The first MP (that we know of) sticks his nose in

Dear Mr Clark & Mr Whitehouse,
RANGERS FC

I am writing in relation to the current situation of Rangers FC.

I am MSP for Mid-Scotland & Fife and also Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Economy,
Energy and Tourism Committee, although I am writing this in a personal capacity. I am also
a debenture holder at Rangers FC and therefore technically a creditor of the company.

I know that as administrators you are currently considering bids for the company. I believe
that it is essential that any bidder considering liquidation is ruled out of the process. I say
this for two reasons – firstly, liquidation would deprive HMRC of funds properly due to the
taxpayer and, secondly, liquidation would jeopardise the future existence of an institution
which means so much to so many people across the world.

It is in the interests of HMRC that Rangers FC exit administration through a Company
Voluntary Arrangement and therefore I believe that only bids that offer this course of action
should be taken forward by the administrators.

You will welcome the support from the fans of the Club, including the three supporters’
groups coming together to raise funds and who have now made payments to Dunfermline FC
on behalf of the club. If Rangers FC is liquidated and a new club is established I fear that
some of this support may disappear, which will damage the Club’s revival.

It is a fact that Scottish football needs to change and adapt. It is in the interests for Scottish
football for there to be a strong SPL, and having a strong Rangers FC in the top flight
division will help bring in revenue. The long-term economic interests of Scottish football
and Rangers FC are best served if the club is not liquidated.

The administrators have a unique opportunity to see a new form of ownership for Rangers
FC, where the fan is at the heart of the club, and this can be a catalyst to help improve
Scottish football.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and I can be reached at
[email protected] if you wish to contact my office to arrange a
meeting.

Yours sincerely
Murdo Fraser MSP
Member for Mid Scotland & Fife (Scottish Conservatives)




And the response by Paul McConville (Random thoughts on Scots Law website)


Dear Mr Fraser,

I have noted that you have written to the administrators of Rangers Football Club PLC with your comments and suggestions regarding their handling of the administration process.
I note that you are writing, you say, in a personal capacity although you tell them that you are an MSP, using Scottish Parliament notepaper for your “personal” letter and you also advised the administrators of your position on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Does your use of official notepaper comply with Rule 7.2.14 of your Code of Conduct?

I also note that you write in the capacity of a Rangers debenture holder and therefore as a creditor, unless of course you have chosen to write off the debt owed to you. One assumes therefore that you are a Rangers supporter, although you do not actually say so.

As a creditor, and in no other capacity, you have a right to be heard and to vote on the administrators’ proposals, in line with the proportion of the total debt owed to you.

I note that you are urging the administrators to rule out any outcome involving liquidation of Rangers Football Club PLC. You do so for two reasons – firstly because you consider that this would deprive HMRC of funds properly due to the tax payer and secondly because liquidation would “jeopardise the future existence of an institution which means so much to so many people all around the world.”

Taking those in turn, you state that it is in the interests of HMRC that Rangers exits administration through a CVA.
You will be aware that it is not the actions of Messrs Clark and Whitehouse which will deprive HMRC of money due to the taxpayer. Instead it has been the actions of the Board of Rangers dating back over 10 years, by using tax avoidance schemes which have turned out, or are likely to be declared to be, illegal. In addition, a further sum of almost £10 million has accrued in unpaid PAYE and VAT since Mr Whyte took over Rangers.

One of the bidders for Rangers is led by Paul Murray, who was a Director from 2007 for almost 4 years whilst the EBT payments continued to be made, despite the first tax determination regarding them being issued to Rangers in February 2008.

Do you accept that the unpaid tax issues afflicting Rangers are a result, not of the actions of HMRC or the administrators, but of the past and present Directors of the company?

On that basis, do you not see the “moral hazard” should Rangers be allowed to exit administration by way of a CVA paying them, along with all the other unsecured creditors, a few pennies in the pound?

Surely HMRC approving such an arrangement would do nothing other than to encourage other taxpayers to withhold tax on the basis that, when HMRC finally catches up with them, they can negotiate a pennies in the pound payment too?
At a time when the public purse is sorely stretched as a result of economic circumstances, and the Prime Minister, your Conservative colleague, declares that “we are all in this together” how can you justify Rangers being allowed to escape liability for its unpaid taxes going back many years? I assume that you realise that if HMRC accepted a pennies in the pound deal in such a high profile case many other taxpayers would seek to emulate it?

Dealing with your second point, securing the happiness of Rangers fans round the world is not, as far as I can see, one of the purposes of administration under the Insolvency Act.

