A Guest blog by redlichtie for TSFM
From what I can see Mike Ashley is likely to be the only game in town for RIFC/TRFC fans unless they want to see another of their clubs go through administration/liquidation.
That particular scenario potentially allows for a phoenix to arise from the ashes but on past evidence it is probably going to be an underfunded operation with overly grandiose pretensions taking them right back into the vicious circle they seem condemned to repeat ad nauseam.
Ashley has the muscle to strongarm the various spivs to give up or greatly dilute their onerous contracts and I suspect that is what has been happening behind the scenes.
From Ashley’s point of view I believe that what is being sought is a stable, self-financing operation that he can then sell on whilst retaining income streams of importance to SD.
I also suspect that he will come to some arrangement with the SFA to dispose of his interest once he has stabilised the club.
The problem for RIFC/TRFC fans is that Ashley is not going to fund some mythical “return to where they belong”, though that is beginning to appear to be the second division of the SPFL where they are heading to have a regular gig.
Like at Newcastle, Ashley will cut their coat according to their cloth. This will mean, again like at Newcastle, a mid-table team with good runs every so often. If the finances can be fixed then they will have an advantage over most other Scottish clubs but in the main we will be back to actual footballing skills and good management being what is important (pace “honest mistakes”).
With recent results and footballing style clearly those are issues that will require attention and McCoist seems likely to present RIFC/TRFC with an early opportunity to address at least one aspect of that if he continues with his current “I’m a good guy” press campaign. It may take just one unguarded comment or action and he will be out.
But will the Bears go for Ashley’s plan? So far they seem antagonistic and still cling to their belief that the world owes them a top football club regardless of cost.
If the fans don’t get behind the current entity I can see Ashley deciding the game’s not worth it and cashing in his chips. Some ‘Rangers Men’ will probably turn up and create a new entity for The People to believe in and Ashley will continue to draw in income from shirt sales and, most likely, charging fans at the world famous Albion car park which he will then own.
The upcoming AGM is crucial and from what we have seen of Ashley so far he gets what he wants.
The crushing reality about to descend on The People is that there really is no Santa Claus. A Sanity Clause, perhaps but no Santa Claus.
Livingston were relegated from division one to the Scottish Third Division for breaching league rules on insolvency. At the time the club had new directors who were trying to sort this out but the SFL showed no mercy. This was a week or two before the league started, with Livingston having a full time squad.
jockybhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 10:36 am
40 1 Rate This
Re. Johnstone’s comments: “Screw Rangers at your peril”
————————————————————–
So by the above comment I take it Rangers have not been screwed yet. So is there screwing and then real SCREWING.
Also at your peril, please explain Mr Johnstone.
mcfc says:
January 7, 2015 at 1:26 pm
What I don’t see is the percentage left of ordinary Bears and I mean typically the ones who paid the £500 minimum initial deal at IPO. Obviously some might have cashed-in either the whole or part of their shareholding.
But surely there must be still around 10% at a minimum although gathering their proxies or getting them to vote could be a problem.
without & GoosyGoosy.
While taking your comments in and digesting them as I have my morning tea (yes I got kinda detained at a whisky session) a related thought has been circulating in the empty vessel for a few months, namely as follows.
Could there possibly be a few creditors (businessmen and diehard bluenoses) who against better judgement have let their due date slip, week by week. To the extent that they are due considerable sums of money.
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 1:46 pm
But surely there must be still around 10% at a minimum although gathering their proxies or getting them to vote could be a problem.
============================================================
Eco – in my experience, these small investors are generally ignored in take over scenario calcs. They can’t be reached economically, they probably won’t vote, and those that do will probably cancel each other out to a large degree.
without & GoosyGoosy.
While taking your comments in and digesting them as I have my morning tea (yes I got kinda detained at a whisky session) a related thought has been circulating in the empty vessel for a few months, namely as follows.
Could there possibly be a few creditors (businessmen and diehard bluenoses) who against better judgement have let their due date slip, week by week. To the extent that they are now due considerable sums of money.
Is it likely that alone or collectively they present one of these 7day demands. If successful some of the other creditors simply jump on board, and we’ll see just how much of ‘Rang er SS men’s ‘ kong, easdole, and the three bares actually are.
Eco – re your comments about the very nature of the meaning of the word “Club”.
I posted on an old blog when the OC/NC debate was in full swing about this very issues – sorry can’t find it but it went something like this.
————————————————–
In the realm of modern professional sport the term “Club” is in turn both meaningless and potentially misleadiing.
A Club is a distinct leagal entity. It is a members organisation with a constitution and elected officers who organise and conduct the activities of the Club on behalf of the members. As such a Club can make a profit or a loss and go bust and be wound-up.
In professional sports we have businesses, maybe partnerships, Ltd Co’s or PLC’s that run and manage a sports business. The key activity of the business is to put out a “team” on matchday to compete in their chosen sporting field. Revenue comes from gate money, prize money, sponsorship etc.
What these businesses and their teams are not in any way is a “Club”. They simply use the word “Club” as a title. Perhaps brand is a better word.
Dundee Utd, Chelsea and Barcelona are simply not clubs. They are sports businesses that put teams on a field of play.
So IMHO – if you belive that the history attaches to the business that puts the team on the field then Rangers died and this is a new entity with new history. If you believe the history attaches to the team, then Rangers lives as the team was sold to Charlie as one of the assets.
Interestingly when Wimbledon FC moved to Milton Keynes everything was legal and above board. The fans in south London formed AFC wimbledon as the “true heirs” to Wimbledon FC and everyone down here thinks of MK Dons as a new club.
