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.
scapaflow says: January 13, 2015 at 5:38 pm
statement from Hands on Hibs
https://www.facebook.com/463793980429256/photos/a.464213177054003.1073741828.463793980429256/522552067886780/?type=1&theater
======================
I think this story has a fair way to go before Hibs future is fully secured.
When the share offer it was first mooted I was quite sceptical about what was being proposed. The figures released today reinforce what I thought at the time, i.e. that the financial situation was worse than being portrayed by the Board and that the residual debt would still be a problem.
I would put myself in the same camp as HoH and would want more information and assurances before backing the Board’s plan.
mcfc says:
January 13, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Not Sure Why This Came to Mind
============================================================
Then again, there’s the racing maxim – if an accident happens in front of you – don’t swerve to avoid it – you’ll probably cause another accident – just drive straight at the acident – because by the time you get there, the chances are the cars involved will be somewhere else. You pays your money . . .
Allyjambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 6:14 pm
7 0 Rate This
============================================
Indeed
Heard a few adverts on radio clyde this evening for a group called ‘Rangers First’ and asking fans to help them buy as many shares in the Club as possible to aid some soret of fan ownership. Strange how things become very blurry with time. I don’t believe that shares in the club are available as they have never been floated on any stock exchange. The Company on the other hand….
‘Deed of Novation’ guy on SSB again ‘show us the deeds’ 😉
Strange Mr Guidi said absolutely nothing to him 😕
ekt1m says:
January 13, 2015 at 5:53 pm
On the Murray company winding ups you might find this link helpful:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/end-of-an-era-as-murray-closes-illustrious-charlotte-square-hq.25482419
PRIVATE EYE & RANGERS
Anyone trying to decipher the Eye piece should read this absolute Blockposter post by Paul McConville in Ocober 2012.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/charles-green-and-craig-whyte-connections-or-coincidences/
Talk about being ahead of the field and surving the test of time – gawn yirself Big Man 😎
Eco @7.46
. . . “The Murray nameplate lives on in Charlotte Square, however, in the shape of Murray Capital, the biggest company in Sir David’s private family empire after acquiring many of MIH’s assets…”
Surprise surprise – aquiring the ASSETS
(A la CW’s Modus operandi)
Rangers International have updated the shareholder list on their website to reflect the purchases of King and the Three Bears. Oddly, Artemis and Miton are still listed as owning more than 12M shares between them
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information
New Oasis Investments Limited 11,869,505 14.57%
Artemis Investment Management LLP 8,109,223 9.95%
George Alexander Taylor 7,575,000 9.30%
Mash Holdings Limited 7,265,000 8.92%
Douglas Park 5,000,000 6.14%
River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 4,704,827 5.77%
Blue Pitch Holding 4,426,485 5.43%
Alexander Easdale* 4,242,110 5.21%
Miton Group 4,060,282 4.98%
George Letham 3,299,515 4.05%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.19%
Hi ecoboy
I don’t have your gift for record keeping but I did manage to locate an old post of mine from July 2012. If you have a copy of the CVA document in your files you should be able to confirm my numbers
,,,,,,,,
This post may explain why the switcheroo involving Sevco5088 and Sevco Scotland generated a sale and leaseback deal for Ibrox and MP
Heres the post (slightly edited to make it shorter)
,,,,,,,,,
http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticfiles. ……btw this link no longer works
The CVA proposal discussed 3 options for Creditors
These were
CVA ,Sale of Assets, and Liquidation
In the 29 May CVA Proposal Page 37 it says
Under Sale of Assets to Green Option (which has now happened)
Preferred Creditors get £7300 out of a liquidation “pot” of £960584 which is 0.76%
But it also says
Under the Liquidation Option
Preferred Creditors get £250798 out of a liquidation “pot” of £250798 which is 100%
This suggests to me that there are fewer preferred Creditors under the option “Sale of Assets to Green” than there will be under the option “Liquidation”
I appreciate that it could be that the asset value in liquidation is much less than the price received from an asset sale
However the difference is so stark that it made me wonder
Is this confirmation that the Sale of Assets to Green also includes removal of some Preferred Creditors from the Creditor list? Possibly or probably the CW FC of £27m and the undisclosed (TBA) Close Leasing fixed charge?
If so this would only have left the Scottish Sports Council fixed charge over MP in the Creditors List after the deal was done
The significance of this cannot be underestimated
If D&P has transferred the assets plus the CW floating charge and the Close Leasing fixed charge to Sevco Scotland in exchange for £5.5m
Then what happened to these fixed and floating charges ? They don’t appear at Companies House against TRFC
The obvious answer is that the assets and the charges were moved to Sevco 5088 and some kind of deal done between Sevco5088 to enable Sevco Scotland to legally keep these charges off their balance sheet.
If this is true
These charges will have been moved on by now from Sevco5088 to some offshore Co
And
Nothing will surface at TRFC unless
Either
TRFC default on the lease payments
Or
TRFC are liquidated
If TRFC are liquidated there will be a battle between the Liquidator and Worthington (who now own the FC) to prove the legality of the floating charge since it will have been transferred by D&P with the assets on a “sold as seen” basis
And
While all the wrangling is going on there will be no ground for any newco to play on
I`m still mulling over where AShley fits into all this
Because
He employs sharp accountants who will have studied the CVA document and alsofigured out the above.