You go on to say that, if Rangers is liquidated and a new club established, some of the fans may disappear, which will damage the Club’s revival.

Are you aware, and as a clever man I am sure you are, that a new company will not be “Rangers”? If Rangers goes into liquidation, then that club is at an end. Airdrieonians went into liquidation (and indeed was put there partly as a result of action taken by a company owned by Sir David Murray). A new company took over Clydebank and moved it to Airdrie’s stadium. That team is Airdrie United. It is not Airdrieonians.

In the same way, a newco Rangers will not be the team I believe you to be supporter of.

You state that Scottish football needs to change and adapt. Has your Committee, of which you are Convener, looked into this issue? If so, how did you propose to make the necessary changes?

Or is it simply that, with Rangers being at death’s door through self inflicted injuries, you feel that a suggestion that football is to blame absolves your team of some of the blame?

You state that it is in the interests of a strong SPL for there to be a strong Rangers in the top flight to bring in revenue. Ignoring the fact that the financial impact of Rangers leaving the SPL to be replaced by another Club is greatly exaggerated, you appear to be suggesting that Rangers ought not to be punished for the transgressions of the Club over so many years, one of the effects of which has been to allow it to sign players it otherwise would not have been able to afford, and thus gain unfair advantage over other teams.

Is it your position that Rangers FC should be punished for its gross financial mismanagement, which has led to the position where not just HMRC, but over 250 other creditors, who dealt with the Club in good faith, stand to receive, at best, a pennies in the pound deal?

You state that the long term economic interests of Scottish football and Rangers are best served if it is not liquidated. If a buyer wishes to put £134 million into the pot to pay off all creditors in full, then I would entirely agree. However, have you considered the economic advantage to the whole of Scottish football if a newco Rangers has to start at Division 3 and work its way up the divisions?

In any event one would expect such a club to get back to the SPL in 3 or 4 years. Do you believe that such a hiatus would be fatal for Scottish football?

Surely one of the Conservative Party’s principles is the encouragement to businesses to stand on their own two feet, and to succeed or fail by their own efforts. “Bail outs” are not seen by your party as a “good thing” unless there is no alternative. It goes against the free market ethos you espouse.

However, you seem to want Rangers to receive State Aid in a reduction of its tax bill, and for it to be given a ladder back up from where its ow actions have left it.

You then mention that the administrators have a unique chance to see a new form of ownership for Rangers FC. I assume you mean fan ownership, rather than ownership by one or a few large shareholders.

Does this philosophy of sharing the wealth also apply to other private companies? Would you encourage, for example, the break up of the banks so that they can be owned by the people, rather than by big organisations?

It is admirable that you are doing what you can to save your football club, as I assume it is. However, the letter you have written and the steps you propose seem to raise many wider issues about your political judgement and principles (for the avoidance of doubt I am NOT suggesting you are unprincipled).

I would appreciate your response, if you wish to furnish me with one. I should say that this letter will be published on my blog, together with a link to your letter to the administrators.

Yours sincerely,


Paul McConville

 

Spot on Paul. I wouldn't consider myself to be in any way capable of replying to the h.n creditor, however the later parts of his
letter points out the need of a strong Rangers to strengthen Scottish Football. I don't agree with this as there has been a strong
Rangers for about 140 years but the Scottish Football has been at its strongest around the 1980's when Rangers were probably
at their weakest.

 

What is it with rangers and trying to worm there way out of bother? Where's this dignity they talk about? A dignified person would except his punishment like a man and not try and stiff the creditors. He would also hand back his titles that he won illegally.

The way they have behaved since this all started has been shocking and Scottish football will be better off without them. Who needs a team that doesn't pay their taxes? Who doesn't even pay the money they owe to other football clubs? They even went as far as to liquidate a football club, but now expect the rules to be changed because its their turn to face the music. Very dignified.

 

Murdo Fraser MSP and Rangers Administrators – Part 2

I wrote yesterday about Murdo Fraser MSP and his letter to Duff and Phelps, Rangers administrators, advising them to rule out liquidation. You can read his letter via the link in this piece, and you will also find my “open letter” to him there too.
I submitted the letter to him via his constituency website but have not had an acknowledgement or reply yet. To be fair, it is Easter weekend, so I would not have expected one so quickly.

However I was very surprised to see the number of people who were interested in this matter too, and I know that the article was tweeted to Mr Fraser’s Twitter account, by me amongst others, as well as to his Party Leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson.
Alex Thomson of Channel 4 has also, according to his Twitter feeds, emailed Mr Fraser for an explanation.