MK Dons gave up all claims to the history and reurned the FA Cup to Merton Borough Council for safe keeping. I believe the trophy now resides at the home of AFC Wimbledon.
MK Dons have contiuity of both the business and the team/playing squad but everyone believes that the history rests in the hearts of the fans.
Etymology
The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
Google has some liitle tricks you can use:- enter a search for etymology : club
and you get this:-
https://www.google.co.uk/#safe=off&q=etymology+:+club
woodstein says:
January 7, 2015 at 2:05 pm
Etymology
The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
Google has some liitle tricks you can use:- enter a search for etymology : club
and you get this:-
https://www.google.co.uk/#safe=off&q=etymology+:+club
…………………………………….
THAT is excellent. 😀
We can now clearly see that the term “clumpany” was bang on the money…
Tho that has probably already been spent, too.
neepheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:50 pm
http://www.dpa-international.com/news/sports2/refilegerman-amateur-club-has-fifa-ordered-demotion-nullified-in-court-a-43747851.html
—————————————————————-
There’s an undercurrent in the EC over what is seen as restrictive practices in football and other sports contrary to competition policy objectives and free movement of capital and labour.
One of the areas is FFP and I’ve been trying to get my head round it to do a post – so far unsuccessfully.
One thing that surprises me is reference to a lump sum via and estimate as the quick look I had at the Charlie Telfer case left me thinking the process was quite exact in determining the compensation playable.
So once we have a European Court ruling on this a bit down the line mibbes there might be an appeal against the amount paid to Rangers – only joking 🙄
fishnish says:
January 7, 2015 at 2:29 pm
You might be interested in this
http://news.distractify.com/geek/google-tips/ 😆
mcfc says:
January 7, 2015 at 1:56 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 1:46 pm
But surely there must be still around 10% at a minimum although gathering their proxies or getting them to vote could be a problem.
============================================================
Eco – in my experience, these small investors are generally ignored in take over scenario calcs. They can’t be reached economically, they probably won’t vote, and those that do will probably cancel each other out to a large degree.
———————————————————–
That’s obviously the normal way of it with small shareholders. But a football club especially in the state that Rangers is in I think will have a much higher than normal vote from fan shareholders.
Also unlike normal small shareholders there are lots and lots of ways the Rangers shareholders can be reached via existing networks and if the RRM ask for their proxy they’ll either come flooding in or they’ll attend in person to cast their vote.
I also don’t think they’ll cancel each other out now that RRM are in the picture. This egm will be billed as the last ditch attempt to Save Rangers and return it to its Rightful Place. They will respond I have absolutely no doubt about that.
Back in September 2012 I wrote about one of the times Charlie Green came a cropper on the back of a shareholder revolt: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/could-charlie-greens-rangers-float-turn-into-a-lead-lifebelt-by-ecojon/
A long and detailed article in the Private Eye, “In the City” column, about the Worthington Group, Craig Whyte, the Earley brothers et al. Too long to reproduce here at the moment but it includes the sentence “Law Financial maintains that it holds investments worth £10m, which would seem to be a legal claim to the Rangers “newco” assets – the value of which may be problematic, given the club’s desperate need for cash.”
It goes on with “Given the proliferation of deals and their links to the far from snow Whyte and so many of his dwarves, it is perhaps not surprising that the FCA has stopped the Worthington music until there is far more fact than possible fairy tale’:
woodstein says:
January 7, 2015 at 2:05 pm
Etymology
The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
Google has some liitle tricks you can use:- enter a search for etymology : club
================================================================
Love this result given the military flavour at Ibrox and especially the Tank Commader’s current War games. It really is very apt 😆
Good piece on the OBA
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/incoherent-illiberal-and-ineffective.html
ernie says:
January 7, 2015 at 9:21 am
27
0
Rate This
StevieBC says:
January 7, 2015 at 1:05 am
That’s the problem with verbal assurances – they’re not worth the paper they’re written on.
==========================
Fortunately Doncaster is a qualified man trained and experienced in the commercial/contract side of the business world so he would have required any such verbal communication to be confirmed in writing otherwise he couldn’t really report back to the board, could he? I wouldn’t have dared to do otherwise. Day two of any such commercial training would have him know that if there was any reluctance for such assurance in writing he needs to go into print to confirm his understanding and request agreement, I’m being facetious but it’s pretty basic stuff.
=========================================================
Maybe he borrowed Craig Whyte’s tape recorder? 💡
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 2:51 pm
That’s obviously the normal way of it with small shareholders. But a football club especially in the state that Rangers is in I think will have a much higher than normal vote from fan shareholders.
=============================================================================
Eco – I agree the small investors will probably be more active than usual but I’m a big believer in apathy, procratination, ignorance and laziness.
apathy – we’re all doomed, doomed, you hear
procrastination – not doing the paperwrk (at all or in time) to get a vote via nominee accounts and assigning proxy to RRM or others.
ignorance – of the importance of the EGM resolutions to RIFC and TRFC and “club” – compounded by a bit of dog whistle PR from both sides.
laziness – studying the alternatives, making a rational decision and voting
If they have 10% of shares, I’d doubt if they will lean more than 2% or 3% one way or the other. Could be decesive – but not if spivs and/or RRM have their ducks in a row.
Tincks says:
January 7, 2015 at 2:05 pm
Tinks – thanks for that. I too have always been of the opinion that a ‘football club’ history resides in the heart and mind of fans and as long as they wish to retain it that history continues.
That however IMO does not create an eternal club. But I don’t want to stray into an oc/nc debate as that’s not relevant to my current thinking.
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 2:51 pm
That’s obviously the normal way of it with small shareholders. But a football club especially in the state that Rangers is in I think will have a much higher than normal vote from fan shareholders.