GoosyGoosy says: January 13, 2015 at 8:54 pm
——————————
The CVA Proposal re the Estimated Outcome Statement refers to note 17.
17. In the CVA and New Company scenarios, the amounts due to preferential creditors consist of outstanding holiday entitlement for the employees who were made redundant during the Administration trading period. In the Liquidation scenario, it is anticipated that preferential claims would exceed the funds available to preferential creditors.
Is it not just the case that with a TUPE transfer to the Newco, the amount of preferential creditors would be reduced. Had there been a straight liquidation, then more employees would have had a claim for redundancy and holiday pay.
So CL plus a wee invoice for WI (IN) FI delity with a few ++ signs and viola another fine mess.
GoosyGoosy says:
January 13, 2015 at 8:54 pm
@gg – you have PM
They sneeked this one in. And Mr Newey was apparently double booked a propos Mr Whyte.
Note not advertised as in private.
Chancery Division – Judges
COURT 3
Before MR JUSTICE HENDERSON
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
At half past 10
Ticketus v Whyte
COURT 12
Before MR JUSTICE NEWEY
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
At half past 10
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(Finance & Tax Chamber)
FTC/145/2013 Macklin v The Commissioners for HMRC
I see Keith Jackson has had a bit of an argument on twitter and is telling one guy that Sarver made it a condition of his offer that they didn’t sell Lewis McLeod. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t McLeod sold before Sarver lodged his second offer? Or, at least, if he had lodged it before McLeod signed for Bradford, why didn’t he just withdraw it if it meant so much to him?
Now, I might be wrong, but nobody’s paying me to be right, but if I’m wrong, OK, I hold my hands up, I’m a lazy so and so for not checking before posting. But if Jackson, the award winning journalist, is wrong…what on earth does that make him.
Allyjambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 9:40 pm
0 0 Rate This
..///////////….
Ally the lewis mcleod thing was to do with the original offer not the second
But I also think the McLeod deal was done (but not completely dusted because the transfer window hadn’t opened) and he was trying to get it kicked into touch. Or so he is now claiming
Allyjambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 9:40 pm
—————
If Jackson, the award winning journalist, is wrong…what on earth does that make him.
——————-
Consistent?
Jackson for once is Not incorrect
Savar is claiming in his First bid
First not Second. First
That 1 of the conditions was NO player’s were to be sold not just McLeod but no players at all were to be sold
I personally take this with a pinch of salt
His whole participation in this seems like just another PR exercise
Allyjambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 9:40 pm
It was the mighty Brentford he signed for, not the even mightier Bradford, who I used to watch 20 years or so ago (I simply can’t stand Leeds, don’t know why). I know nothing whatsoever about the player apart from articles in the SMSM, I’ve never seen him play, but if he is as good as Jackson & Co are making out, then why Brentford?
On the basis of some of the write-ups in the Scottish press, Man City, Barcelona, Bayern and Real Madrid should have been slugging it out in a world record bidding war to secure the services of this “off the radar” talent.
And I’m just guessing now, but Sarver probably knows as much about the player as I do. And cares even less.
Brenda says:
January 13, 2015 at 7:43 pm
33 0 Rate This
‘Deed of Novation’ guy on SSB again ‘show us the deeds’ 😉
————
That was a very interesting and well constructed call (just heard it on the podcast). A remarkably brief and concise explanation of the concept of a deed of novation. Hope those D&P chaps have their copy stashed safely otherwise they’re going to have answer some awkward Sevco questions.
Jim Delahunt actually seems pretty clued up, judging by the comments he makes as host. Mark Guidi, on the other hand, seems well ill-informed.
DP
Being wilfully un-informed, is a good way of avoiding the reporting of inconvenient truths…
Allyjambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 9:40 pm
Sons of Struth saying they heard ripples of the approach from across the pond mid December, therefore things could have been in motion for a while.
Auldheid says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:40 am
“Doncaster’s response was the DOS ebts were irrelevant!”
———————————–
Auldheid.
Did DOS make use of side letters?
I don’t recall the detail but perhaps if there were no DOS side letters then Doncaster’s distinction is on the basis that there wasn’t a misregistration issue here.
From what I recall DOS was alighted upon to illustrate that LNS decision of no sporting advantage was contradicted by DOS since it was found illegal, therefore was not available to other clubs and thus did confer a sporting advantage. Other clubs could not have availed themselves of this funding mechanism therefore Rangers were able to fund players in a way that was not legitimate via DOS.
Was the DOS tax ever repaid?
It could be argued that LNS shied away from pronouncing on EBT’s since the big tax case was/is ongoing therefore the payments are not yet deemed illegal and therefore might have been available to other clubs. However a ‘no sporting advantage’ judgement could only really be made on the basis that RFC(IL) would win the big tax case. To make that pronouncement whilst the case was still ongoing seems to me premature. By the laws of natural justice any ‘no sporting advantage’ judgement should be open to appeal if it is subsequently found that RFC(IL) EBT’s were illegal.