I have found a piece online, dated 4[SUP]th[/SUP] April, where Mr Fraser explains why he wrote to Duff and Phelps. You can find it here.(http://derekhowie.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/rule-out-liquidation/)
It does not answer any of the questions I asked Mr Fraser in my letter yesterday, and indeed it actually raises more!
Well done to Derek Howie, whose blog it is, for getting Mr Fraser to give him the comments.

By way of explanation about why a list MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife should be involved with a Glasgow company, Mr Fraser is quoted as saying:-

“There are many people in the area that I represent that have an affinity for Rangers Football Club and they have been in contact with me expressing their concern about the current situation…

“…this is a substantial Scottish company that is a large employer and has made a major contribution to the Scottish economy.
“I think the threat of liquidation is something that should concern us in exactly the same way as it would concern us if it were any other company of that size.”


I wrote before here about the differing reaction from politicians to the potential demise of two similar companies, in terms of employees, both coincidentally situated near each other.

Mr Fraser justifies his involvement in the issue as he was approached by people in the area with “an affinity” for Rangers.
Rule 8.1.4 of the MSP’s Code of Conduct states “An MSP must not deal with a matter relating to a constituency case or constituency issue outwith the member’s constituency or region (as the case may be) unless by prior agreement.”


Does the fact that some constituents of Mr Fraser have an interest in a matter outside the region justify his involvement? On that basis it would make a mockery of the rule requiring MSP’s to deal with matters with a bearing on their constituency, and not to cross boundaries.

I must also say that the reference to Rangers having made a “major contribution to the Scottish economy” is a remarkable statement.

The whole reason why Rangers is in trouble is that, over many years, it has not paid the taxes due. In addition, much of the money it did spend went to fund foreign players, and much of their income, especially if paid “off shore” would have been money out of the Scottish economy!

Rangers owe the Exchequer many millions, no matter what the result of the Tax Tribunal. Is Mr Fraser prepared to excuse the British Treasury being bilked, as long as the Scottish tax take does not have to suffer the full losses?

Further on in the article Mr Fraser makes an interesting statement.


He ‘revealed that First Minister Alex Salmond has assured him the Scottish Government would be “looking to support Rangers in exactly the same way as they would be looking to support any other Scottish company facing financial difficulties”’.
When did the First Minister give Mr Fraser this “assurance”?
Whilst, within EU and domestic rules, it is generally a good thing for Government to help troubled companies, surely that responsibility disappears where the problem is one of non-payment of tax? Asking for Government help to deal with failure to pay tax seems a ridiculous thing to do!

The Scottish Government has supported many companies where there are financial issues; some have received public money.
Can Mr Fraser tell us in what way Mr Salmond told him he is “looking to support Rangers”?

Conclusion
Mr Fraser is perfectly entitled, as a Rangers debenture holder, to write to Duff and Phelps. However, once he decides to do so (a) on official notepaper (b) having been approached by a number of constituents (c) having met the First Minister to discuss the issue and (d) having decided to release his letter to the public via the Rangers Supporters Trust, then he cannot complain if he is questioned publicly about his motives and how his approach to this matter fits into his political philosophy.

I look forward to a response from Mr Fraser to these and the matters mentioned yesterday. I am doubtful that I will receive it – after all, I am not one of his constituents!

He might reply to Alex Thomson however. We shall see.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.c...-and-rangers-administrators-part-2/#more-1003

 

Hmm

 

**** sake. nut shell this "war and peace" style thread will ye dev?

I aint got time to read

[video=youtube;5WlwCltYONc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WlwCltYONc[/video]

 

please log in to view this image

 

MSP writing to the administrators on behalf of no one and himself and other people.

 

right so?

 

He says he's writing in his capacity not as an MSP but declares who he is and what comittees he sits on...and uses official party letterheads.

He also says he has spoken to Alex Salmond about the matter (as a private individual or as an MSP?) and he says Fatso is looking to "support Rangers in exactly the same way as they would be looking to support any other Scottish company facing financial difficulties”

When did Salmond say that exactly?

 

Governments are not allowed to stick their noses into "Football" matters according to UEFA.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/columns/story?id=806748&cc=5739&ver=global

 

so who gets punished then?

please no us again!!??

 

And Salmond will be to blame.

 

"Take up"?

I play lefty go centre half back for Clachnacuddin Porrige Wogs.