A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

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.

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,813 thoughts on “A Sanity Clause for Xmas?


  1. Good Afternoon

    Now more than ever the SFA and SPFL MUST ask the relevant questions and if not satisfied with the answers pull the plug.

    Enough is enough Investors and fans who have parted with hard earned cash have been misled. The whole of Scottish football is a laughing stock because of the goings on at Ibrox and the ineptitude of the Governors to deal with it effectively.

    The desperation to keep a team in blue playing out of Ibrox can no longer be justified.

    Clearly there are debts which cannot be paid, NI,PAYE and VAT are soon to be due not to mention wages.

    No other business would have been kept alive. If this was a wounded animal the Vet would have given it an injection to put it out of it’s misery.

    Time to be cruel to be kind if anyone in authority is to have any vestige of moral rectitude left.

    End this now.


  2. Danish Pastry says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:45 pm
    0 0 Rate This

    Phil,
    Tantalizing wee piece. Another Stockbridge type deal? The one that took everyone by surprise?

    Seem to remember Charles saying that he would buy any shares not taken in the initial release.

    Not sure what he meant with ‘buy’. Can he be sitting in there somewhere in the ‘unaccounted for’ with a wad? That 18.65% andyg.66 posted above is quite a significant block.

    ===============
    It might be worth considering that “buying” and “paying for” are not the same thing at all. Remember that Charles Green didn’t actually pay for his original shares (£50k from memory) until he walked away, when it was deducted from his final pay off (allegedly). Although whether that pay off was in fact “final” is now looking extremely doubtful


  3. easyJambo says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:45 pm
    andygraham.66 says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:33 pm
    ——————–
    Artemis sold their entire holding to King on 2nd Jan.
    Blue Pitch should be 4,426,485 after upping their stake in the Sep share offer.
    Beaufort Securities hold over 5M for their clients which forms part of the Sandy Easdale proxy.
    ———————————————–
    OK set the stop-watch to see how long it takes STV to update their list 😆


  4. Must be very, very close to insolvent trading.

    Ashley’s businesses may be operated in a ruthless manner that sums up much of the worst of modern capitalism (zero hours contracts) but they they are legal, legitimatley run affairs.

    Lambias is a thoroughly modern business executive, not a spiv. Doubt he would want anything to do with insolvent trading.

    Surely Sarver will be frightened off by this unholy mess??????


  5. Tincks says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Must be very, very close to insolvent trading.
    ———————————————-
    The £6.5 million isn’t really the problem IMO.

    It’s the millions of alleged debt that have come knocking on the door – where has that come from? How was it shown or disguised in the audited De Loitte accounts? Or do the auditors know nothing about it?

    If true we are way beyond merely insolvent trading – much more serious issues will come into play.

    Indeed possibly HMS Dignity has already foundered again and all we are now seeing is escaping bubbles breaking the surface. Even they will end quite soon.


  6. Regarding Sarver’s denial of meeting Ashley, he (or, rather, his PR man, which appears to be Alex Barr at Big Partnership, who also handles Celtic’s account) then goes on to name four other unconnected characters, namely the Easdales, Green and Whyte. Throwing down a false scent, perhaps?
    Sarver did not deny having dealings with any other senior executives of Sports Direct.
    Such as Ashley’s right-hand man Dave Forsey or financial director Bob Mellors, both of whom are directors of Antigua Enterprises Inc and could have been expected to have visited its HQ in a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona.
    Funny that.


  7. And for nothing more than mischief’s sake,

    Presumably the 6.5m red letter came just AFTER ND’s cosy little chat with oor Derek.


  8. Worth remembering that the unaccounted shares – 14,369,887 (18.65%) – in the STV List will include all the individual Rangers fans which could amount to 10-12% of the unaccounted 18.65%.


  9. ecobhoy says:
    January 9, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    It is entirely possible that the alleged debt, would quite legitimately not appear on Deloittes radar for annual accounts purposes, they may not even have been aware of it.

    I’ll leave it to members, in good standing, of the Institute of Consigliere to guide you down that particular rabbit hole.

    This area, does illustrate, once again, just how badly we need to rip up, the entire regulatory framework and start again. However, it ain’t going to happen, sadly.


  10. Smugas says:
    January 9, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    And for nothing more than mischief’s sake,

    Presumably the 6.5m red letter came just AFTER ND’s cosy little chat with oor Derek.
    ———————————————-
    Tbf – my reading of Phil’s piece makes me think that Llambias and Leach were unaware of the existance of the billet doux which has turned into a poison pill it seems 😆

    And as we get closer to Valentines Day I am reminded of the days I used to get more than one card 🙁

    HOLLAND back then meant: ‘Here Our Loves Lies And Never Dies’. Seems to me it should now read: ‘Here Our Liability Lies And Never Dies’.

