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 14, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Wow, I hope this ends well for hibs fans
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-easter-road-blueprint-challenges-4978145
=======================
Despite my leanings towards another capital side, I hope so too.
However, I fear that STF and the Board are more interested in protecting their financial interests rather than acquiescing to the fans desires for changes.
I’ve managed to get hold of a copy of their accounts and they don’t make great reading. The actual loss last season was £1.2M, and not just the £800K Operating Loss as communicated in the press release. The club’s indebtedness to STF went up by £1.25M over the year (looks like he funded the shortfall), but there is no explanation or comment about this in the accounts.
The deal with BoS and the write down of debts begs more questions than answers, but it seem that STF is not quite as philanthropic as some would have you believe. There is nothing in the accounts to explain the deal.
So my take on what he has done is as follows:
BoS was owed £6.3M and STF £3M
STF has negotiated a deal with BoS to “buy” the debt for around 30% or £1.87M. In effect BoS has written off £4.4M+
STF says he has “loaned” the money to the club which now owes him £9.3M (£3M + £6.3M)
As he’s such a good guy he will do a debt for equity swap for around half the debt of £4.5M.
The club will also end up with a £5M new “mortgage” payable to STF at a competitive rate. (it was only 2% with BoS i.e. base rate plus 1.5%)
The club is certainly in a better place with reduced overall indebtedness, but STF’s claim to have written off the debt is misleading. All he has done, is add what he paid to BoS to the amount he was already owed. He hasn’t actually written off anything himself. Only the Bank has lost out on the deal. Not only that he has issued more shares to himself for his largesse in sorting out the BoS debt and adding to the club’s indebtedness to himself.
The fans can now raise £2.5M to provide the club with working capital in return for 51% of the shares which, collectively, gives them nominal ownership.
There is a serious question whether or not the fans will be able to raise the required £2.5M in whatever timescales are set. If they achieve it then good on them, if not STF retains full control.
Whatever is raised by the fans up to the £2.5M will be spent as working capital, i.e. funding the current deficit instead of STF having to do so, until such times as income and expenditure are balanced. I don’t think that share issues to fund deficits or overspending are a good idea in any event as the money is lost to the business. Get the books balanced first, then do a share issue for a specific purpose, e.g. buying assets or paying off a specific long term debt.
The last Rangers share issue barely kept the lights on for a month before more loans were required. I have also been critical of the HMFC/Bidco/FOH deal for being overly long and expensive for fans. STF appears to be similarly protecting his interests and reducing risks for himself at the expense of the fans.
Sidestepping the switcheroo discussion I’d like to indulge in my own version of revisionism.
To know where you are going you need first know where you are.
I caught a couple of radio news bulletins tonight where BBC Scotland reported that TRFCL had lost an appeal concerning the £250,000 fine levied by LNS concerning the misregistration of players. However the BBC reported that this fine was in connection with RFC(IL) use of EBT’s.
I’d need to reread the LNS decision to get the precise phraseology so if I’m getting this wrong I’d be happy to be corrected. However the £250,000 fine was levied for offences concerning the registration of players. If my memory is correct (which is regularly doubted by myself at least), LNS stated that EBT’s at the time of his inquiry were not illegal and therefore were not considered by him to be material to his judgement.
So why did the BBC substitute the registration offence for a tax offence?
It does seem rather naughty of the BBC since these matters though slightly complex have been freely aired over the last year or so. It wouldn’t have been that difficult to fathom that the fine referred to breeches of the rules on player registration.
I hesitate to propose it since it smacks of paranoia but could BBC Scotland be wilfully playing the Rangers victim card? After all, one might expect Rangers supporters to feel rather irritated to find out that they had been fined £250k in respect of the big tax case which many of them would understand that they had won.
This does not sit easily with the BBC’s aim of accurate reporting, confirmed in the ruling concerning Oldco/Newco references.
Well it can be explained. Only in the words of Douglas Adam’s cosmic computer ‘Deep Thought’, ‘Your not going to like it’.
The demise of RFC(IL) however predictable left a sudden and apparently unbridgeable chasm at the heart of Scottish Football. Now I don’t necessary think that Rangers fans should pay the price of the profligacy of Sir David Mirage but then, how many people might have worked for companies that encountered financial meltdown and ended up losing their job as a result. Leaving reality aside for the moment, losing these fans to the game did present the governing bodies and the media with a problem.