So if DOS had no side letters (and I’m not sure this was the case), then I can see how Doncaster might want to break it out from EBT’s. However if RFC(IL) EBT’s are found illegal then I can’t see how the no sporting advantage ruling can stand.
Of course Doncaster’s recent intervention concerned the continuity argument which is a parallel consideration that many feel it was unneccessary, nay expedient, for LNS to pronounce upon.
I’m just exercising the arguments to maintain mental agility.
Danish Pastry says:
January 13, 2015 at 10:18 pm
_______________________________________
The caller called Eddie on SSB was absolutely brilliant 😀
Jim Delahunt didn’t ask the others to contribute because I think they were shaking their heads and holding up their hands to him saying ” This is too hard for us we are plebs”
Like yon scene where someone is in slow motion going ” Nooooooooooooo!!!”
easyJambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 8:17 pm
Is that not why the TR-1 form is needed to identify who sold to King.
The Beed reported he got them from Artemis and Miton but looks like that is not the case. The RNS only said the board were informed that New Oasis had bought shares but not who sold them.
Why the mystery?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26927245
A good read on the Murray empire’s decline and fall. He certainly has some VERY understanding creditors. I’d be asking a few pointed questions about the asset transfers, if I was one of them.
Can any of the legal types in here tell me how I can sue for breach of copyright?
https://www.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth/photos/pcb.1583777108520078/1583775601853562/?type=1&theater
neepheid says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm
Douglas has been describing it as a slow slaying, pretty odd sort of “death”, when the continuing entity is allowed to cherry pick the assets at user friendly prices
neepheid says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm
—————————————
Murray was a master of spin and bluster.
I am sure that creditors and Shareholders are not so well disposed as portrayed; grateful that they are left with nothing or next to nothing.
It appears that the Murray family have weathered the storm quite nicely, and picking up the pieces, juiciest ones anyway!
“We’re told the discussions between the new family firm and the firm controlled by the family were protracted….”
…I have heard a few crackers in my time, but how convenient to have two family firms called Murray, one buying up previously owned corporate assets at knock down prices from the other!
Castofthousands says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:08 pm
Three players were paid under the Discount Option Scheme through the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust. Moore, De Boer and Flo.
Moore’s was a one off with no record of a side letter found.
De Boer and Flo got more than one payment under the scheme and both had side letters relating to the scheme. This was crucial in the sense that Rangers Administrators were asked to provide details of all ebts, side letters and associated correspondence including anything from HMRC, but failed to supply De Boer’s side letter and the HMRC letter covering all three recipients setting out why Rangers were liable to pay the wee tax bill arising from the DOS ebts.
The reason was that DOS ebts had been ruled irregular/illegal/unlawful in 2010 by an FTT dealing with the use of the same scheme by Aberdeen Asset Management.
In addition the concealment by Rangers of the existence of the side letters to De Boer and Flo in 2005 when HMRC asked if any existed, gave HMRC the right to pursue payment beyond the normal limit (6 years).
They did not pursue the tax due on Moore because there was no proof of any side letter and so Rangers had not lied to HMRC as they had done with De Boer and Flo.
Lord Nimmo Smith made much of the fact that at the time no irregular payments had been made saying ” Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities” and in effect the worse that Rangers had done was to improperly register players and, based on Bryson’s advice, that did not render the players ineligible from the outset under registration rules. But of course the ebts in question were not within the law which puts them in a different category altogether.
In para 88 of his ruling LNS says
There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been INVALID from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here (where he viewed the ebts as falling within the law) we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was VALID from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.
He can hardly say now, having basically justified his no sporting advantage ruling on the notion that all ebts were regular, that irregular ebts where it is also known side letters were deliberately kept from HMRC on enquiry as well as not notified to the SFA, were not an extreme case with a fundamental defect making those registrations invalid from the outset.
It was the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters that caused Rangers QC to advise them to accept liability. I think of these ebts as the equivalent of under the counter payments.
At core DOS ebts were unlawful and because of the added deliberate concealment from HMRC and SFA in 2005, must fall into the extreme category case LNS mentions in para 88.
Thus in a sense the side letters are irrelevant of themselves (but their concealment from HMRC as well as the SFA tells us Rangers were not indulging in incomplete registration but deception)
LNS does not say other clubs could have used EBTs he says that there was no evidence that any had. From this comes the inference that regular ebts set up properly could have been used by other clubs and so irregular ones used by a club had to offer sporting advantage as other clubs could not use them.
This is logical but the real issue is that the DOS ebts in question were unlawful of themselves and very fundamentally wrongly used, their use should have been examined under a different rule on serious misconduct, not the player registration one that allowed Bryson to give the advice on player eligibility that was not appropriate for the actual breach committed.
essexbeancounter says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:40 pm
‘ but how convenient to have two family firms called Murray, one buying up previously owned corporate assets at knock down prices from the other!’
———
And the reward for being the kind of clever, manipulative sod that can arrange that kind of set-up is a knighthood. Or, is that kind of sod able to arrange that kind of set-up simply because of his knighthood? One wonders, democratically and republicanally(?) speaking.
No, one does not wonder at all. One knows for feckin sure that there are ‘protected species’ of entrepeneurs.
And there is one infamous case of a man who, having killed a football club, is still worshipped and adored by fans of that club.