    PS: Very apt for a club that never dies 🙂

    SWALK


  11. ecobhoy says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    —————————————————————–

    Don’t always see eye to eye with you Eco, but you are absolutely spot on with your piece on Evans.


  12. PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    The best way to be “incognito” is to be “hidden in plain sight” ?


  13. ecobhoy says:
    January 9, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    And as we get closer to Valentines Day I am reminded of the days I used to get more than one card 🙁

    HOLLAND back then meant: ‘Here Our Loves Lies And Never Dies’. Seems to me it should now read: ‘Here Our Liability Lies And Never Dies’.

    PS: Very apt for a club that never dies 🙂

    SWALK

    ————————————————–

    Now you’ve done it Eco!

    We are going to get some terrible acronyms this afternoon while waiting for events to be (s)played out in Govan.

    As for the good ship ‘Dignity’, I think that SNAFU or FUBAR (especially!) would be much more appropriate. 😀


  14. Hi Phil
    Like the pretendy gers let’s pretend it’s Monday and do tell.


  15. BURMA – Bend Ur Rules Mike’s Asked
    NORWICH – New/Old Rangers When Is Charlie Home?


  16. FRAUD Forlorn Rangers Are Universally Disliked

    Is the naughty step warm? :mrgreen:


  17. SARVER = Stupidly Advised Regarding Value (of) Expiring Rangers


  18. Haywire says:
    January 9, 2015 at 1:33 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    —————————————————————–
    Don’t always see eye to eye with you Eco, but you are absolutely spot on with your piece on Evans.
    ===================================================
    @Haywire – If we all sat here nice and comfortable agreeing with each other then TSFM wouldn’t be the important site it has become.

    It’s good to have opinions tested and to test those held by others in the benefit of forming a better understanding of why people hold the positions they do.

    The key for me is that people are at least open to considering other points of view and don’t simply dismiss out-of-hand those which are contrary to their own.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express it within the blog mod policy no matter how mad others believe it to be. Worth remembering that often those dismissed as mad or stupid have very useful and valid insights that those of higher self-proclaimed intelligence never ever achieve.


  19. toadinthehole says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    The Sarver deal appears to have come out of the blue. Does anyone know whether he’s done any due diligence.
    =======================================================================

    I don’t believe for a minute this guy will stand and throw $100 bills down a hole in Edmiston Dr. any more than my son would part with 99p burger vouchers from McDonald’s.


  20. Hoopy 7 says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:56 pm.

    “Enough is enough Investors and fans who have parted with hard earned cash have been misled. The whole of Scottish football is a laughing stock because of the goings on at Ibrox and the ineptitude of the Governors to deal with it effectively.”
    =========================================================================

    Hoopy 7, Never a truer word said.


  21. Nell Doncaster says:
    January 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    toadinthehole says:
    January 9, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    The Sarver deal appears to have come out of the blue. Does anyone know whether he’s done any due diligence.
    =======================================================================

    I don’t believe for a minute this guy will stand and throw $100 bills down a hole in Edmiston Dr. any more than my son would part with 99p burger vouchers from McDonald’s.
    ===================================================

    The Daily Mail piece states that the original connection from Sarver was with Crighton and that it was the ex-Rangers guy coaching his sons that got him interested enough to make a connection.

    Who knows but if it was Crighton that could be important. But a cynic might believe that using Crighton – without him being aware he was being used – would help to hide the actual connection.

    What a twisted tale.


  22. CAN you address the cost of fund-raising for the IPO? It was five times what it should have been and offered rates of return that would make Wonga blush.

    Brian Stockbridge: “The costs of the fund raising were around £6.5million. It was a very risky investment. The pre-IPO fees were signed before I joined the club but were necessary to secure its future. There was a possibility the club could collapse.

    “We sit here with the club effectively free of any bank debt, well positioned to move forward and it’s a testament to the decision made to pay those fees.”

    We are entitled to details of where the costs went.

    Stockbridge: “I can’t give full details. (Cries of ‘why not?’). But commission for raising funds was £2m, legal fees were £1.6m, account valuation fees were £1.5m, printing the prospectus cost £328,000, PR fees were £100,000 and financial advisory fees were £2.5m.” (Howls of outrage and cries of “shame”).

    Can you give us a legally binding guarantee that Ibrox Stadium will never be sold and leased back?