=======================================================================
Eco – I agree the small investors will probably be more active than usual but I’m a big believer in apathy, procratination, ignorance and laziness
————————————————————————
It will all come out in the wash because after the event we should be able to work out fairly accurately how many voted.
I’m also curious as to how many have sold their shares since the IPO quite simply because they’ve needed the money for other things.
ParanoidWellFan says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:34 pm
45
1
Rate This
STV Sport @STVSport · 12m 12 minutes ago
SFA to introduce vanishing spray to Scottish football later this year http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/305675-sfa-to-introduce-vanishing-spray-to-scottish-football-later-this-year/ …
Can we not just cover Willie Collum in it??
===================================================
I thought they’d been using vanishing spray on the rule book up on the sixth floor at Hampden Park for quite a while now.
Alex Neil has jetted (© SMSM) into Norwich International Airport for talks about filling the managerial vacancy at NCFC, and to have a look around the facilities. He will be impressed with what he sees.
It seems that the success of Hamilton Accies has not been universally ignored. Following McGrandles’ signing from Falkirk, it looks like another promising young talent may be heading to NR1 and a familiar face will be waiting at the club, with ex Falkirk manager Gary Holt part of the coaching/management set-up.
The latest offering from McMurdo minor is remarkably sober and realistic. I wonder who ghosted this one?
“Even if Kingco get over the line percentage-wise, then the hard work begins. Ashley will have to be paid off and funds will have to be raised to keep the club going. Critically, a failure to gain promotion could consign the club to years of mediocrity in much the same way that John Greig’s failure to win the league in his first season in charge saw Rangers hit a seven year slump. It is these fine margins that matter so much.”
TBF to Bill, he has been saying for a while, that TRFC getting through the play offs, is a big ask.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk
Apologies for my inability to cut and paste on an iPad and provisional additional apologies if anybody believes I am detracting from the overall quality of the TSFM blog but this is worth a read, particularly the Q&As at the start. I actually thought it was parody at first but Paul67 has since confirmed it is a real interview.
I don’t think a fan of either participant in any match can be expected to officiate objectively; there is far too high a risk of intentional bias, unintentional bias, or over compensating to avoid the accusation of bias. It is not fair on the official or either club. If said match is the most poisonous in the history of Scottish football, and one of the most poisonous in the history of world sport, then multiply the comments above by one hundred.
There is a rumour that Craig Thomson widely regarded as the best referee in the country (recognising we are hardly spoiled for choice) is unavailable. I sincerely hope this is true, because otherwise the decision to select former Ibrox season ticket holder Bobby Madden is simply inexplicable and certainly would not happen in the Premiership and (I’m speculating) any serios league in any serious footballing country.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11782/9635768?
The BS and Myths continue
…relegated, blah blah blah !!!!!!
Who is running Scottish football?
That is what this farce is throwing up!
Is it Budge, Petrie, Lawell, Milne ,Thompson etc or is Rangers and their acolytes Doncaster Ogilvie etc ?
Ludicrous pronouncements by ND , torn to shreds by Highlander on here , are either supported by the clubs or they are not SIMPLE!…Which is it ? This is really important Just who is calling the shots?
If Rangers are indeed liquidated as Goosy Goosy consistently indicates on here
(and his logic is consistently unarguable ..although I am in the camp with Wottpi that they will just keep kicking the can down the road for a long time as the sums of money are peanuts to Ashley and he will get assets in return even if the fans give up .. and possibly more importantly his reputation will be intact)
and liquidated for WHATEVER REASON ..then as posted a night or two ago ….The clubs MUST take the decision about what happens to Rangers OUT OF THE HANDS of the Hampden cabal ..
I don’t understand the process..someone will know ….and I know we are not there yet ..but positioning in the media/ talk of keeping them in the Championship or 25 points deduction only post liquidation is surely nonsense .. They will be gone !
DEAD AGAIN!
The other 36 clubs will follow in behind the big 5 if they demand that the clubs insist on taking the decision …i feel that even more so than in 2012 the fans will be very hard on their clubs about falling in line with any nice accommodation by the authorities
A second liquidation event followed by a third spell of financial doping financed by funds probably recycled and re-laundered out of the reach of the South African tax authorities ..which is what the Rangers fans probably want will probably go ahead OK and can’t be stopped ….but it should start in the Juniors or the West Lowland league at best
AClydeFan has had an answer on the Owners Q&A forum and unfortunately it is along the lines of “the board don’t get involved in issues that don’t concern them”. This is highly disappointing and I have submitted the following:
I wait so see if they will be forced to engage or deflect again. The answer will influence my decision to renew membership in later in the year. These are guys who have a day job and are working hard behind the scenes to get Clyde a permanent home away from the disgrace that Broadwood now is. They perhaps don’t have the stomach for being the thorn in the SPFL’s side but when you accept a board position you have to accept there are times you may need to make yourself unpopular among your peers.
shawfieldtoteboard says:
January 7, 2015 at 6:14 pm
_________________________________________________
Well done pal and more power to your elbow!!
Breaking with tradition, Scottish football decided to bring in people with no experience of the Scottish game from 2009.
In 2009 Neil Doncaster became the Chief Executive of the SPL
In 2010 Stewart Regan took over as Chief executive of Scottish football.
In 2011 Craig White took over rangers.
There was no cost cutting on root to administration followed by liquidation. In fact, the Rangers team heading towards administration and liquidation was able to put a team onto the park that cost more than the Celtic team they faced.
From then to now, there has been no real cost cutting at Rangers, the team is still full of internationals to a point where the future of the club is in jeopardy again. If the club started ‘again’ and genuinely built a new youthful team, they could sort themselves out as shown by Hearts.