Auldheid says:
January 14, 2015 at 12:58 am
“De Boer and Flo got more than one payment under the scheme and both had side letters relating to the scheme.”
——————————
Thanks for clarifying that. I appreciated your full and clear explanation.
Therefore my suggestion that Neil Doncaster might have dismissed the relevance of DOS as being immaterial to the registration issue is incorrect.
So now we have a situation where Lord Nimmo Smith’s terms of reference may have been influenced to erase the relevance of DOS and the head of the SPFL allegedly saying DOS was irrelevant to LNS in a private phone conversation. If you were jumping to conclusions without full knowledge of the situation you might assume that it was Neil Doncaster who helped steer LNS clear of the DOS rocks.
I think sometimes it is worth looking at an issue from all perspectives. By examining perspectives as objectively as possible you can sometimes pick up logic where you never expected to find it. There is a mathematical method called ‘proof by contradiction’ that allows you to assert a proof not because you can illustrate it but instead to show that to assert the contrary would be illogical.
“But the fact of the matter is the club needs money and resources as quickly as possible…
Dave King and the Three Bears I’m sure have the right intentions for the club…
What we’d like to see is Rangers in the hands of Rangers-minded people…
What concerns me also is that a fair percentage of the hardcore [of fans] may have drifted now, and I don’t think it will be like you turn a light switch and they will come back…”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gers-need-cash-fast-sir-david-says.116118429
==================================================
Rather than hiding in shame, the brass-necked Minty shares some pearls of wisdom with The Herald.
But the ‘business journalist’ Scott Wright can’t think of a pertinent question about Minty’s own culpability ?
Looks like an obedient copy/paste job yet again. 🙄
For those that missed it – here is Eddie in Clydebank from SSB last night….zero comment from the panel as usual…
http://youtu.be/-y7SwKTgK-I
Auldheid, Castofthousands – I hope the following isn’t too pedantic but there was another crucial flaw in the LNS decision. Apologies in advance that I am unable to quote specific SPL rules but I am on holiday (31C 😀 😉 ) and posting from an iPad in the sun.
As all readers of this blog know, Bryson’s disgraceful intervention meant that despite the fact that the EBT side letters were deliberately not disclosed, the players in question remained registered until their deliberate non-disclosure was discovered. As a wee aside, I think one of the saddest parts of this whole affair is that hardly a soul who doesn’t read this blog is aware of this crucial fact. I have never seen it mentioned by the MSM. Has anybody else?
Coming back to my main point, the first requirement of player eligibility was proper registration. So far, so good for Rangers as the logical extension of Bryson’s utterly bizarre interpretation is that the players were not only properly registered but would therefore also be eligible. There was another requirement for eligibility however, specifically that all papers (including EBT side letters in these cases) were disclosed. ie it was a requirement BOTH for registration and eligibility that the side letters were disclosed.
Now I’ve no doubt that Sandy could have come to the rescue again, but it is an absolutely crucial flaw in the LNS process and decision, and this from the individual we are assured is amongst the finest, if not THE finest legal mind in the country. Remind me again who it is we are informed is the finest administrator in Scottish football.
While I’m on the subject there is a further serious flaw in the LNS decision. Auldheid correctly refers to Flo and De Boer (R) and the DOS side letters that were inexplicably 😆 removed from the frame of reference. But there were also the five players (the identity of four of these can be inferred from material in the public detain) about whom Rangers accepted (but never paid) tax was due in relation to their EBT. In the same way that the failure to disclose the DOS side letters for TAF and RDB gave Rangers an unfair sporting advantage, the failure to disclose the EBT side letters for these five players also gave Rangers an unfair sporting advantage. Why did the finest legal mind in the country fail to make this distinction.
I have little doubt that the outcome was completely predetermined, and it was all about contriving a mechanism to get there.
Long time lurker (ok, I’m addicted) but reading gems like Auldheid’s dissection of DOS events at 12:58am brings such clarity to the fog the SMSM would like to cloak all things Sevco in I am in awe of him and many other posters on here. You all are the greatest hope and resource for Scottish fitba – more power to all of your elbows
neepheid says:
January 13, 2015 at 10:18 pm
=====================================
Re Lewis Macleod. A popular recent phrase in the media has been to describe his transfer from Ibrox as a ‘cut price’ deal. What do they believe would have been a fair price for a player, 95% of whose ‘success’ so far has been against lower league, part time teams? It also seems to be cast in tablets of stone that he will in future be transferred for several million pounds. We shall see.
The BBC Douglas Fraser piece referred to above does at least have a modicum of self respect. The story as it appears on the main BBC News site has RFC sold to CW, and ‘its assets subsequently liquidated.’ This is a new one on me. Not RFC, not the ethereal holding company, but the assets. Which had been sold by D & P, as administrators, in the July before liquidation, IIRC. Makes you wonder what credence you can give to the rest of the story. Or, indeed, anything that comes out of the Beeb these days.
peterjung @ 4.01am
As I commented at 7.46pm Mr Guidi usually can’t wait to jump in and defend the indefensible 😉 therefore Eddie’s points obviously filled him with ‘the fear’ of reality ………. Jim Delahunt although civil and polite got rid pretty quickly as for the other ‘pundit’ ? He described someone or something being in ‘sticky water’ earlier in the show pretty much sums this ‘show’ up. But I’ll keep listening 😉 purely for the entertainment factor 😆 stay safe folks have a nice day
Ian Fraser on Twitter
Demise of Sir David Murray’s empire demonstrates his 1981-2008 success a credit fuelled mirage engineered by BoS’s Masterton &; Cummings
andygraham.66 says:
January 14, 2015 at 7:39 am
Demise of Sir David Murray’s empire demonstrates his 1981-2008 success a credit fuelled mirage engineered by BoS’s Masterton &; Cummings
—————————————
Sir David Mirage has an appropriate ring to it
David Mirage sounds better!