    David Somers: “We have no intention for a sale or leaseback of Ibrox. (Shouts of “not good enough” and “legally binding”). I can’t guarantee for future boards but I guarantee this board will not do a sale and leaseback of Ibrox. That’s our pledge.”

    Does Mr Stockbridge still have a contractual entitlement to share options worth £500,000, as was noted in the prospectus?

    Stockbridge: “Yes, I have a contractual entitlement that was set out in the prospectus. I’ve not taken them so far, they’re at 70p.”

    Imran Ahmad gave Rangers a £200,000 loan and was paid back £178,000, was given a £50,000 fee and £22,000 was converted to 2.2m penny shares he later sold for more than £1m. Was that deal a good idea?

    Stockbridge: “He had that as part of the deal he constructed with Charles Green before any of us came on board. The penny shares were effectively for putting the deal . . . what he took from the club. (Yells of indignation). Sorry, not “took from the club”. Let me rephrase that.” (Shouts of “Don’t bother. We know what you mean”.)

    For once and for all, who are Blue Pitch and Margarita Holdings?

    Somers: “Good question.”

    Norman Crighton: “Blue Pitch and Margarita made a significant investment, starting in June 2012. Due diligence was done by an FCA registered body and the answers received were satisfactory to our NOMADs.

    “In the last week their representatives met with several people and gave their proxies to Sandy (Easdale). We’re satisfied they have the same status as any other institutional investor.” (Boos and cries of “Tell us then Sandy”.)

    Somers: “They want to remain private (yells of “out, out, out” and “resign”). It’s a pity because I know there’s a suspicion Charles Green or someone is behind them. They are apparently extremely, extremely wealthy and trust Sandy with their proxies and that’s what we know.”

    There are people in politics and the media who want us destroyed. We have enemies left, right and centre and you are in league with our enemies.

    Somers: “Since we’ve formed the new board there hasn’t been a single leak. (Cries of “Rubbish” and “What about the vote and the BBC?”) The BBC somehow guessed (howls of disgust). At the time the BBC made their announcement we didn’t have the numbers. Some bright reporter probably called shareholders and did the numbers. I’ve told the directors: “Any leaks going forward and I’ll be looking for resignations.”

    In order to ensure trust, transparency and integrity are restored to fans, can each director give us a categorical personal assurance Mr Green and Craig Whyte have got nothing to do with this company, the club or any of the assets we hold?

    Graham Wallace: “I categorically state there is no influence from Messrs Whyte and Green. There is no hidden power pulling the strings of anyone on the board.”

    Somers: “I have never met them, don’t know them and they are not involved.”

    James Easdale: “I’ve never met Craig Whyte and never had any business dealings with him. I know Charles as well as anyone here does and they have no influence on the club whatsoever.”

    Crighton: “I’ve never met Charles Green or Craig Whyte and they have no involvement in the running of the club.”

    Stockbridge: “Charles Green and Craig Whyte have no influence in running this club.”

    Sandy Easdale: “Charles has left the club and is no longer a part of it. I’ve never met, spoken with or done any business deals with Craig Whyte.”

    We had £11.2m cash in the bank in June. How much is it now?

    Wallace: “We have sufficient cash to fund the ongoing needs of the club in the near term. There has been speculation we’re potentially on the brink of another administration but that is categorically not the case.” Taken from kerrydale street any help ?


  23. Re: declaring sevco insolvent . .
    I reckon the same (DIS-) orderly queue is forming as when Rangers were liquidated . . .
    You know the one where when some poor unfortunate finds himself at the front and immediately rushes to the rear again . . Where he peers longingly over his shoulder for the arrival of the little chap in bowler + pinstripes with the winding-up order in his briefcase . .
    Its the modern definition of perpetual motion . .
    Till Hector arrives.


  24. The analysis and comment on here is excellent. With no business knowledge, I have tried manfully to keep up, but find myself floundering again.

    Can someone explain in simple fashion, how at least two examinations of the accounts and business of new Rangers, one lasting 120 days, could miss a debt of the magnitude being discussed? And, what sort of debt might it be; just an example to help me put it all in context.

    Be grateful for any help here.


  25. Am I over simplifying this? RIFC need £6.5mil PDQ – let’s say by payday. There are two parties offering exactly £6.5mil – quelle coïncidence!

    • G&3B want to provide £6.5mil minus costs via a share issue which will take a min of 6-8 weeks – UH-OH !!

    • Sarver wants to provide £6.5mil cash as soon as his offer is accepted and he’s checked under the hood. But checking under the hood would not have revealed this £6.5mil requirement and maybe others – so what reassurance is that – UH-OH !!

    It appears that the Ibrox books are immured to auditing, due diligence and under-hood checking – with side letters and snide letters ruling the day -– UH-OH !!