As for Regan and Doncaster, they have not IMHO been good for the Scottish game. One, bullish on sponsorship and the other promised a slicker, more transparent, more up-front system. We have got neither from them.
We need people in charge of our game who will apply the rules ‘without fear or favor’, no 5 way agreements, no law lords, just honest application of the rules and positive promotion of our game.
Ecobhoy
Thanks. Leaving aside the misleading of LNS and his direct remit, my point was that whilst LNS used whatever rules the SFA/SPL had in place, should the SFA’s articles not reflect UEFAs principles or at least have a good reason for not doing so? Also should LNS not have looked at the wider football picture than that just framed by SFA/SPL rules before judging?
(As an aside the Commission framework with SFA as Appeal body stopped the Court of Arbitration on Sport being so. Handy that given they might have taken a wider view, but I have always wondered why, despite plausible justification, it was all done inside Scottish football)
If I have this following link right it suggest the SFA cannot plough its own lone furrow.
http://t.co/gq0s01KWRY
so whilst I accept LNS can only work within the rules that are, I’m suggesting the clarity that Art 12 provides would have helped his Lordship in his considerations.
It is true that as football has developed as a business then there are more and more holding companies arising with contractual relationships.
(That is why Art 12 which covers Europe exists as written to cover those two different constructs which it attempts to differentiate between. It not only defines who can apply for a licence but deters clubs dumping debt and walking straight back into UEFA competition, the very thing that is the cause of the emotions this debate fuels)
Southampton are an example of one club that tried the parent company ruse to avoid a football points deduction penalty back in 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8014811.stm
The FA’s reasons given were that even though there was a holding company arrangement all the holding companies income came from football so it was one entity taking the football hit.
On the relationship between RFC and MIH, the latter had alternative sources of income, but did they have a contractual (documented) relationship with RFC that made MIH FULLY responsible for the football team called Rangers or were Rangers fully responsible?
Production of such a document would end the debate.
With regard to RFC being a wholly owned subsidiary of MIH, is that really the case? It was pointed out to me that CW did not buy Rangers he bought David Murray’s shares in them. There were other shareholders which suggests RFC were not wholly owned by MIH, so they could not be the holding company.
(This is out my territory so I’m looking for answers/confirmation rather than stating a fact).
One last nibble at LNS as a result of a question posed on Twitter but not related to above.
On the Status of Newco
[8] Newco was not admitted to membership of the SPL. Instead it became the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League (“the SFL”). It also became an associate member of the SFA. These events were reflected in an agreement among the SFA, the SPL, the SFL, Oldco and Newco, which was concluded on 27 July 2012.
This is inaccurate on a couple of fronts.
1. Newco applied for the transfer of Oldco’s full SFA membership which was approved at discretion of SFA Board under Article 14. There is no evidence Newco applied for an associate SFA membership.
2. On joining the SFL as Associate Members, Newco automatically got “registered” membership of the SFA on 13 July 2012. They had 14 days to apply for “associate” membership of the SFA. That they were looking for transfer of full SFA membership suggests they never did apply as does the fact that a unique “conditional” membership had to be granted to cover the period 27th July to 3rd August as announced by SFA at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10252
Who briefed LNS on this one?
PS. I don’t really care how folk see this whole OC/NC debate, its just that I get asked to untangle the rules.
AClydeFan has had an answer on the Owners Q&A forum and unfortunately it is along the lines of “the board don’t get involved in issues that don’t concern them”.
Thanks for that. I’m not an ‘owner’ so can’t access that page… they haven’t and perhaps won’t reply to my email so I’d never have known the question I posed had been addressed.
Glad you have taken the battle back to the board again. They really cannot claim this issue doesn’t concern them. I deliberately phrased the question to encompass our own 10 year hell.
If Mike decides to pull the plug, there’ll be no ifs and buts.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/305701-mike-ashley-owned-usc-fashion-chain-to-axe-jobs-at-scots-warehouse/
Maybe these are the good olde days for Sevco.
The scandal of the institutional investment in Rangers . Never was any logic. Always seemed to be emotional investment using other people’s hard earned money .
““Clubs in the current climate should not be public companies. Institutions are not interested in investing in this sector. When we have done recent fundraisings, there was no institutional support. It is because the business model of any football club is so dependent on what happens on the pitch and that is something the management can’t have a direct impact on, so it’s not a model the institutions support.”
The Spurs Chairman Daniel Levy stated this recently. If a very large EPL club can’t get institutional support, why were RIFC which was the successor to a serial loss maker, able to get support
There are serious questions to be asked of the institutions involved. They have lost significant amounts of investors funds. The suspicion has to be that personal allegiances were leveraged and normal investment logic was suspended in favour of emotional ties.
I asked the investment bank I use for an opinion on the opportunity at the time of the IPO. The response was that it was extremely high risk and they could not recommend it .
I suspect that response would have been identical to that of every other neutral investment professional . The institutions won’t allow individual fund managers to behave in this way in future.
RIFC should be thinking of delisting from AIM . The cost of remaining as a Plc far outweighs the opportunity of raising institutional funds
@aclydefan – you have a pm.
jimlarkin says:
January 7, 2015 at 6:06 pm
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11782/9635768?
The BS and Myths continue
…relegated, blah blah blah !!!!!!
///////////////////////////////////////
We have a winner:
“Rangers recorded a £14m loss for the first 13 months following liquidation.”
Wow, just Wow.
Todays Private EYE clearly flagging the questionable ownership of £10m of Newco assets by Newco.
Probably what the auditors know.