Re Famous song
I think, and with more than a nod to eco’s fine (if not necessarily popular) dissection of the issue a few days ago, and with the usual disclaimer that I don’t want to open up OC/NC yet again, that this is the natural manifestation of the continuation concept now firmly backed into a corner i.e. that ‘the club’ is now perceived as nothing more than a brand (with some membership licences and stuff) and its the various companies involved that deal with those pesky assets and, in 41 cases out of 42, the liabilities as well.
Smugas says:
January 14, 2015 at 9:33 am
David Mirage sounds better!
—————————
I thought about that, as I never call people ‘Sir’…but in this case, I thought it is a component part of the mirage that’s been built up, so I left it in!
Carfins Finest says:
January 13, 2015 at 7:42 pm
67 2 Rate This
Heard a few adverts on radio clyde this evening for a group called ‘Rangers First’ and asking fans to help them buy as many shares in the Club as possible to aid some soret of fan ownership. Strange how things become very blurry with time. I don’t believe that shares in the club are available as they have never been floated on any stock exchange. The Company on the other hand….
=========
Heard this ad a few times yesterday.I was thinking the same thing.Surely the Rangers First folk should be pulled up for misleading advertising and the Radio Clyde ad dept should have checked this out.
I was also wondering how much it costs to run ads like this on the radio.Enough to buy a right few thousand shares,I’d imagine.
enough is enough says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:25 pm
Can any of the legal types in here tell me how I can sue for breach of copyright?
https://www.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth/photos/pcb.1583777108520078/1583775601853562/?type=1&theater
=================================================
I’m not a ‘legal type’ as I try to give direct opinions 😆
However before taking any legal action for breach of copyright you have to establish whether any copyright exists wrt the work in question.
That, in this case, means establishing the creator of the work and also when it was created. That’s the basic info required and will provide a pointer to other relevant issues to determine whether copyright protection still applies to the work.
I assume you are referring to the background image which appears to possibly have begun as a painting which may have been subsequently photographed/copied and it certainly isn’t modern.
However if it is copyrighted and as it involves Rangers perhaps the simplest approach is to contact Ashley as he is alleged to have quite a few copyrights involving Rangers 🙄
Listening to Eddie from Clydebank on SSB there brought back something to mind from a wee while back.Maybe of no relevance at all but as the possibility of a sale/leaseback has re-appeared it may mean something.
I seem to recall that when Sevco Scotland changed to TRFC,supposedly to suit Scots law,Green stated that “certain” assets were transferred to TRFC,the implication,to me,at least being not all assets were transferred.
Could this have been the moment when the Stadium was separated from the rest of the assets?.
Just a thought.
easyJambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 9:14 pm
Is it not just the case that with a TUPE transfer to the Newco, the amount of preferential creditors would be reduced. Had there been a straight liquidation, then more employees would have had a claim for redundancy and holiday pay.
=====================================================
I’m just thinking about the figures used by goosygoosy and I have a memory trace that in a liquidation process the actual redundancy and associated payments are met by the relevant government department although holiday pay remains as a liability under the Liquidator’s remit.
I could be wrong about this. However if it refers to staff made redundant by D&P during their tenure as administrators I didn’t think the numbers were high which again makes me think this might not be the reason.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
January 14, 2015 at 10:22 am
Could this have been the moment when the Stadium was separated from the rest of the assets?.
======================================
@johnbhoy – I wondered if you had the actual quote because timing and context could be very important.
cheers.
ecobhoy says:
January 14, 2015 at 10:38 am
4 0 i
Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
January 14, 2015 at 10:22 am
Could this have been the moment when the Stadium was separated from the rest of the assets?.
======================================
@johnbhoy – I wondered if you had the actual quote because timing and context could be very important.
=======================================================
This any help?
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/duff-phelps-had-binding-agreement-with-sevco-5088-why-did-they-sell-ibrox-to-sevco-scotland/
Castofthousands
It is possible that in the phone conversation Doncaster meant DOS was irrelevant to the same club point he had been contacted about.
I would not argue that although others have pointed out the full statement LNS made on that matter.
However the DOS issue is totally relevant in that it shows key information known only to a select few was somehow not supplied when the specification of what had to be supplied was so clear.
You would think that such a serious matter as undermining an enquiry set up to establish the facts surrounding the use of ebts would have either caused a response that set out how the accusation is wrong or an uproar at being so misled.
We have had neither and until we do it is only right that we question the validity of the whole LNS Commission because it is an affront to football to have its rules twisted to suit circumstances.