  26. Hamerdoon says:
    January 9, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    The analysis and comment on here is excellent. With no business knowledge, I have tried manfully to keep up, but find myself floundering again.

    Can someone explain in simple fashion, how at least two examinations of the accounts and business of new Rangers, one lasting 120 days, could miss a debt of the magnitude being discussed? And, what sort of debt might it be; just an example to help me put it all in context.

    Be grateful for any help here.
    ————————————————

    Crikey that’s a good question. Thinking back, Stockbridge had an entitlement to some dosh that was contained in a side letter, for want of a better description. This lay hidden in a draw for some time.

    Pure speculation – perhaps :mrgreen: owns something and there is a letter stating that Rangers have agreed to buy it at a price already fixed with the date to be determined by :mrgreen: as and when it suits.

    As I said pure speculation, but if Phil is right then there is some sort of hand grenade that has been left behind in a Blue Room filing cabinet.


  27. Torquemada says:
    January 9, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    Pure speculation alert, but its more likely to be paid, at least partially via an off balance sheet vehicle, to fit the scenario postulated earlier. Operating Leases are an interesting , and often expensive, rabbit hole, but its more the Consigliere’s area of expertise :mrgreen: (I’d be hard pressed to see how you could keep something like an Operating Lease under the radar, from the Management, but that goes for all these vehicles)

    A fun Friday :mrgreen:


  28. Torquemada comments above
    ——————————————————————–

    So if the £6.5m debt is the IPO cost, why was it not in accounts etc. (or was it?) – see my request above.

    If so, I cannot think that it was just missed. Have there been porkies told?

    Once again the eclipse alignment appears to be beautifully and naturally engineered, like Franklin’s DNA double helix – a set of circumstances not often found in the social sciences (see future studies of this story).

    Consequently, I’m on cynical alert as I await the next twist.


  29. sickofitall says:
    January 9, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    David Somers: “We have no intention for a sale or leaseback of Ibrox. (Shouts of “not good enough” and “legally binding”). I can’t guarantee for future boards but I guarantee this board will not do a sale and leaseback of Ibrox. That’s our pledge.”

    Worth noting that there is now a ‘future’ Board in place which means that the guarantee is defunct. And nowhere is there any discussion concerning the current elephant in the room – the prospect of Ibrox being used as security.

    Also interesting – as always – to look at the wording in detail viz:

    ‘We have no intention for a sale or leaseback of Ibrox’

    ‘I guarantee this board will not do a sale and leaseback of Ibrox. That’s our pledge.’

    Of course the two statements don’t mean the same thing. The first says we really don’t want to sell or leaseback Ibrox but there is no pledge or guarantee actually given that it won’t be sold or leased back.

    And in the second statement the guarantee and pledge only applies to Ibrox not being subject to ‘a sale and leaseback’. There was no pledge or gurantee that former Board wouldn’t have sold Ibrox or used it as security.

    In any case the pledge and guarantee are that of a long gone Board – I wonder what the current Board is prepared to do?

    I don’t really – I know they will do whatever it takes and that means selling Ibrox; using it as security; or selling it and leasing it back.

    It’s really that simple unless someone already has the keys to the Iron Gates – now who would have thought that could happen 🙂


  30. It must be a coincidence that the IPO set up costs were also £6.5m. The cost for this has already been incurred by the fact that it was already deducted before the IPO money was paid.


  31. Thanks Tinks

    My last post was before I read yours! So it is possible that stockbridge left a debt with a built in fuse, the length of which he determined? But, why wasn’t it known about, it just couldn’t have been ignored surely in the accounts or 120 day review? Realistically funds would be needed to cover this when it was called.

    Due to my lack of accountancy knowledge, I am stumped as to how it can just disappear then come back as if it never existed.


  32. The most famous example of off balance sheet financing, I can think of, is the Private Finance Initiative – just ask your local authority how expensive that wheeze is to service….


  33. Just a thought and might mean nothing.

    But one of the major income sources at Ibrox which I haven’t kept an eye on in recent times is the catering side of things. Has anyone been counting the pies and whether there are any sticky-fingers about?


  34. If this debt has been deliberately withheld from the Auditors someone should face criminal action.

    In my opinion the clumpany was trading whilst insolvent without this debt

    In the light of this debt I would suggest that the directors would now be KNOWINGLY trading whilst insolvent if they allowed another days trading.

    Someone has to put the lights out NOW in my opinion.