Some dots joined most of which have featured on here by various contributors.
ianagain says: January 7, 2015 at 7:30 pm
Todays Private EYE clearly flagging the questionable ownership of £10m of Newco assets by Newco.
==================================
What assets are being questioned? Is it the Worthington claim?
easyJambo says:
January 7, 2015 at 7:40 pm
1
0
Rate This
ianagain says: January 7, 2015 at 7:30 pm
Todays Private EYE clearly flagging the questionable ownership of £10m of Newco assets by Newco.
==================================
What assets are being questioned? Is it the Worthington claim?
————————————————————–
Worthington via
Liberty
Regenisis
CPS energy
Merchant House
Gold Manson
Korrissa Capital
LCM
Law financial
The Earleys
Joe Dwek
James Holmes
Everyone’s heard these names before but the do put it together.
Not on the website yet but its in the in the city bit “Whyte Noise”
ianagain says: January 7, 2015 at 7:55 pm
—————-
Thanks.
jimlarkin says:
January 7, 2015 at 6:06 pm
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11782/9635768?
Somehow, under the heading: ‘How much trouble are they in?’ the writer fails to mention that it was only under threat of a winding up order that they paid outstanding NI. Surely the biggest indicator of how much trouble they are in yet!
Was it a case of this reporter being unaware of this very severe dose of trouble, or is he under orders similar to those Basil Fawlty gave to Manuel, ‘don’t mention the tax’!
Yes, quite excited by the prospect. Brave move, but good to see a young guy get a chance. Judging by our own forums, I’m one of the few fans who actually knew who he was. 🙂 Nevertheless, the reaction is generally positive.
Y4army
… “Yes, quite excited by the prospect. Brave move, but good to see a young guy get a chance. Judging by our own forums, I’m one of the few fans who actually knew who he was. 🙂 Nevertheless, the reaction is generally positive.”
………………….
Yes, incredible, since he very recently left his cabinet Job !!!!!!
GoosyGoosy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:30 pm
IMO
The name of the game is simple
Keep lending in dribs and drabs with ever more onerous conditions. Eventually the lender is such a big Creditor he can orchestrate a Prepack Liquidation of RIFC that gets him all the assets in a Newco with 100% ownership.
——————————————————————————-
Goosy, what can he keep lending against? We have yet to see the crown jewels of Ibrox or Murray Park offered as security and we all have our reasons for doubting they ever will. So is Big Mike about to open his own Ticketus style usury? I can see nothing left that is unencumbered, bar future revenue ?
The act of taking the top off a canister of
shaving foam/gel/deodorant/air freshener, pointing it
in the correct direction and pressing the nozzle is a
complex operation, apparently.
The SFA announced that when the referees get together
in Spain later this month for their annual training camp
one of the items on the agenda is the testing of the foam
spraying device (ie can) and training in its use. Eh????
WTF….
Some of you who watched the Spanish football on Saturday may
have missed the ridiculous situation when one team was awarded
a free kick 10yds outside the area. The opposing side lined
up on the edge of the box. Even though there was a ready made
line the ref still sprayed the foam on top of the existing one.
Of course, you couldnt see it.
Again, WTF….
Je suis Charlie. 😥
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-crisis-10000-fans-sign-4937108
Sons of Struth taking on Ashley. It will be interesting to see how Ashley responds- he never had this sort of trouble with the geordies, much though they hate him.
@ shawfieldtoteboard
replied to your pm
y4rmy says:
January 7, 2015 at 8:02 pm
10
0
Rate This
Alex Neil has jetted (© SMSM) into Norwich International Airport for talks about filling the managerial vacancy at NCFC, and to have a look around the facilities. He will be impressed with what he sees.
It seems that the success of Hamilton Accies has not been universally ignored. Following McGrandles’ signing from Falkirk, it looks like another promising young talent may be heading to NR1 and a familiar face will be waiting at the club, with ex Falkirk manager Gary Holt part of the coaching/management set-up.
Yes, quite excited by the prospect. Brave move, but good to see a young guy get a chance. Judging by our own forums, I’m one of the few fans who actually knew who he was. 🙂 Nevertheless, the reaction is generally positive.
=========================================================
I spent a fair bit of time at work today giving some background info on him and Accies to the various season ticket holders. General response was fairly positive. Accies’ profile was raised by their win at Celtic Park earlier in the season, so at least they had heard of Hamilton.
Phil is suggesting that Ashley’s people have had no luck in seeking banking funding due to the ongoing problem of the deeds.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/teed-off/
Auldheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 7:13 pm
With regard to RFC being a wholly owned subsidiary of MIH, is that really the case? It was pointed out to me that CW did not buy Rangers he bought David Murray’s shares in them. There were other shareholders which suggests RFC were not wholly owned by MIH, so they could not be the holding company.
(This is out my territory so I’m looking for answers/confirmation rather than stating a fact).
==================================================================
Murray International Holdings Ltd was defo the ultimate holding company for The Rangers Football Club Plc.
I think where the confusion comes in is that David Murray held the majority controlling shareholding in MIH which made him the ultimate controlling party of it and its subsidiaries.
It was his approx 85% shareholding in The Rangers FC Plc that Whyte bought using Wavetower Ltd. That in turn made Whyte the ultimate controlling party in TRFC Plc and all of its subsidiary companies because TRFC Plc as well as being a subsidiary of MIH also had its own subsidiaries.
The same model is currently used by TRFCL which is the holding company for various subsidiaries and in turn RIFC Plc is TRFCL’s holding company.
A holding company doesn’t need to own 100% of the shares of a subsidiary company but must have enough to control the subsidiary.