Of course they could have just dealt with it but instead they were happy to go along with the continuity agenda. I personally don’t have a problem with Rangers fans seeing the continuity of their club. If Hearts, Hibs, Dunfermline etc had fallen into liquidation and a new manifestation of their club were to emerge then it would be entirely natural for the supporters and fans to affiliate themselves to this ‘club’. In fact it would be the right thing to do since football allegiance isn’t about business.
So Neil Doncaster’s recent proclamation concerning the clubs continuity is part of this maintenance of the supporter’s morale, though he will be regarding them as customers. The BBC’s momentary lapse of reason in describing the LNS fine as ‘due to tax issues’ similarly exists in the same frame of reference.
There is a parallel universe and perhaps we need to acclimatise ourselves to this. It will be even more manifest if the ‘Auld Firm’ semi-final takes place since there will be ample opportunity to cover over the RFC(IL) sarcophagus with fans emotions as a familiar cultural reference point is rediscovered.
I was reading a treatise on the experience of French soldiers during the First World War. A group of them on leave in Paris did not have the heart to dispel the general populace idea that the war was being fought righteously and gloriously. The truth was not one that could be easily digested.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Castofthousands says:
January 14, 2015 at 9:43 pm
Ah yes – so in this parallel universe the priority was to avoid ‘armageddon’ at all costs( 😉 )
I can think of a few conflicts where truth was the first casualty …. (in all seriousness and with utmost respect to all who suffered).
Jingso.Jimsie says:
January 14, 2015 at 5:10 pm
“Will the liquidators pursue the recipients of those “loans” as outstanding monies due to creditors, or am I barking up the wrong tree?”
——————————–
In the absence so far of a more informed response, perhaps I can chuck in my sketchy understanding.
The EBT’s were funded by Murray Group via a trust. I don’t think it was RFC(IL) that put up the money directly. This trust I believe is legally separate from RFC(IL). Therefore it appears that recipients of EBT’s can’t be pursued by creditors of RFC(IL). The loans themselves weren’t straightforward loans; there has been an education to be had in following these machinations. They were to be repaid from the estate of the recipient’s upon their death. Just to complicate things further, there may have been a kind of endowment policy set up that might have repaid these ‘loans’ but I mention this largely to reveal my own paucity of knowledge and illustrate the inherent complexity.
It may be that if HMRC pursue the Murray Group to the ends of the earth and get a ruling in their favour that other legal avenues will open up however.
Pure speculation on my behalf.
easyJambo says:
January 14, 2015 at 9:29 pm
Yeah, so really, they don’t need to raise £2.5m, its closer to £7m, working capital, plus, budget to fund re-structuring, in this case the debt to STF.
Looking on the bright side, Hibs still control their own revenue streams, so while things are far from sunny, at least they are not being pillaged!
paulsatim says:
January 14, 2015 at 8:41 pm
21
2
Rate This
Hoopy 7 says:
January 14, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Jim Delahunt READ out a tweet from a listener that included the sevco word. Cue terrible abuse on twitter to JD from ra peepul. He eventually had to withdraw from the exchange whe they started threatening his family, etc.
____________________________________________________
Put this in the context of events last week in Paris, and the BBC should ALL be calling them sevco, whoever it upsets.
There is a word for groups that threaten people for merely peaceably saying things that they dislike.
And a way for dealing with such groups.
The police should investigate abuse on line, that would put an end to the intimidation whenever facts are stated.
The club announced they had lost an appeal with a Scottish Football Association (SFA) judicial panel and would take the matter to arbitration, but Press Association Sport understands that their fight did not get past a preliminary hearing.
The defeat could add to the financial problems at Ibrox as the SPFL is prepared to withhold prize money and broadcast income payments to the club, who had previously admitted they were set to run out of money before the end of January.
They now have two options – to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport or to persuade the SPFL to use the SFA’s arbitration procedures to settle the dispute.
Is there a time limit when this fine has to be paid. And what is the club’s time limit for the two options?.
They can only kick the can so far down the road before it hit’s a wall
Castofthousands says:
January 14, 2015 at 9:43 pm
From LNS – why the £250k fine was imposed:
I find it interesting that the Darkside was choc-a-bloc with praise for Doncaster after his continuing club tripe.
Of course they failed to realise – as I pointed out at the time – that if a ‘club’ was a continuing entity entitled to past history then it was liable for past debts.
You simply can’t have it both ways and any Bear with a scrap of intelligence or morality fully understands that. They might not admit it in the presence of their more rabid colleagues but they do know it to be true.