It may well be Doncaster meant DOS was irrelevant to the same club debate but no harm using that ambiguity to remind everyone of the fundamental flaw in LNS’ s findings.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
January 14, 2015 at 10:22 am
Was it not the case that Sevco Scotland was formed to meet the needs of having a Scottish registered company as opposed to Sevco 5088 that was first registered in England.
The change from Sevco Scotland to TRFC Ltd was just a name change.
Happy to be corrected.
Thatbeing said key issue, as referred to by Eddie, has always been how Duff & Phelps ended up giving the shooting match to Sevco Scotland when all publicly available info points to Sevco 5088 being the designated preferred bidder to the exclusion of all other interested parties.
Sevco Scotland may sound the same but it was a totally separate entity from Sevco 5088.
easyJambo says:
January 13, 2015 at 9:14 pm
Is it not just the case that with a TUPE transfer to the Newco, the amount of preferential creditors would be reduced. Had there been a straight liquidation, then more employees would have had a claim for redundancy and holiday pay.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
When you buy the assets of a company do you promise to TUPE the employees?
If so
And
If the numbers in my previous post refer solely to employee costs meaning the Preferred Creditors did not include any secured Creditors
Then
Why would Green give any commitment to D&P under the asset buying option that he would TUPE all the employees?
What is in it for him?
,,,,,,,
Also
Does the Creditor List in any of the BDO reports list the CW floating charge and the Close Leasing charge? Because unless CW accepted his FC was worthless this claim surely has to be legally renounced somewhere by BDO
It can`t just vanish because D&P gave an opinion that it was negated in their opinion
Eco,
having nothing like the archiving and research powers of others on here a cursory search as you suggest interestingly leads back to the days that Green is trying to defend that it is Sevco Scotland who have emerged victorious and not sevco 5088. That is interesting for two reasons. Firstly the confusional fog quickly emerges about the Scottish company registration and the lack of a deed of novation. Confusional fog (my term) is exactly what Green needed if Goosey is correct. Secondly it is all the more interesting as this was almost exactly the same days as John Brown’s pies and deeds moment with the latter probably being the more important of the two.
And finally, just to throw in some fog of my own, it never sat squarely with me either, that DK somehow forgot to claim his 20m from what would become BDO’s cake (enhanced as it was by the unexpected 24m from CB’s insurers) and then suddenly it transpired that he did after all. It just quirks my interest if the two items were not in some way related?
BryceCurdy
I am just putting finishing touches to a long blog that at the came to the same conclusion as you have.
I’m a bit under the weather with a heavy cold so not sure when it will be ready but I think it will make interesting reading for those who stay the course.
Completely fabulous, cordon bleu, artisan, bespoke, handmade, luxury bampottery on TSFM in the last day or so.
One thing about David Murray: he was very smart in his reading of the runes regarding Rangers and its support.
He clearly realised that if he could become the main man there, doors closed to most business people and all football clubs except one (with lots of other people’s money behind them) would open up for him.
And he a rugby man.
Esteban,
Its the continuing courtesy that impresses me. We’ve got Auldheid and no doubt others suffering from heavy seasonal colds as the snow falls (horizontally) outside and Bryce Curdy slipping in that he’s reporting live on his ipad in 31 degrees of sunshine and yet not a comment, not a hint of derision, not the merest squeak of teeth grinding for the spawny get sunning it up somewhere lush! 😀
Rolling up rent for a nascent company for an amount of time or another trigger point might be helpful to that company when it might have high costs or diminished income. However if that nascent company had bags of cash which were sooked out to the benefit of individuals with no long term commitment to the company might mean that come the time or trigger point there is no way to pay the rolled up rent. That might be described as a contingent liability. a trigger point might be if attendances drop below the onerous contract extra payment level. A boycott might cause that to happen.
Radio silence from Radar Jackson on financial Chernobyl. So what is it Radar, Administration, Liquidation or business as unusual?
Wottpi,
You’re probably right ang Green May have said this when the swap from 5088 to Scotland took place.
Eco,
Sorry I don’t have this to hand but will look later when I have a wee but of time.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
January 14, 2015 at 11:51 am
The main thing is why this issue seems to be dragging on.
Either there is a simple explanation and the whole thing could be easily put to bed once and for all by a simple explanatory statement or it is more complex and no one is willing to grab the bull by the horns to sort the matter out, for whatever reason.
Built for the 1970 Commonwealth Games, the council’s proposal for a replacement depends on filling a funding gap of up to £20m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30812059
Well, in that case the obvious thing is for the SFA to move to their spiritual home in Govan, pay off the contingent liability (£5mil?), remove the asbestos (£5mil?), repair the steelwork and roof (£10mil?) and offer The Rangers a peppercorn rent in perpetuity at SFA and tax payer expense. Simples! Who could possibly object?
Looks like we are not alone
BRUSSELS SUMMIT ON FIFA’S FUTURE GATHERING PACE
Campaign for a new FIFA
International fan group representatives, football administrators, politicians and sports politics experts are the latest names to be added to the list of contributors for a summit on world football’s governing body, FIFA, which is being held at the European Parliament in Brussels next week (January 21).