I’ll have a look at the other points you raise tomorrow although they are on a wider context to what I’m trying to work out in my head which is more narrowly focussed on what a ‘club’ is under the rules which govern Scottish Football.
Neepheid Re SOS boycott
I assume these guys understand the law of potential unintended consequences…..Ashley indeed liquidates followed by footballing oblivion
How ironic would that be!
jimlarkin says:
January 7, 2015 at 6:06 pm
10
0
Rate This
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11782/9635768?
The BS and Myths continue
…relegated, blah blah blah !!!!!!
=============================================================
I started to skim through it and then saw Neil Patey quoted, so decided not to bother going any further.
BBC Scotland get pelters (quite rightly, and I’ve done my fair share of license payer’s whinging) but to me Sky are even worse in their unstinting dedication to the perpetuation of the liquidation survival myth.
Tailothebank says:
January 7, 2015 at 9:38 pm
1 0 Rate This
Neepheid Re SOS boycott
I assume these guys understand the law of potential unintended consequences…..Ashley indeed liquidates followed by footballing oblivion
How ironic would that be!
=================
They clearly believe that they can bully Ashley into walking away, leaving the way clear for their beloved Ranjurs men.
I think Ashley is quite capable of pulling the plug out of sheer annoyance, and maybe also as an example to any others who want to take him on.
I just can’t see him handing Dave King the keys to the Blue Room. That would look like a defeat, and by all accounts, Ashley does not like losing.
neepheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 8:54 pm
9
0
Rate This
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-crisis-10000-fans-sign-4937108
Sons of Struth taking on Ashley. It will be interesting to see how Ashley responds- he never had this sort of trouble with the geordies, much though they hate him.
=====================================================
He must be quaking in his boots at the prospect of another red card demo from the handful of bears that brave the picket lines at their next home game. 🙄
Didn’t we have something similar pre-IPO where japesters such as M Mouse pledged £Ms to line CG’s
pockets, but then strangely didn’t pony up when the IPO went live? I wonder how many of that 10K are called B Bear, C Green or A H*n and have been added by mischief makers?
neepheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 9:52 pm
The only thing we can be certain of, is that the Nightmare on Edmiston Drive will run for sometime yet, who knows, the show may even last longer than The Mousetrap, (though that is now in its 63rd year and still going, with Derek Guyler having “appeared” in every performance, much like Craig Whyte
)
I love the little poll in the middle of that DR Sons of Struth article.
===
Do you agree with the ‘not a penny more’ campaign?
Yes – Money is the only thing that the Ibrox board understand
No – It is doing more harm to Rangers than good
====
I assume that is aimed exclusively at one section of the demographic and excludes the rest of us. Otherwise the options are the wrong way round.
ecobhoy says: January 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm
Auldheid says: January 7, 2015 at 7:13 pm
====================
Oldco Rangers shareholdings from the 2010 and 2011 accounts
Murray Group / Craig Whyte 92,842,388 85.34%
Metlika (Dave King) 5,797,026 5.33%
A Johnston 154,926
J McClelland 76,000
J Greig 5,000
M Bain 2,000
John Clark says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:54 pm
33 28 Rate This
iceman63 says:
January 6, 2015 at 9:54 pm
‘..Doncaster’s reply has the supposed cleverness, arrogance and vacuousness of a Medieval theologian. Its starting point is that the club exists,.’
——–
We could have lots of OT fun with this,iceman63!
Medieval theologians were no more ( or, perhaps, less) clever,arrogant and vacuous than ,say, Stephen Hawking and others of that scientific bent. Their starting point is a ‘big bang’. Very good. But what was there to be big banged? Nothingness? Or Somethingness? Their starting point is, if you like, just as vacuous, arrogant and ‘clever’ as any theologians.And perhaps even more blinkered because they just refuse to discuss the question of what was there to make the big bang!
========================================
Forgive both my pedantry and continuation of this OT bit, but Hawking’s refusal to discuss what was there before the Big Bang is not out of a blinkered belief, but that it’s simply irrelevant.
His take is any talk of “before the big bang” is meaningless as all known laws of Newtonian physics break down at the singularity, i.e. any action which occurred “before” had no reaction “after”. That is, Time itself started ticking at the Big Bang.
He believes talk of “before” is best left to theologians rather than scientists as there is simply no possible way to prove or disprove any hypothesis on anything to do with “before”.
In fairness to Hawking, his conviction around the Big Bang theory is based upon years of proving the various hypotheses his original predictions made. However, as he himself has stated, it doesn’t matter how many times new evidence support the theory, a single piece of evidence is all that’s required to disprove it. If that’s ever found, I’m sure he’d accept it and refine the theory accordingly.
Doncaster, on the other hand, simply ignores all available evidence, defies common sense and can’t even explain what his concept actually is…
easyJambo says:
January 7, 2015 at 10:18 pm
@ej – Ta
mcfc says:
January 7, 2015 at 7:19 pm
Rate This
If Mike decides to pull the plug, there’ll be no ifs and buts.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/305701-mike-ashley-owned-usc-fashion-chain-to-axe-jobs-at-scots-warehouse/
Maybe these are the good olde days for Sevco.
===========================================
There are in football terms.
TRFC Ltd are currently (not) enjoying their highest ever league position and they are (not) looking forward to their first League Cup semi-final. Their fans will also be able to boycott a Scottish Cup quarter final from the comfort of their own homes thanks to the patronage of BBC Scotland. If that game is won, they will equal their best run in that competition.
At least if they are liquidated, they will go out on a high, stats-wise.
ecobhoy says: January 7, 2015 at 10:23 pm
There was a bit of juggling of shares between MIH companies and Metlika on 2/3 Feb 2011, i.e. before the sale to Whyte, but the end result was as in the numbers above.
http://www.investegate.co.uk/Index.aspx?searchtype=3&words=rfc&pno=3
As part of those transactions, around 5M shares seem to have “disappeared”, probably retained somewhere in the MIH Group or as personal shareholdings of the Murray family.