I wish I had a penny for every time I have seen a Bear post that they won LNS and that they were still the same club. Well sometimes you get what you wish for 😆
As to your mention of war weary troops in WWI I don’t know whether the treatise you mention touched on L’Affaire de Nivelle which was at the heart of the disillusionment which caused major French mutinies in 1917.
A despertaley sad period with thousands of poilu who had had enough and were machine-gunned by their own side.
scapaflow says: January 14, 2015 at 10:08 pm
easyJambo says: January 14, 2015 at 9:29 pm
Yeah, so really, they don’t need to raise £2.5m, its closer to £7m, working capital, plus, budget to fund re-structuring, in this case the debt to STF.
Looking on the bright side, Hibs still control their own revenue streams, so while things are far from sunny, at least they are not being pillaged!
============================
I don’t think it is quite as black as that.
They will certainly lose money again this season as revenue will be down in the Championship (although they will get a £500k parachute payment). Their deferred income (ST money) is down around £300K for this season and away fan numbers will be well down.
They actually out sourced their retail operation at the start of last season, but I don’t know any details of the implications for income or costs.
The key thing they need to do is balance their books ASAP, i.e. before the fans money runs out. That probably means promotion this season or next, otherwise they could really be toiling.
With regard to the STF debt, it “should” be capable of being serviced ok, given that they have serviced the BoS debts in the past.
easyJambo says:
January 14, 2015 at 10:41 pm
All true, but, am coming round to the view that football is a business where, you can’t be relying on things that are essentially out of your control, promotion, or qualifying for Europe, for example, to keep you clear of the rocks. I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t borrow to invest either, but, keeping the balance sheet as clean as possible, looks sensible, given that getting bank rate finance is a heck of a lot harder to get than it used to be. Call it FFP, call it living within your means, but, really, like every other business out there, football needs to adapt to the new reality.
With all of the discussion about Sale and Leaseback of Ibrox and Murray Park I thought I would look at the Accounts.
Nothing in the Accounts suggest anything other than that the Company owns the assets, and there is no reference to Leases on the assets.
– 4 Mar 2013 Financial Review: Brian Stockbridge
Accounts for 7 months to Dec 2012
“A revaluation process was undertaken during the period; Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park were revalued at £40m ……….”
in Note 8 Non Current Assets – Property Plant and Equipment
“At 31 Aug 2012 the directors valued the Freehold Properties, comprising Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park training facility on a value in use calculation.”
The audited accounts for the 13 months to 30 June 2013 have the same statement.
In The Finance Director’s Report statement for the 13 months Stockbridge states:
“The business strategy remains for the club to keep Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park free from any kind of security over bank debt . These assets will continue to remain under the full ownership of the club ……………”
If Ibrox and Murray Park have been hived off some directors had better look out and Deloittes will look very foolish. As an aside the Auditors received £90k for the audit and £584k for non audit services so they could afford to be thorough.
Den,
That statement: ““The business strategy remains for the club to keep Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park free from any kind of security over bank debt” should ring a bell.
RIFC have boasted on many occasions that they don’t have any bank debt . . .
because no bank will give them credit.
So when they say that Ibrox and Murray Park WON’T be used as security over bank debt it does not take a huge leap of presumption to believe that Ibrox and Murray Park CAN’T be used for security.
beatipacificiscotia says:
January 14, 2015 at 3:28 pm
I heard recently is may take 10yrs to sort out this mess. There will be winners and losers.
So did
in 2013
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-could-fighting-rid-craig-1925351
ecobhoy says:
January 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm
“From LNS – why the £250k fine was imposed:”
————————————
Thanks for the info.
That wasn’t the book I was referring to. It was Henri Barbusse – Under Fire. You’ve provided me with a further reference point however.
Unusually informative and accurate article in today’s Scotsman about Rangers’ (sic) failed appeal against the LNS fine. Richard Wilson should have a read. It includes references to ‘the oldco club’ and ‘the newco club’ no doubt explaining the anonymous nature of the author.
It also states that the SFA preliminary panel rejected the appeal because it did not accept that Rangers were a recognised body but rather an interpretation of an agreement. Make of that what you will.
Apologies for my inability to link. Still having to post on my iPad in 31C sunshine 😀 .
Informative as the article was, I’m still confused about one matter.
I thought LNS imposed the fine on the old company which then transferred to the new company because it was a footballing debt. The final sentence of the LSE statement refers to the CLUB taking the matter to arbitration. Surely if there was ever a situation where the club/company distinction is crucial then it is a LSE statement.