British MP Damian Collins, who has convened the event in conjunction with co-hosts Emma McClarkin and Ivo Belet from the European Parliament, has already confirmed the presence of FIFA Presidential candidate Jerome Champagne, Former FIFA technical inspection chief, Harold Mayne-Nicholls and Lord David Triesman, who was Chairman of England’s 2018 World Cup Bid team.
The international line-up is further strengthened by the latest confirmations from prominent figures in Europe and Australasia.
Joining the politicians is the co-president of the Sports Intergroup at the European Parliament, Marc Tarabella from Belgium who has long held concerns and been outspoken about FIFA’s management.
Two former football executives with England and Australia will also join the group.
David Davies OBE, who was Executive Director of England’s FA will attend, along with Remo Nogarotto of Italy. Davies now works as a consultant to football associations around the world including Africa, Asia, Central American and the Caribbean and was responsible for reforming the structure and governance of the Hong Kong Football Association. Nogarotto is a former Chairman of Soccer Australia (now Football Federation Australia), and director and CEO of clubs in both the A-League and the former national soccer league.
Davies and Nogarotto have first-hand knowledge of the implications to commercial partners of FIFA’s future direction as it prepares for the crucial Presidential election in May.
They will be joined in the corporate debate by Jaimie Fuller, the Chairman of Swiss-based sports wear company SKINS. Fuller has previously been a vocal figure in the campaign for Presidential change in world cycling and in the promotion of a global anti-doping stance for drug-free sport.
Jens Sejer Anderson is a sports politics expert from Denmark and the international Director of ‘Play The Game’, an organisation which promotes democracy, transparency and freedom of expression in sport. Jens is currently co-ordinating Play the Game’s EU project ‘Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations’ with universities across Europe.
A supporters’ view of FIFA’s current status amongst international football fans will be provided by Daniela Wurbs and Dirk Vos from Football Supporters Europe (FSE).
FSE is an independent group that represents fans from 45 countries across the European continent and was launched in 2008 to give supporters a voice on the structure and governance of the game.
Confirming the latest attendees, Damian Collins said: “Since announcing the summit, we have had tremendous support from people around the world who see this summit as an opportunity to speak out on behalf of fans across the world and to finally be heard.
“Supporters want a new FIFA and the list of attendees represents a gathering of people with different skill sets and expertise who all see the game being compromised by FIFA’s mismanagement. They, and millions of others around the world have had enough and they want change at the top.
“Next week’s summit will send a clear message to those voting in FIFA’s Presidential election on May 29th, that they have football’s future credibility in their hands.
“The Brussels summit will make it clear beyond any doubt that the voting members are expected to follow the collective voice of fans across the world and create a New FIFA which truly is ‘for the good of the game’.”
Damian Collins urges everyone wishing to support the campaign for a New FIFA Now to sign the petition at http://www.newfifanow.org. The official website also houses full details of all speakers and contributors who will be in attendance.
I have decided to walk down memory lane and I hope fellow posters will bear with me. It will be a bit heavy-going but perhaps with the passage of time and developments some things might ‘click’. So feel free to join in and see if we can now get any closer to understanding what makes the black heart of this whole charade actually beat.
I’m starting with the minute of the TRFCL Board Meeting held on 31 October 2012 which deals with events since the incorporation of Sevco 5088 Ltd.
I intend to lay-out issues I think are important and will deal with the reasons why I think that in follow-up posts.
Present at the Board Meeting were Murray (NED chair); Green (CEO); Stockbridge by conference call (FD and Company Secy); Ahmad (NED); and Sevin Cesim (Minute Taker).
The purpose of the meeting – among other things – (a) was to approve the minutes for previous Board Meetings.
And (b) to consider and document certain corporate and other steps that are being taken or have been taken since incorporation of the company on 29 May 2012 in relation to the acquisition of the assets and business known as Rangers Football Club pursuant to the terms of an asset purchase agreement dated 14 June 2012 entered into between the Company, Sevco 5088 Ltd, RFC2012 plc and the Administrators of RFC 2012 plc in consideration for the payment by the company of £5.5m in cash (the ‘APA’).
Wrt (a) The minutes of meetings held on 2.07.2012; 7.08.2012; and 31.08.2012 were approved for the Chairman’s signature and the minute dated 18.09.2012 was to be ‘communicated’ by Stockbridge by Stockbridge on his return from annual leave and submitted to the Chair for signature at a forthcoming directors board meeting.
At (5.1) It was noted that Sevco 5088 had entered into a binding offer letter with D&P on 12 May 2012 agreeing to purchase Rangers either by a CVA or failing that through the APA which happened on 14 June 2012.
(5.2) It was noted that prior to the APA completion various investors (Original Placees) signed placing letters for the allotment of ordinary shares in the share capital of Sevco 5088.
The Original Placees had advanced placing monies for the allotment of placing shares in Sevco 5088 conditional upon the completion of the APA by Sevco 5088 as the purchasing entity.
It was noted that a few days prior to the completion of the APA on 14 June 2012 the directors of Sevco 5088 had, following the receipt of tax advice and considering the commercial objectives for the acquisition of Rangers, decided to establish the Company for the purposes of making the acquision of Rangers pursuant to the CVA or APA.