  35. Eco, depends, how long a walk from the Gardener’s Shed to the canteen? 😉


  36. Thanks Goosygoosy

    But if Spiv 1 (for it is he: DM can be uberspiv) calls this in, what’s to stop the current leasee simply handing it over, cue liquidation and Spiv 1 isn’t a creditor?

    I’m way out my depth here I know, excuse the simpleton approach.


  37. Onerous Voters

    When it comes to funding offers, EGMs etc we know who most of the shareholders are and can guess how they might vote. But what we don’t know in full is which shareholders have interests in Onerous Contracts, which is obvious a major determinant of how they will vote in any given situation

    Onerous Contracts:
    • Retail – Ashley
    • Advertising – Ashley
    • Football Management & Gardening – McCoist
    • Badges & IP
    • Stadium NAming Rights
    • Shirt Sponsorship
    • Security – ???
    • Catering & Corp Events – ???
    • Transport & Parking – ???
    • Facilities / Maintenance – ???
    • WiFI, IT – ???
    • Ticketing

    Can anyone fill in any gaps – in terms of shareholders- rather than just company names?


  38. Torquemada says:
    January 9, 2015 at 2:57 pm
    ‘..Not being able to edit a post after another post has been made is my only criticism of this otherwise excellent site. :cry:’
    ——–
    I know what you mean. But the facility to edit earlier posts in the light of later ones would maybe turn us all into Chick Youngs!And one of him is enough. 😀


  39. Goody post has disappeared? My post above was in response to his suggestions.


  40. Hoopy 7 says:
    January 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    “If this debt has been deliberately withheld from the Auditors someone should face criminal action”

    Not necessarily.

    We are not in Kansas in anymore Toto!


  41. scapaflow says:
    January 9, 2015 at 3:39 pm
    The stadium
    Murray park
    missing from the list?
    ================================================
    Scapa – I was counting them under • Facilities / Maintenance – ???
    But they might well be more onerously profitiable if managed separately.


  42. Hamerdoon says:
    January 9, 2015 at 3:38 pm
    0 0 Rate This

    Goody post has disappeared? My post above was in response to his suggestions.
    ============
    Could Goosy be getting too close to the truth for some very powerful people with very good lawyers? The mods on here have to be very careful, so better safe than sorry, would be my take on it.


  43. mcfc says:
    January 9, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    The only possible response to that is “Show us Ra Deeds!” :mrgreen:


  44. On catering something I’ve undernoted something I did earlier this year and I am mindful about the earlier reference to Abela although I have not seen any suggestion he was involved in the Ibrox catering. I also have a note that BarcaBhoy stated that the Azure contract at Ibrox was for 9 years and at Murray Park for 5 years although I don’t know when they started.
    ===================================================================
    ecobhoy says:
    May 19, 2014 at 5:35 pm

    I have been thinking a lot about these contracts and reminiscing over Mick’s Piegate has just made my brain engage.

    Obviously when D&P were running the club during the admin period they continued with in-house catering. I now wonder whether these contracts were amongst those ‘sold’ to Sevco Scotland and who was actually operating therm during admin.

    I came across this: http://www.moduline.it/foto/news_36_it_.pdf from April 2012 which states:

    In the same week that Livingstone equipment dealer ScoMac put the finishing touches to a £1.7m match day kitchen project at the club’s Ibrox stadium, the Scottish Premier League football giant was forced to call in the administrators as its financial woes came to light.

    ScoMac was brought in to revitalise the stadium catering infrastructure long before Rangers’ finances came under public scrutiny. At the time, the club and its main catering contractor, Azure Catering, decided that the fast food kiosks which had been serving fans for the best part of 20 years were in desperate need of upgrading.

    Iain Munro, joint managing director of ScoMac, says: “The kiosks had been stuck together with Elastoplasts over the years and they’d also had a couple of very harsh winters with some floods. A lot of the old wooden fixtures and things like that had deteriorated and essentially it came round to being a food health and safety issue.”

    Apparently ScoMac had carried out a trial in 2008 at a kiosk which provided a 20% hike in uptake but: ‘For various reasons the project never gained any legs until mid-2010 when the club’s owners showed a desire to reignite it’ wrt the 42 separate kiosks according to the article which also stated:

    Shortly after Glasgow Rangers went into administration in February, reports surfaced that the club had used future income from its catering operations to fund the upgrade of its kitchen and kiosk facilities.

    Scottish newspapers claimed the club had bought the equipment on a hire purchase agreement with a finance house, which is due to receive a proportion of the sales Rangers makes from its contract with match-day caterer Azure.

    Iain Munro added that Scotmac was fully paid for all work and in November 2011 it received the final payment for work completed in 2011, with the remaining 20% that it was owed for the last phase of work paid three weeks before the project was fully completed.