“And perhaps even more blinkered because they just refuse to discuss the question of what was there to make the big bang!”
All religions give the same answer: Man In Cloud.
All religions, stating the same evidence, claim their Man In Cloud is real and your Man In Cloud is not.
I find this unsatisfactory.
Hawking’s answer, “I don’t know, and we may never know”; Is simpler and more honest than any religions.
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm
Easy Jambo has shown the split and although the numbers are quite different at Celtic, does Dermott Desmond “own” Celtic as majority shareholder?
Regardless of what may be a moot point, is there a written contract to demonstrate that a contractual relationship existed between MIH and Rangers and that in it MIH was responsible for the team playing football at Ibrox?
The Articles of Association for Rangers(Oldco) suggest Rangers(Oldco) was responsible for the team playing at Ibrox.
I’m trying to establish if there is documented evidence to identify who was fully responsible for the team, Rangers or MIH, in order to pin down which part of Article 12 covers the football club, which is defined by UEFA as the entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions.
I think it is and always has been
a)i.e “is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter registered member.”
It seems to me cosmologists will pursue any line of thought except the possibility of a Creator. Having said that, the multiverse seems to be in play with some of the different Universes which the actors in this drama inhabit. I am always discomfited by aggresively threatening phrases ‘screw with Rangers at their peril’ might play well in some dark corners but is language which can only inflame already fevered imaginations. This is doubly pertinent with the possible semi final approaching, that needs no such sabre rattling things will be ramped up far enough. I hope that, in my universe, it never happens.
Belfast Newsletter tonight
0 comments
Be the first to comment
Rangers insist they have not made an approach to Valencia to speak to assistant coach Ian Cathro.
A club spokeswoman told Press Association Sport that there is no truth in rumours suggesting the Ibrox outfit had made an offer to the Spanish giants for the 28-year-old former Dundee United youth coach.
========
No smoke without fire?
Back to the Dickens
Curisor and Curisor
Daily list for Thursday, 8 January 2015
Updated Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14.01
Important information – Changes from 2nd January 2015 – Chancery Masters’ and Judges’ Orders:
Chancery Masters’ and Judges’ Orders: Effective 2nd January 2015
Practice Note: Chancery Chambers Changes 1st October 2014
Please click on the links below for further information)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/chancery-division
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/chancery-division/
PLEASE NOTE THE CAUSELIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. PLEASE CONTACT CHANCERY MASTERS’ APPOINTMENTS ON 0207 947 7391 IN AN EVENT OF ANY QUERY.
Proceedings Before the Masters – Chancery Division
HEARING ROOM 1
Before MASTER PRICE
At 2:15
Applications Without Notice
(The appointment must be requested before 4.30pm on the day prior to the application)
At 2:45
Barker v Baxendale-Walker and another
Auldheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 7:13 pm
On the Issue of UEFA Article 12 I’m not actually with you on that one.
UEFA states:
LNS dealt with domestic footballing issues and IMO it was correct they should be dealt with under SFA and SPL Rules. The reference in the SFA Rule Book at 3(1) wrt to UEFA IMO would only bind SFA Members when they were subject to the auspices of UEFA by playing in one of their competitions.
In any case UEFA Article 12 doesn’t really take us any further than the SPL ‘club’ definition which states:
Both ‘owner’ and ‘operator’ of a club are legal entities and just as only a legal entity can hold a UEFA Licence then only a legal entity can hold a £1 Membership Share in the SPL.
SPL Article 6 states:
There is also this old circular argument that if one of the parties wished the UEFA Definition to be used they would need to have argued for it to be included and persuaded the LNS tribunal that it should be.
But as I have tried to illustrate above I don’t believe the UEFA definition would have made a blind bit of difference to the issues under consideration. Of course I accept that it does with regard to the Euro Licencing issue but that’s another matter.
gunnerb says:
January 7, 2015 at 8:39 pm
GoosyGoosy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:30 pm
IMO
The name of the game is simple
Keep lending in dribs and drabs with ever more onerous conditions. Eventually the lender is such a big Creditor he can orchestrate a Prepack Liquidation of RIFC that gets him all the assets in a Newco with 100% ownership.
——————————————————————————-
Goosy, what can he keep lending against? We have yet to see the crown jewels of Ibrox or Murray Park offered as security and we all have our reasons for doubting they ever will. So is Big Mike about to open his own Ticketus style usury? I can see nothing left that is unencumbered, bar future revenue
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
gunnerb
Ashley and his pal Sarving needs to keep lending until one of them is the biggest Creditor .They then refuse to lend any more, liquidate RIFC or TRFC stiffing the other Creditors and shareholders.
After the Newco gets the assets it reinstates the onerous contracts this time all going to Ashley or his surrogate. They then strip cost out of TRFC and milk the club ruthlessly until they have got all their loans back and lots more on top
The security for the next loan may be a floating charge over the assets which is incremented for each future loan
Sure
The assets may turn out to belong to Law Financial (Whyte)but it could cost them several £ms in legal fees to take on Ashley. I doubt if they have the money or the stamina to go all the way
Remember
With RR having taken over from JJB Sports the sales income for SDI is all incremental Their profit could possibly be doubled with the onerous contracts
The elephant in the room is renovation of a 40yr old stadium which could be very costly after 5yrs of neglect
neepheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 8:54 pm
18 0 Rate This
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-crisis-10000-fans-sign-4937108
Sons of Struth taking on Ashley. It will be interesting to see how Ashley responds- he never had this sort of trouble with the geordies, much though they hate him.
