A Friday Night Rummage By Tony Attwood
Image a club – one of the biggest in the land in which…
There is a constant shortage of money, so that every couple of months the club has to find another million or three in order just to pay the players (the season ticket money long since having been used up).
The manager has resigned, and is serving a one year notice period (at a higher salary than he was on before he handed in his notice) and the club can’t afford to pay off his contract and bring in a new manager who actually wants the job.
A fight is going on to avoid paying a £250,000 fine imposed because of the club’s admitted widespread use of undisclosed payments to players.
The argument against paying the fine is that it wasn’t levied on this club, but on this club before it went into liquidation, although the current club is allowed to keep the trophies won by the pre-liquidated club because it didn’t get any playing advantage out of the undisclosed payments which are the reason behind the £250000 fine.
The case being fought involving the fine relates to activities between 3 and 14 years ago, and is still not resolved.
The League has stopped paying TV money over to the financially challenged club in order to recover the money from the case noted above, forcing the club to start an expensive appeal procedure using money that it would like to use for the paying of players.
The person who is the main source of funding at the moment is being investigated for having an involvement in the running of two clubs – which is not allowed.
“An appeal has been lodged with the judicial panel of the Scottish FA which has confirmed that the decision of the SPFL is suspended pending the outcome of the appeal subject to the SPFL’s right to object. The board is advised that the sum is not due to SPFL and the appeal will be pursued vigorously.”
The Inland Revenue is preparing to launch a third legal challenge to the tax-avoiding employee benefits trust scheme which is at the heart of these arguments, which if it were to win it, would wind up the club for a second time, and send it once more down to the fourth division, or maybe even lower.
The club and the only shareholder putting new money into the club have now been given five new charges of malpractice concerning the dual ownership rules.
The club sold the naming rights to its stadium, then said it had done so by mistake, and spent about £250,000 in legal fees trying to get them back.
The investing director is only investing because he has all the rights to the running of the club’s shops.
The director with the money has given an undertaking not to exert undue influence at the club.
The AGM of the club this Monday has been preceded by a fans’ group requesting that the club’s Stock Exchange Nominated Adviser ensure the club does not use the excuse of poor weather conditions to avoid answering fans; questions!
The fans have stated that, ““We expect that all questions from shareholders will be answered, as they are asked, and that follow-up questions will be allowed within reason. We do not expect multiple questions to be taken at a time.”
The chairman of the board holds fewer shares than the Supporters Trust
Yes just imagine all that.
And if you are imagining that you are imagining Rangers FC who have won the Uefa Cup, the Scottish League 54 times, and the Scottish Cup 27 times. and reached the semi final of the FA up in 1887.
Their last three results have been a league defeat by 2-0 to Queen of the South, a 1-0 victory over Cowdenbeath, and a 3-2 defeat to Alloa in the Cup – a club whose home ground has a capacity of under 4000.
The plight of Rangers is a plight that can befall many clubs who become easy prey to crooks and charlatans. They are not the only club to suffer this sort of problem, be they clubs with a long history of success, or smaller clubs like Hereford who are currently just about surviving after a series of court cases and are now in the Southern League (the 7th division) having been in the second.
Makes you think.
“We expect that all questions from shareholders will be answered, as they are asked, and that follow-up questions will be allowed within reason. We do not expect multiple questions to be taken at a time. The company and, for many of us, our football club, is in dire straits.
“The board remain unwilling to engage properly with their concerned shareholders and customers and this is the only opportunity we may have for another year to get the clarification we require.”
- Uefa increasing looking weak as European clubs propose completely new approach
- The Premier League action against Man City brings Super League ever closer
- What Europe knows about Man C but the English press haven’t told you
- Arsenal v Manchester City Women’s Continental League Cup semi-final – match preview
- How Man City’s problems began to arise…. nine years ago