    He added: ‘“After July 2011, every other bit of work that we did we were paid for in advance of completing that work.”


  45. Felix Magath is the least impressive squirrel I’ve seen for a very long time.


  46. Incognito Leverage
    —–
    I thought I’d be smart and try to find out what PmcG was on about. So I google, and this comes up.
    And I’m absolutely none the wiser! I feel like I used to feel watching dart-players and snooker players instantly compute scores AND decide what their next dart/ shot was to be.

    ” Off-balance sheet (OBS), or Incognito Leverage, usually means an asset or debt or financing activity not on the company’s balance sheet. Some companies may have significant amounts of off-balance sheet assets and liabilities. For example, financial institutions often offer asset management or brokerage services to their clients. The assets in question (often securities) usually belong to the individual clients directly or in trust, while the company may provide management, depository or other services to the client. The company itself has no direct claim to the assets, and usually has some basic fiduciary duties with respect to the client. Financial institutions may report off-balance sheet items in their accounting statements formally, and may also refer to “assets under management,” a figure that may include on and off-balance sheet items.Under current accounting rules both in the United States (US GAAP) and internationally (IFRS), operating leases are off-balance-sheet financing. Financial obligations of unconsolidated subsidiaries (because they are not wholly owned by the parent) may also be off-balance sheet. Such obligations were part of the accounting fraud at Enron.The formal accounting distinction between on and off-balance sheet items can be quite detailed and will depend to some degree on management judgments, but in general terms, an item should appear on the company’s balance sheet if it is an asset or liability that the company owns or is legally responsible for; uncertain assets or liabilities must also meet tests of being probable, measurable and meaningful. For example, a company that is being sued for damages would not include the potential legal liability on its balance sheet until a legal judgment against it is likely and the amount of the judgment can be estimated; if the amount at risk is small, it may not appear on the company’s accounts until a judgment is rendered.”
    How could a liability of £6.5M NOT be on the books? How could documentation relating to it be kept hidden from Auditors? Or othe rBoard members? Or NOMADs?
    Surely the whole lot of them aren’t into jiggery-pokery?
    And shouldn’t Deloittes’begin to ask serious questions and DISTANCE themselves publicly from any knowledge of such a liability being outstanding?


  47. Hamerdoon says:
    January 9, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    The analysis and comment on here is excellent. With no business knowledge, I have tried manfully to keep up, but find myself floundering again.

    Can someone explain in simple fashion, how at least two examinations of the accounts and business of new Rangers, one lasting 120 days, could miss a debt of the magnitude being discussed? And, what sort of debt might it be; just an example to help me put it all in context.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Apologies for deleting speculative post. I was unable to edit it and had to delete and repost
    So here we go
    I`ll have a speculative go at joining the dots

    The two Spivs who share a Celtic Strip have been in cahoots all along and continue to be in cahoots
    Sevco 5088 did receive the assets from D & P and did transfer them to Sevco Scotland. There is hard evidence to this transaction that will stand up in court. But the paper work was “lost” at the time leading to wrongful registration of Sevco Scotland as owners of the assets and wrong accounts thereafter.
    And it gets worse
    This wasn`t a free transfer of the assets. It was a sale/lease deal under which staged lease payments were buried in a long term onerous contract. A bit like a hire purchase deal where you don`t get ownership until all payments are made. Even worse, the Lessor had the right to demand immediate payment of the balance due if Sevco Scotland defaulted on any payments or was in danger of Administration or Liquidation.
    What we are seeing now is the Lessor exercising the option to call up the balance due… The amount outstanding would make the Lessor the largest Creditor this would give him the right to name the Administrator/Liquidator
    In a word
    It’s got nothing to do with the 4Bs or the Ashley (Sarver) pretend bid
    It’s about who is going to be the biggest Creditor in a forthcoming Administration/ liquidation

    All speculation of course
    But IMO
    The end game beckons


  48. Some things posted by jockybhoy back in 2013 – worth a thought?
    ——————————————————————–
    jockybhoy says:
    August 14, 2013 at 10:48 am

    I note the BillMcMurdo is publishing the “claims” of Ahmad in relation to money he has brought in himself. £12.5m pre- and £23m post-IPO cash. So what was Charles Green doing? What were Cenko doing – tdidn’t they get commissions for bringing in investors? Was all this cash really down to “wan guy”?

    On Azure “I got them to cough up another £7m over existing contract” – for nothing? For no quid pro quo? Wow, just wow. How long is this contract and what is that per year? And is that guaranteed? I assume Azure will be sacking their negitiator if you take this claim at face value.