Or have I got this all wrong?
nickmcguinness says:
January 14, 2015 at 11:59 pm
19 0 Rate This
Den,
That statement: ““The business strategy remains for the club to keep Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park free from any kind of security over bank debt” should ring a bell.
RIFC have boasted on many occasions that they don’t have any bank debt . . .
because no bank will give them credit.
So when they say that Ibrox and Murray Park WON’T be used as security over bank debt it does not take a huge leap of presumption to believe that Ibrox and Murray Park CAN’T be used for security.
…………………………….
External Debt
…We do not have any “external debt”
– was that not the claim (meaning there is internal debt) ?
nickmcguinness says:
January 14, 2015 at 11:59 pm
———————————————–
My focus was on the words, the fact that he used “ownership” rather than some fudge suggests that they had at least a claim on the assets, albeit one that could be contested though because of the Sevco shuffle.
If he claimed ownership and it was proved to be wrong he could point to the contingent Liability to justify himself. If he claimed ownership knowing it was sold on to another owner and they were renting or leasing the assets he puts himself in danger of being charged with false accounting.
I am confident that he was not telling the whole truth but, on balance I believe that he was not outright lying.
I believe that Ibrox and the training facility are in some way encumbered, if they had the deeds they would have shown them, and made a big show of it.
Carfins Finest says:
January 13, 2015 at 7:42 pm
80 3 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…
========================================
Not to be too pedantic but it’s not even the company they’re buying shares in. It’s the company which owns the company which owns the club…
And…. the way things are going it’s not inconceivable that RIFC sell TRFCL or perform some other restructuring at some point and The People are left owning a shell company.
How wonderfully ironic that would be.
Good Morning
I note that the lamb munchers are up to their usual tricks, fawning over SDM.
SDM wants transparency from 3 bears and says club needs funds immediately.
Well SDM how about ponying up and returning the EBT money.
Absolutely shameless self publicist who has squandered hundreds of millions of taxpayers money and is still squirreling away assets for personal gain.
Someone should start a petition to get someone at Government level to investigate this shameless self serving individual and his cronies who provided the money.
On the question of the Titles to Ibrox and MP if they are not available then they are either owned by someone else or are secured to another entity, albeit that the Title or security may not be recorded.
SDM wants transparency; why don’t we start there
Could the recent publicity re murrays companies liquidation, with the bbc putting special emphasis on the ones involved in btc, be a way of putting pressure on HMRC to drop its appeal given you cant get blood out of a stone
100BJD says:
January 14, 2015 at 7:01 pm
I agree that according to Companies House records Green would only have what 4/5 days max from the 4 May 2012 before Whyte and Earley arrived as directors and outvoted him.
But the TRFCL Board Minute of 31 October 2012 stated that just a few days before 14 June 2012 the ‘directors’ of Sevco 5088 had decided to establish Sevco Scotland.
Worth noting the plural use of ‘directors’ and also remembering that Sevco S
————————————————————–
Very interesting…so the decision to change fro Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland which would have been hugely important and pretty complicated in relation to current shareholder placees only merited “a few days before 14 June 2012” instead of the actual date.Sounds odd and vague to me which of course is the aim. Making things even tighter is that the 4th May was a friday and the arrivals of Whyte and Earley as directors was the following wednesday.This deal therefore seeks to rely in the first instance by referencing a vague board meeting minute. That particular minute would be interesting….was the board actually quorate at that point…so could a decision be reached…or is the use of plural directors mentioned evidence of a faked minute which if it mentions directors in attendance who can really prove they were somewhere else…then the whole thing unravels. The devil, as always, will be in the detail.
This ‘Rangers Saga’, which has ebbed and flowed, from good to bad news, to bad then good and all the way round again, for in excess of 3 years, has been, and still is, a newspaperman’s dream. Much better than a war, where things also change daily, but there’s no need for any more than the proverbial tin helmet in our saga, and in excess of half of your (potential) readership welcome the bad news, while a very large proportion hang on to every ‘good’ word.
And yet so much has gone, not only unanswered, but more perplexingly, unasked! These unasked questions have been very obvious questions. Questions that the answers to could well be earth-shattering, enlightening, even humorous, but they just go unasked. Just asking them, and getting no answer, or half an answer, or an obvious lie, could tell us so much about what has, and continues, to go on. It could have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for spivs, bad men if not actual criminals, to get away with their dastardly deeds for so long.