The Company entered into the APA and acquired Rangers (with Sevco 5088 and the Administrators of RFC 2012 plc being parties to the APA in addition to the Company to provide written consent to the change of acquiring entity).
(5.3) It was noted that the Original Placees had given their oral consent to the directors of the Company prior to completion of the APA for the assignment of their placing letters from Sevco 5088 to the Company and the transfer of the placing monies from Sevco 5088 to the Company for the purposes of enabling the Company to acquire the assets and business of Rangers pursuant to the terms of the Offer Letter.
(5.5) It was noted that a meeting of the sole director of the Company had been held on 29 May 2012 (the “29 May Board Meeting”). It was noted that on the same day the Company’s shareholders had passed ordinary and special resolutions as written resolutions.
By way of ordinary resolutions, each existing ordinary share (nominal value £1) was sub-divided into 100 ordinary shares of £0.01 each and the Company’s directors were given the authority to allot shares up to an aggregate nominal amount of £100,000,000 until 29 May 2017.
By way of a special resolution, pre-emption provisions in the articles and company legislation were disapplied to allotments in ordinary shares in the Company’s capital for cash. It was noted that the company had yet to file Form SH02 to Companies House wrt the share capital sub-division.
(5.6) the 29 May Board Meeting envisaged the allotment of ordinary shares to the Original Placees in accordance with their placing letters with the Company.
The original Placees were detailed as:
Margarita Trust (now ATP Investments Ltd); Norne Anstalt; Putney Holdings Ltd; Elias Kaisar; Mr Jean T Haddad; Blue Pitch Holding; Glenmuir Ltd; Ian Hart.
Mcfc says,
January 14 2015. @ 1206pm.
So Meadowbank Stadium may have to close due to a shortfall of £20 million. What a travesty, considering the huge sums which were spent on the Olympic Stadium in London. A stadium which has seen little activity in a sporting sense since the Olympic closing ceremony.
Considering that the sports centre at Meadowbank was used by 500,000 people last year, I think that some of the tax payers money currently being used to ‘ convert’ the said Olympic Stadium for use as a football ground, should be diverted to Meadowbank.
What price the Olympic ‘legacy’ ?
Always educational to read through your posts eco, but might I suggest that whenever you refer to a ‘Murray’, you give a first name or initial? Sometimes I think that half of them changed their surnames just to confuse us further
GoosyGoosy says: January 14, 2015 at 11:04 am
Also
Does the Creditor List in any of the BDO reports list the CW floating charge and the Close Leasing charge? Because unless CW accepted his FC was worthless this claim surely has to be legally renounced somewhere by BDO
It can`t just vanish because D&P gave an opinion that it was negated in their opinion
=============================
From the first D&P Creditors Report:
And from the CVA Proposal
As the CVA wasn’t approved it may be that the Floating Charge was never released. There is no reference to a Floating Charge in any of the BDO Reports
a few days prior to the completion of the APA on 14 June 2012 the directors of Sevco 5088 had, following the receipt of tax advice and considering the commercial objectives for the acquisition of Rangers, decided to establish the Company for the purposes of making the acquision of Rangers pursuant to the CVA or APA
GoosyGoosy says:
January 14, 2015 at 11:04 am
Why would Green give any commitment to D&P under the asset buying option that he would TUPE all the employees? What is in it for him?
=======================================================
I don’t think he necessarily had to give any agreement on Tupe as that is a statutory requirement anyway.
We know he bought the business and assets of Rangers but and my memory fails me here but did we ever see the actual document for the:
That would resolve the issue. Obviously Green was confused in a way over what he bought because he appeared terribly wrong-footed at the time over the implications of Tupe.
It was revealed with I think a genuine, albeit misguided, belief he ‘owned’ the players and that they could walk as allowed in the Tupe legislation if they so decided.
But that I’m sure centred around the football registrations which obviously wouldn’t apply to non-football staff.
Is not walking back the same as walking away ?
Walter Smith at great lengths to distance himself from offerong future service to the people.
Is this the first of his three talaqs to the people, from the man who defines Rangersness and Rangernomics.
Je Suis Walter
Mea culpa – jumped to conclusions there – assumed the £20mil was for the renewal of the SFA’s Hampden lease – without reading it property – naughty step for me – mmaybe TSFM will do the decent thing and delete it.
I guess it’s a mistake only an Englishman could make – so at least it proves I’m not a sleeper from Level5.
With respect to the contingent liability, would it not be possible for RIFC/TRFC/eternal entity to take Craig Whyte/Worthington/Law Financials to court under tortuous interference if they were so certain of their case and thereby eliminate the contingent liability?
Perhaps one of our legal experts can tell me which wrong tree I’m barking up.
Bawsman says:
January 14, 2015 at 11:01 am
Yea that link was helpful as I’d actually forgotten about it.
If you have a look at my post at January 14, 2015 at 12:17 pm you’ll see within the detail of the minutes the explanation given for the switcheroo. Obviously when Paul wrote his piece that detail – whether true or false – wasn’t yet available.
EasyJambo says,
January 14. 2015. @ 12,26 pm.
I may be off beam here regarding your floating charge question, but for what is worth, the only reference I can see in BDO’s November report was at paragraph 6 ‘prescribed part’
Not sure if that helps.