    Sports Direct Puma is a 5 year contract and apparently should produce profits of £4m per year for the next 5 years. That’s £20m of benefit to Rangers Imran directly negotiated on Puma. – and what if it doesn’t? A lot can happen in five years – Rangers could go bust another couple of times for example, Sports Direct cold take over the running of merchandise for another.


  49. rougvielovesthejungle says:

    January 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    ================================

    I thought for a sec that was going to be recursive. tried for one but a bit forced:
    Charles has already rigged legal extraction sponduliks


  50. GoosyGoosy says:
    January 9, 2015 at 4:06 pm
    A bit like a hire purchase deal where you don`t get ownership until all payments are made. Even worse, the Lessor had the right to demand immediate payment of the balance due if Sevco Scotland defaulted on any payments or was in danger of Administration or Liquidation.
    =================================================================
    Would that not be of interest to investors in an IPO. Is it legally possible to avoid revealing (or at least hinting about) the gin-trap terms in the prosectus ?

    Also, are the Admin and Liquidation terms what make the Onerous Contracts “Admin proof” ie a sniff of Admin and the holders become the biggest creditor and so can “influence” the Admin process?


  51. Should rent not be recorded somewhere – there might have been a rent free period followed by a premium lump sum which has been demanded now or ren rolling up until some trigger event. Additionally and at the risk of muddying things further all this pauchling might have inadvertently generated CGT of the capital gains tax kind not the Charles green tax type-there has been plenty of that!


  52. It’s Friday

    It’s Five O’clock

    No – It’s not Cracker Jack

    It’s Ibrox Statement time

    (you have to be of a certain age to get that )


  53. Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant · 8m8 minutes ago
    STV understands Livingston have until April for Neil Rankine to dispose of his shares. Failure to do so could mean club banned from game.
    Livingston will appeal SFA decision today on dual interest of owner in East Fife. One club source even pondering going to judicial review.


  54. mcfc says:
    January 9, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    If it were me, I’d leave it to early Monday morning, especially if some sort deal is possible. Why take your fence before you have to?


  55. Livingston relegated to division 3 for breaching league rules on insolvency.

    Livingston hit with five point deduction and £10,000 fine for non payment taxes

    Livingston have until April for Neil Rankine to dispose of his shares. Failure to do so could mean club banned from game

    If the brogues don’t fit.


  56. On 24 February 1999 a Floating Charge was created over ‘the whole assets’ of The Rangers Football Club Plc assigned to the Bank of Scotland who on 5 May 2011 assigned their interest to The Rangers FC Group Ltd (Group).

    On 26 October 2011 an instrument of alteration was executed by The Rangers Football Club Plc (Company); Close Leasing Ltd; Rangers FC Group Ltd; and Liberty Capital Ltd.

    The Alteration agreed that: Group and Liberty acknowledge and consent to the company entering into the assignation and agree that the assignation being a fixed charge shall rank in priority to the Floating Charge.

    Security was granted in favour of Close over an agreement wrt the provision of catering services in or around Ibrox Stadium originally dated 28 June 2000 with Azure Catering Services Ltd. The agreement had been novated, amended and varied and at by October 2011 the contracting party was Azure Support Services Ltd.

    ——————————————————————–
    I suppose the question is what happened come administration in Februart 2014 – did Close still have a fixed charge on all the assets at that time and did that affect what was sold to Green by D&P.

    We know that Imran was still dealing with Azure in and negotiating a better contract deal with them so their contract seems to have survived. Did Close Leasing finance the catering refurbishment at Ibrox? Even if they did why did Close seemingly get a fixed charge over all of the assets and not just the catering ones. Perhaps I have misunderstto the charge which can be viewd at: http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/rangers-security-charge-change-11_11.pdf


  57. MaBaw says:
    January 9, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    To be fair to the suits in Hampden, the Ashley case hasn’t been heard yet. Today’s ruling, makes things that bit more interesting.

    Will the Director of Sophistry be working over time? :mrgreen:


  58. bfbpuzzled says:
    January 9, 2015 at 4:22 pm
    2 0 Rate This

    Should rent not be recorded somewhere – there might have been a rent free period followed by a premium lump sum which has been demanded now or ren rolling up until some trigger event. Additionally and at the risk of muddying things further all this pauchling might have inadvertently generated CGT of the capital gains tax kind not the Charles green tax type-there has been plenty of that!
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    I was hinting at

    The “rent” being the aggregate of what you get when you skim a % off a number of perfectly normal contracts. The % being explained in the contract by reference to some other contract you don`t have a copy of but you know is legal
    This makes the contract seem “onerous” or even a scam if you are unaware of the justification for adding the %


  59. Further to Goosy’s theory

    From the 2012 CVA proposal

    4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.