This is the real job of the press. Get the truth out there, ask the questions, even if you can’t get hold of the people to ask them of. Let the world know there’s badness afoot and that something should be done about it. Don’t allow the bad guys, and those in positions to aid or prevent their wrongdoing, to hide, in their fear and incompetence, behind a wall of silence.
It’s not even necessary to do a lot of investigating, just a bit of research or common sense will tell them what questions to ask – in banner headlines if you can’t get a response from the men in question, and still banner headlines if you do.
Hint:
Here’s a simple question to ask of the SPFL that could just be put out as a banner headline if no answer is forthcoming, with a couple of other linked questions:
‘Why has it taken so long to try to force TRFC to pay this fine?’
‘Why have they been given more latitude over this than any other club in history?’
‘Is the club you call Rangers more important, and more deserving of this latitude, than Livington FC, who have recently been given a much shorter, but more fitting, timescale to come up with the money to pay their recent fine?’
These questions, and many more, will forever remain unasked – by the SMSM!
Den says:
January 15, 2015 at 7:57 am
Out of interest, does anyone know what the “training facility” comprises of? There are Rangers youth teams of some description training at Toryglen in Glasgow in the evenings.
I thought this was odd if the club/company had a facility available but it may be due to the sheer number of teams that form part of the setup? Or perhaps it’s cheaper to use Toryglen???
This, I believe, appears in today’s Metro. I don’t know if it’s the same advert as the one Auldheid has referred to. Whatever, it is the best piece to appear in any ‘newspaper’ during the whole of the ‘Rangers saga’!
Well done to whoever commissioned it, and to the Metro for printing it.
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01/14/f6138e25e73d6145637f06714b05a6b0.jpg
Eco,
Wrt my earlier post,sorry I’ve not had time to find a definitive quote from Green but I’ve just picked this up from a post yesterday from Nick McGuinness:
“Incidentally, Green on a couple of occasions mentioned that Sevco Scotland had bought “the history and certain of the assets” of RFC.”.
Alright folks according to my Sunsport twitter feed Rangers have lodged legal papers revealing they could offer up Ibrox and Murray Park as security on another Mike Ashley Loan
There is no such beast as Freehold in Scotland. It is at best poor form to use an a term which is alien to Scots law and therefore is meaningless in context. I suppose it is merely shorthand terminological inexactitude with no underlying impropriety.
Furthermore there is no conflict between an absolute interest in land existing and a lease. If we have a lease of the land at a nominal rent (with spiv uplift provisions) it does not make a great impact on accounts. The properties are given a value in use which is relevant only to the current occupiers of the site. the assumptions behind that value might be hilarious, value in use depends on profitability.
TamBooze82 says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:17 am
5 0 Rate This
Alright folks according to my Sunsport twitter feed Rangers have lodged legal papers revealing they could offer up Ibrox and Murray Park as security on another Mike Ashley Loan
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Another Mike Ashley loan?
Well thats a surprise
Wonder if it just big enough to make him the largest Creditor in the forthcoming Liquidation?
Allyjambo says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:02 am
16 0 Rate This
Looks more like the letters page than an ad but I’m still stunned if that’s been printed.
Can you boycott something that’s given away free?
STV reporting the Loan v £1brox
https://mobile.twitter.com/STVSport/status/555667855187136512/photo/1
BBC wayyyyyyyyy behind
NOWT on their webshite about the MYCASHLEY capture of
£1brox
I wonder if Mike “I don’t do walking away (from my money)” Ashley wants to see the title deeds too…
Joethebookie says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:40 am
Allyjambo says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:02 am
Looks more like the letters page than an ad but I’m still stunned if that’s been printed.
Can you boycott something that’s given away free?
____________________________
I see that now, thanks. Still impressive that it’s given such prominence with the photo of Ibrox, will no doubt be to introduce a huge response from bears and make their letters page a premium spot for ads in the Glasgow/Scotland area. There will probably be counter argument letters printed for months to come!
First, the advert – looks like this could be the first of several……..
Now, Ibrox and Murray Park used as security……….
There’s going to be a lot of very, very unhappy bears.
On a more serious note, it looks like MA sees the contingent liability as not being a problem. Get this deal deal done and he basically controls the sooting match. He can sell his shares to the three bears and sit back saying “feed me”. Can’t think why but The Little Shop of Horrors is on my mind this morning.
Anyhow, I thought that the RRM were going to get their deal done over the weekend and all would be right with the world by now. What happened? Perhaps an award winning jounalist could offer some answers?