////////////////////
I wonder how many of those who have signed the petition on FB actually went to the games anyway
I know very cynical of me 🙁
Or how many are willing to pay more for their kids footy boots etc when it comes down to it
The reason that the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission DID NOT make a determination on the issue of OC/NC.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html
As I posted at the time, LNS chose to adopt an adversarial system for the enquiry. As such, procedures were broadly comparable with the court in which the members would be accustomed. The SPL lawyer presented the case for the prosecution and Oldco and the “Club” Rangers FC were styled as the joint defendants.
As LNS himself wrote; “…it is improper for a judge to proceed upon personal knowledge of the facts in issue, or upon personal examination of passages in textbooks.”
Where the competing parties concur (often in the form of a Minute of Agreement) a judge is bound to accept the agreed “facts” EVEN IF HE KNOWS OR SUSPECTS SUCH FACTS TO BE INCORRECT FROM PERSONAL READING OR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ARTICLES AND RULES.
The SPL set the terms of reference of the LNS Enquiry such that the “Club” was presented as a transferable non-legal entity. As the “defendants” did not dispute it, this interpretation became an agreed fact of the case.
The LNS Commission had no cause to – indeed they would prohibit themselves from – making an assessment of the OC/NC question. From their perspective, there was no question to examine.
That it not to say that the commission members agreed or disagreed with the proposition, I – like Neil Doncaster – have no idea.
Auldheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 10:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm
I had posted before I noticed your latest post.
you say:
The documented evidence existed in the shape of the £1 SPL shared issued to The Rangers Football Club Plc. That can be checked with Companies House by going back to the shareholding records.
As I posted above I don’t think Article 12 is relevant to LNS.
But you have to differentiate between ‘fully responsible’ in a financial sense vis a vis a footballing one. But obviously various financial transaction can take place between related companies which might be hard to identify from published accounts or indeed might not require to be published.
But The Rangers Football Club Plc would qualify for a European Licence in the first instance because of its SPL and SFA memberships IMO. Obviously I am ignoring the issue of whether a Licence should have been refused because of the Wee Tax Case but as I have said previously that is a separate issue although linked to LNS.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html
Sorry, should have referenced the relevant section: Part 1, para 1-11
The real issue is the fact Rangers fans cannot unite. This whole issue could be solved in a month or two but if they truly want their club to be run by those who have the best interest of the club at heart, it means starting once more.
If every Rangers fan did not go to a game or buy any merchandise for 1 to 2 months, imho, Ashley, his many friends, green, mystery investors and all other associated with the club would have 3 options :-
1. Invite the fans to be involved in all aspects of running the club including a review of all contracts
2. admin or liquidation..if fans unhappy, still boycott
3. sell…again, if they sell to someone who does not satisfy the fans, continue to boycott.
If fans do not write off this season as well as being prepared to start again, they will never get the club on an even keel. Nothing will guarantee them success on previous scales, but it will guarantee an honest club living within its means and getting thee success that deserves. Sugar daddies are not the answer, realization is.
None of this will happen because of the fractured support.
ecobhoy says:
January 8, 2015 at 12:07 am
Hirsute Pursuit
Ta. No point muddying the waters with Art 12 although my reading of it is Rangers FC PLC were the club applying for the UEFA licence not MIH on their behalf in some parent/owning company role.
I accept LNS might not have been able to use it but does that mean we have to accept LNS as the sole authority on the matter as Doncaster claims? (nothing to do with wtc btw)
Im coming from the angle that LNS generally is an affront to footballing integrity principles on which some rules are based.
What is to stop a club in the future chancing their arm on some other tax avoidance/evasion scheme knowing that they take no risk not providing details of all payments and contracts to the SFA and can simply claim administrative error if found out?
The ensuing fine might be dwarfed by what the risk generates in income.
I think its bad for Scottish football to quote LNS as an authority on football matters as Doncaster has done especially when we know his Decision re sporting advantage is flawed because of his conflation of proven irregular ebts and ebts still under appeal.
Just an old mad captain of very little brain, and despite thinking, and thinking, and thinking, ( with finger pressed hard on forehead to facilitate deeper understanding ) I still can’t understand how Mr Llambias could have persuaded the SPFL that despite not having enough money to see out the season, that they could see out the season.
Think…
Think…
Think…
Judicial knowledge
[1.11] On at least two occasions Mr McEachran made reference to judicial knowledge. The first was to suggest, at a By Order hearing before the proof, that it lay within judicial knowledge that cigarette smoking could cause lung cancer. The second was a suggestion, during the discussion of an objection at the proof, that the purpose and effect of advertising lay within judicial knowledge. Judicial knowledge must be distinguished from the personal knowledge of an individual judge. It is generally taken as relating to matters which can be immediately ascertained from sources of indisputable accuracy, or which are so notorious as to be indisputable, so that the judge is bound to take notice of them. If a matter does fall within judicial knowledge, a judge may refresh his memory or supplement his knowledge regarding it by consulting recognised works of reference, such as dictionaries or textbooks. Apart from the matters which are recognised as being within judicial knowledge, it is improper for a judge to proceed upon personal knowledge of the facts in issue, or upon personal examination of passages in textbooks. For a discussion of this, and reference to authorities vouching the foregoing proposition, see Walkers on Evidence (2nd edn., 2
HirsutePursuit says:
January 8, 2015 at 12:14 am
2 0 Rate This
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html
Sorry, should have referenced the relevant section: Part 1, para 1-11
……………………..
HP
Can you explain what you are getting at ???