    Terms of the sale “confidential”? hmmm!


  60. On 24 February 1999 a Floating Charge was created over ‘the whole assets’ of The Rangers Football Club Plc assigned to the Bank of Scotland who on 5 May 2011 assigned their interest to The Rangers FC Group Ltd (Group).

    On 26 October 2011 an instrument of alteration was executed by The Rangers Football Club Plc (Company); Close Leasing Ltd; Rangers FC Group Ltd; and Liberty Capital Ltd.

    The Alteration agreed that: Group and Liberty acknowledge and consent to the company entering into the assignation and agree that the assignation being a fixed charge shall rank in priority to the Floating Charge.

    Security was granted in favour of Close over an agreement wrt the provision of catering services in or around Ibrox Stadium originally dated 28 June 2000 with Azure Catering Services Ltd. The agreement had been novated, amended and varied and by October 2011 the contracting party was Azure Support Services Ltd.

    I suppose the question is what happened come administration in February 2012 – did Close still have a fixed charge on all the assets at that time and did that affect what was sold to Green by D&P.

    We know that Imran dealt with Azure after administration in and negotiated a better deal with them he claimed so their contract seems to have survived. Did Close Leasing finance the catering refurbishment at Ibrox? Even if they did why did Close seemingly get a fixed charge over all of the assets and not just the catering ones.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood the charge which can be viewd at: http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/rangers-security-charge-change-11_11.pdf


  61. See post above wrt Close and Azure

    Azure Support Services Ltd were listed in May 2012 as creditors to the tune of £523,949.71 in the Rangers Administration creditors’ list. Close Leasing isn’t listed as a creditor.


  62. mcfc

    In the interests of accuracy / pedantry…it was “five to five”… 😉

    GoosyGoosy
    I do like your posts.
    In the past I have wrongfully accused you of being Craig Whyte, then Stewart Regan – for which I apologized.
    …are you Charles Green ?! 😆


  63. ecobhoy says: January 9, 2015 at 5:14 pm
    —————————
    In the D&P CVA proposal dated 29/05/12, Close is listed as a fixed charge holder for £1.56M

    Fixed Charge Holders
    The Rangers FC Group Limited TBC
    Close Leasing Limited (1,560,000)
    The Scottish Sports Council(505,000)
    Premier Property Group Limited TBC
    Bank of Scotland (Albion Road Car Park Finance)TBC
    Kelvinside War Memorial Trust TBC
    Total…………………(2,065,000)


  64. easyJambo says:
    January 9, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Ta – I had just got to that point myself and was trying to figure out whether it had been transferred to TRFCL 🙂


  65. GoosyGoosy:
    Sevco 5088 did receive the assets from D & P and did transfer them to Sevco Scotland. There is hard evidence to this transaction that will stand up in court. But the paper work was “lost” at the time leading to wrongful registration of Sevco Scotland as owners of the assets and wrong accounts thereafter.
    ________________________________________________

    How sure are you of the above?
    Give us a pointer, out of ten, with 1 as “Total speculation off the top of my head” and 10 is “Solid fact and I have evidence to prove it”.
    Purely for fun, of course.


  66. So no AIM announcements today. No application by King and his faction for an EGM, and nothing from the Board side regarding a new share issue. Which means that more emergency loans will be required to allow the payment of wages for January. Plus whatever other bills are sitting in the CEO’s inbox.

    Will Ashley provide the required funds? And if not, is it Sarver’s turn next? Or even King? But against what security? Or will more players be sold?

    Sorry, folks, just a load of unaswerable questions. I really thought that funding to the end of January would be sorted today. Surely, but surely the SFA/SPFL must act now.


  67. neepheid says:
    January 9, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    Why? Masterly inactivity would be Sir Humphrey’s recommendation. With the board considering Sarvar’s offer, Hampden must be hoping, that a solution will pop up, that will resolve the Ashley control issue, and at least kick the can down to the road to beyond the seasons end.


  68. Off topic but may be of interest.

    Today I learned a new word. In addition to lurking on here I also attempt to complete the Guardian cryptic crossword online.
    The clue to 22across was ‘Operatic production interrupted at intervals by hard left teddy bear fan’.
    The answer is ‘Arctophile’.
    The dictionary definition is someone who has a fondness for teddy bears. Thus we would have the word ‘arctophilia’ which may be loosely defined as rangersitis.
    And again this site may be felt by some to be arctophobic.

    I am not bigging myself up here. The online Guardian crossword has a cheat button.

Comments are closed.