I’ve just come across this old note from an SPL Board meeting that adds a bit to the timeline for the £250k fine. (courtesy of Charlotte)
3.6 EBT Commission | Rangers FC
The Board noted Rod McKenzie’s paper circulated in advance of the meeting.
Mr McKenzie reported that given their nature, the SPFL’s claims of £250k and £150k against Rangers OldCo would not be given priority over other claims within the liquidation process and that the SPFL would be treated as an ordinary creditor.
Depending on the outcome of the appeal for the big tax case appeal etc, and monies available within the process, a small dividend could be forthcoming.
Turning to point 8 of his paper, Rod McKenzie sought instruction from the Board about whether it wished to pursue The Rangers Football Club Limited for the £250k financial sanction imposed by the EBT Commission under the terms of the Five Way Agreement. This was a matter for the Board to decide. There was an offset mechanism to facilitate this should the Board decide to pursue.
The background to the Five Way Agreement, including the parties involved and the provisions therein, was rehearsed by Rod McKenzie.
During discussion, the Chief Executive raised concerns about negative PR in pursuing this matter since the organisation was trying to attract a title and other sponsors. The potential legal costs of the matter being referred to CAS were also noted.
Following a further period of discussion, the Board agreed that it had to continue to act in the best interests of the League.
Particular reference was made to the level of the financial sanction imposed by the EBT Commission. The Board agreed that it was reasonable for the organisation, in difficult financial times, to pursue The Rangers Football Club Limited under the terms of the Five Way Agreement.
Rod McKenzie pointed out that there was a question of timing and undertook to write to The Rangers Football Club Limited following completion of the broadcast waiver letters. Other timing considerations may have a bearing on when such a letter may be appropriate. It was agreed that the Chief Executive should decide when the letter should be sent.
Action: Chief Executive and Rod McKenzie | 28-Oct-13
I wonder if Mike’s latest loan to TRFC will be to cover, amongst other things, the cost of whatever it was that sparked the £6.5m frenzy a week ago. Could it be that any loan will be used to ‘clear the way’ to use Ibrox as security with the loan granted to do this secured against the stadium? Ashley will now be in a position to lend the club money until his lending reaches a level he considers Ibrox to be worth. Then what happens? Unless Ashley is prepared to lend more than he values Ibrox at, how would they get additional funding? Who would now buy new shares in a business with all but one (MP) of it’s major assets already being used as security? Will Murray Park be next?
I think we are watching a master class of how unscrupulous businessmen like Ashley work, providing a relatively small loan to a struggling business then gradually lending more, taking security over the assets, until everything the business owns is effectively owned by him, shutting out any prospective saviours. He can then use, or crush, the business as he sees fit!
And Sarver, what was he doing in all this? Well, he’s come and gone, and while all eyes were on him, Ashley has played his ace!
Allyjambo,
According to Richard Wilson at the BBC, both Ibrox And Murray Park are to be offered as security.
A period of 35 days is mentioned, the significance of which escapes me.
Ashley & Ibrox
What a kick in the teeth for the SFA ❗ A clear declaration of who actually has control over Rangers.
And it’s interesting to see that a non-existant legal entity viz: ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’ is given as the ‘Granter’.
Here was me thinking that the owner of Ibrox might have been ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ but obviously not. I wonder when the Rangers Board will get round to incorporating the Newnewco ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’.
I have ceased to be amazed at the cavalier way that ‘club’ and ‘company’ have been repeatedly and effortlessly swapped whenever it suited a particular, usually hidden, agenda.
But to use a non-existant company and claim it can grant a Standard Security over Ibrox and Murray Park. Well, what can I say that the mind boggles.
So who does own Ibrox and MP because this latest move has cast even more doubt on that.
Is Ashley’s move simply to flush out any other claim to security or title over Ibrox, or to put King and the Three Bears on the back foot?
Re- M.A’s securitisation over £1brox
…I’m sure I read on here recently that CWU and MA were coincidentally at some function or other
…is it at all possible that CW would agree to remain in silent mode, count the chips, split the chips and bank the chips???
jimlarkin says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:41 am
STV reporting the Loan v £1brox
jimlarkin says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:45 am
BBC wayyyyyyyyy behind
============================
BBC have caught up and according to them not a loan yet but “advanced loan notice of securities”, oh and for Sports Direct not MASH….Sondico Dome perhaps..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30827483
What do the Brainstrust at Hampden do now ?
Sit back and relax………it’s the 1 o’clock gang ?
