RANGERS in the first place.
Rangers to retain their place in the SPL, so you have accepted a pence in the pound debt solution, clearing Rangers debt, because you figure WE need them & the league would turn into something akin to Wales without them.
You have just promoted as bent a league as could be imagined, Every INNOCENT TEAM saddled with debt, the GUILTY TEAM absolved & debt free, ready & able to dominate for YEARS TO COME.
Mind you they ARRA PEEPEL, are you sure you are not one too?
So everyone that does not toe the “party” line all of a sudden is one of them! There are plenty of Celtic fans out there that also think the same as me that losing Rangers will eventually lead to the demise of Scottish football.
I have never said and I don’t agree with them getting off with their debts either, they should be made to pay every penny they owe whether it takes them 1 year or 10 years. there are ways and means of doing this like transfer embargos, point deductions for every season they are in debt etc. Would you rather they did go into Liquidation and then come back debt free and then be even stronger, sure you are not one of “them”!
What the Celtic board say in public and what they actually do may be 2 different things. Do you really think the Celtic board want Rangers to die?
I believe that every chairman in the SPL would probably love to stick one to Rangers, but notice they are all very supportive due to the fact that without the away gate money from both Celtic and Rangers they would be in dire straits.
First of all I NEVER said I wanted to lose Rangers, I said I want a JUST settlement on them & it is up to them from there, no special deals, as for the rest, Dream on, there is no way that Rangers will be made to repay over 10 years for various reasons.
HMRC do not, or should I say have not, done extended deals in the past & there is no way the SFA/SPL will want to extend the situation & certainly not for 10 years.
Their solution would be a debt free Rangers or Newco in the SPL. That means a pennies in the pound deal. How is that fair to the other teams?
Even if they did agree to an extended deal how do you enforce it? RFC can fold at anytime & make any agreement vanish, just like they are trying to do with the current debt.
The ONLY way to trim Rangers sails with a proper punishment is:
Make them pay HMRC in full or face Liquidation, then DO NOT allow a pheonix company to take their place. The Newco must be as seperate from the Oldco as possible or must be pursued by HMRC as a Pheonix.
They must be treated like ANY OTHER club would be, a 3rd division restart, if voted in.
Rangers Newco will then work their way through the ranks.
If you are saying that Celtic or the SPL cannot handle themselves without Rangers while justice takes its course then the SPL may as well chuck it tomorrow as it would not be a viable model & history would continue to repeat itself.
Ian, my problem with them going into liquidation is that they will become debt free, rise from the ashes then the wolves that are currently circling around will move in.
That could end up with an even bigger advantage for Rangers starting afresh with a war chest of around say £20m. They will be voted back into the SPL regardless.
As Gordon said they need them there for the £80m deal which you think cannot exist, it is very well documented and obviously does not break any rules, if one of the old firm get relegated then end of contract. I think Sky would carry on if one of them finished in the bottom 6. Here’s a link regarding the contract http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/21/spl-tv-deal-sky-espn
There are also rumours circulating that HMRC may allow them to pay over a number of years.
If they do have that to contend with that then it will keep them out of contention for a good few years and any league titles would be even sweeter
Lone Wanderer,
I read that HMRC are talking about long term payment, after I posted, & I was surprised.
I agree with you, if HMRC do let them pay ALL they owe over period, that would be the preferred choice.
That is not the way it usually is conducted, it is usually a pence in the pound deal or liquidation & newco.
Of those two choices I prefer Newco & then the fight is to ensure a 3rd division restart, no special deal.
On the Sky deal, i know it exists, I just don’t think it means what everyone is trying to say ie there must be 4 games & that means Rangers can’t be binned.
I think it delineates the match share between SKY & ESPN & that Sky get ALL four Celtic v Rangers games.
If there are not 4 games for some reason, I would like to know if there is a penalty clause to cover that in the contract.
I think Celtic will go down the “Own Channel” route in a bigger way than they are doing now & possibly Euro friendlies of a decent standard if no official Euro involvement.
I think we want the same outcome, justice & no special deal just because it is Rangers involved.
lone_wanderer
Hmmmmmmmmmm
i hope and pray we get beat by 9 points ha ha it would be class wel always be the people
I hope you do too!
As “Glasgow Rangers 2012″ in the 3rd Division.
I agree THAT would be class.
I concur, it would be great to hear all the Rangers fans state we only won the league because of the 10 points deduction, then we can remind you all of the leagues and cups won while not playing on a level playing field
.
Ian, if you don’t read my posts don’t comment on them. Especially if you are going to fabricate things. My argument seems to be we are Rangers and we should be let off? You can’t do without us? Having doubled checked all my posts I have not said anything like it.
There is no specified can’t pay, won’t pay class/group in the business tax world. Again I have read of no one who has said let Rangers off – who said that Ian?
They are being treated like any other company on the tax front. They are going through the same legal process any company would go through. What seems to bother you is that a lot of people think it would be better if Rangers could emerge from the other side because it would be better for Scottish Football – that’s all.
Rangers argue they used EBTs legally to AVOID tax – HMRC say they used them illegally to EVADE tax. That is the crux of the problem. Rangers argue they were advised by their accountants and finance lawyers it was legal. That looks like very bad advice and a poor excuse. Rangers were grossly mismanaged financially and overspent. I will say again that there are hundreds of companies who use them – they are not something invented by Rangers so there may well be some dire consequences for many after this.
Once again I will try and explain that the full liquidation of Rangers could result in less debt being paid – don’t forget it is not just HMRC that are owed. You seem to think that HMRC should that HMRC will recover all monies by demanding it and offering no compromise – it won’t.
As for the you can’t do without us, I never said that. I fail to see how the demise of Rangers will in any way shape or form improve the game – the jeopardizing of 80 million over 5 years from a TV deal that is due to start this year is one strong argument against it.
Gordon Irvine:
Rangers DID NOT use EBTs like other companies do.
They used them to pay SALARIES.
HMRC says Rangers deliberately MISUSED the EBTs & continued to do so after they started their investigation.
Ask your accountant about can pay/wont pay customers, It was mine who told me about how HMRC handle them, & this would appear to be one of the reasons why HMRC is taking a stance, the other being a football scalp.
I may be wrong, & if I am I apologise, I read through other articles & included answers to comments made by Gordon in an earlier one, I thought you were the same person.
If you are not then sorry again & discount my comments on your reasoning, but the rest is accurate.
There can be no JUST solution for the other members of the SPL which allows a debt free Newco into the SPL, talk of 15 point deductions for 3 years is meaningless, the Newco would not be eligible for Europe anyway.
The TV deal argument is also spurious, it exists & if it DOES say that Celtic MUST play Rangers 4 times then I would love to hear Platini on that one, a TV contract insisting on non relegation or even not allowing two teams to finish in the bottom six… Only in Scotland would that be allowed.