Allyjambo says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:20 am
Is Mike Ashley pulling some loose change out of his pocket to buy out the onerous contract?
http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/306606-mike-ashley-posts-intent-to-take-out-security-over-rangers-ibrox-stadium/
As predicted.. Sports Direct Arena!
Allyjambo says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:20 am
Who would now buy new shares in a business with all but one (MP) of it’s major assets already being used as security? Will Murray Park be next?
==============================================================
Murray Park already is ‘next’ and a similar notice has been lodged wrt to it in identical terms to the one for Ibrox except of course for the separate addresses given under the Additional Info box.
Also worth noting that the period the security is to run from is 14/01/15 to 17/02/15 for both properties.
This would seem to assume the loan/s involved will be repaid by 17 February 2015 – three days after Valentine’s Day. Is Mike having a wee laugh in view of the significance of that day in the history of oldco.
But where is the money going to come from to repay the loans? I can’t see there being enough time to raise it on AIM.
jimlarkin says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:32 am
Re- M.A’s securitisation over £1brox
…I’m sure I read on here recently that CWU and MA were coincidentally at some function or other
==========================================================
Is that the charity function in Glasgow several years ago IIRC at which Ashley and Whyte attended along with many other football personalities.
I have never seen any suggestion that the two sat near each other or even talked if it’s that function.
easyJambo says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:29 am
Is Ashley’s move simply to flush out any other claim to security or title over Ibrox, or to put King and the Three Bears on the back foot?
_____________________________
That, I think, is a very good point, EJ. It also blocks the 3 bears or King from making any moves to lend to the club, or even increase their holdings (they’d have to be absolutely bonkers to further invest in a company with all it’s assets, potentially, in hawk to their rival).
Now I think TRFC’s future is down to how Ashley sees it. Is it just a cash cow? Or is it a vanity project? Or is it just a way to secure large tracts of urban land suitable for building large shopping malls on – with a Sports Direct outlet perhaps not included?
I don’t think it’s for the last possibility, and doubt it’s anything to do with vanity, so I’d go for a cash cow that he controls in a way that costs him little, and gains him much!
If SPFL were to write off the £250k and say the now had evidence not supplied as required, the concealment of which rendered LNS meaningless…
Then said they would apply a footballing sanction based on actual evidence would that a) be an alternative open to them?
If done would it b) get the £250k paid instead c) damage the brand (no tittering at the back) they wanted to protect.
Whatever entity is operating out of Ibrox it is becoming radioactive to Scottish football. The SFA do have a few nukes of their own under licencing rules and their Articles.
If a multi millionaire can just walk all over a national association and league then there is no sport.
That is the big picture to anyone stepping back.
I don’t think STV have got it right when it states:
The possibility of a contingent liability of itself doesn’t prevent anyone securing a loan on Ibrox although it would be an issue that would have to be considered.
In any case – and I’m in unfamiliar territory here – surely security can’t be given against a public company’s assets unless the Board of Directors vote to accept that as a condition of a loan.
There is also the issue that afaik there is no legal requirement to notify leases or loan securities to the Land Register although if that isn’t done there could be consequences for the party involved especially if they had provided a loan.
I also wonder whether SportsDirect by making this move actually could rank higher in terms of security than an earlier contingent liability that isn’t registered.
And whose to say that it relates to new money – it could be to secure the existing £3 million already provided in loans.
And I can see that possibly this could be part of the jigsaw that sees Rangers Retail end-up wholly owned by SportsDirect.
Does anyone know whether anyone can issue this kind of notice even if a Board of Directors hasn’t agreed to security being granted for whatever purpose?
As always nothing is straightforward down the Ibrox Way.
BBC is ready to provide a loan Might be sorry we canny give that as security even for 5 weeks unless we get the other fellow squared u…..
Maybe ashley is securing his 3 million previous loan before accepting the 3 bears cash too
I think we have to consider why this notice only covers 1 month from yesterday until the 17th February.
What is the significance of that? Has the Rangers Board accepted a new loan with Ibrox & MP as security? And if they have why only for 1 month.
What comes next after the 17th February?
ecobhoy says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:41 am
Also worth noting that the period the security is to run from is 14/01/15 to 17/02/15 for both properties.
___________________________
In the meantime, who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of all the properties? (TRFC of course). So, either spend lots on sorting the problems, or watch the property deteriorate, which won’t bother a lender who sees no future in owning a football club.
In the course of the next year, Mike Ashley’s share of the onerous contracts is going to suck more money out/prevent a source of income and their next Balance sheet will show a loss making company with no unencumbered assets. It’s difficult, perhaps impossible, to see how such a company can survive without some very rich sugar-daddy coming along. They’ve been in short supply for the past few years.
Pay day perhaps?
ecobhoy: are you thinking that the Board of Directors has not agreed to Ashley being granted this security? And if so, why not?
RE Ashley and Craig Whyte,
Their connection goes back to the founding and funding of the Sevco scam:
http://i.imgur.com/arr02r3.jpg
Whyte and Jim Park did a deal with him that saw Ashley take almost 9% of the Sevco 5088/Scotland shares.
What kind of hard bargain did Ashley drive for that?
And if there is any type of “contingent liability” on the properties, he is in a very good position to find out exactly what it is . . . if he doesn’t already know.
Ashley was in from the start.
The Easdales represent the Blue Pitch/Margarita clan that were in from the start.
The people controlling the Rangers board have a vested interest in preventing any outsiders from having a look “under the bonnet” at what has happened at Ibrox over the last two and a half years.
All the Three Bears, King and others can do is threaten an EGM and hope they get 51% of the shares to vote them off.
If that looks likely, RIFC will go into administration/liquidation with ALL of its assets compromised.
What a mess!
The atmosphere at Ibrox tomorrow night could be quite nasty.
I think John Clark’s emails with Worthington as to the state of play wrt the legal action ‘purchased’ from Whyte could be important because of the current suspension by Worthington shares on AIM.
Is this the best opportunity that will present itself to nullify the contingent liability. Of course this only applies to Whyte’s original claim although that has always been regarded as the most concrete IMO.
My attention has been drawn to a rather significant detail. (Thanks, Pat)
Has no one noticed that the name of the Granter on Ashley’s Advance Notice to the Land Register is “Rangers Football Club Ltd?”
That’s Oldco!
😯
parttimearab says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:32 am
Copies of docs on Sons of Struth Facebook page.
Definitely showing Sports Direct.Com Retail Limited as opposed to MASH.
Big Mike knows how the SFA/SPFL like to be careful with legal definitions regarding who is who!
Keeping MASH out of the picture no doubt gives him options and legal arguments that he is not in control, just a sucker for loaning out to struggling Scottish national treasures.
MA & Ibrox Charge
Wealth doesn’t buy you happiness, but it does buy you choices that make happiness easier to achieve.
In contrast, financial stupidity/recklessness means that your choices are limited – to the extent that you cede them to others who make the big decisions in your life – which may not be to your long-term benefit.
The Rangers are seeing the natural consequences of their actions – what was once unthinkable and abhorrent is now inevitable and to be accepted with/without anger and resentment.
It’s time for The Rangers and The People to become adults and take responsibility for their lives. They’ve demonstrated severe learning difficulties in this regard, but it may not be too late to seek professional counselling and change the habits of a lifetime.
Or put it another way. What is the next “unthinkable and abhorrent” thing that could happen? If you don’t change your behaviour and habits, that WILL happen too. That WILL happen.
The abuse of Delahunt is crazy and it’s got me thinking about how important our use of language is to overall debate. In an ideal world no words should be banned and we’d just exercise our own judgement about the effect certain words might have on another group. Sevco is fine, by the way. Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco. See. Sevco. Faux outrage is embarrassing and I’ll stop just short of Voltaire on this one.
When I see Rangers fans described as ra people, the clan and the darkside I wonder how I’d feel about contributing on this site if I were a Rangers fan. I’d probably avoid it to be honest. To me the use of such language seems counterproductive to the overall aims of TSFM. Words. Complicated, eh?
nickmcguinness says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:15 pm
0 0 Rate This
The atmosphere at Ibrox tomorrow night could be quite nasty.
I agree with that Nick, can see some trouble there. Feelings are running very high and the highest profile game TRFC have ever been involved in is in just over two weeks.
I really hope something happens to prevent that game going ahead.
BBC have updated their article and claim MA has offered a £10m loan – the 3bears had offered £5m and the board didn’t think that was sufficient (can see their point).
Odd though that it’s Sports Direct that can be granted security…if it’s tied in with a short term naming deal would that get round the SFA’s objections to MA influence as it could be dressed up as a commercial venture?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30827483
Eoinel Jessi says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:23 pm
6 1 Rate This
My attention has been drawn to a rather significant detail. (Thanks, Pat)
Has no one noticed that the name of the Granter on Ashley’s Advance Notice to the Land Register is “Rangers Football Club Ltd?”
That’s Oldco!
========================================
Wait a second.
Oldco were a PLC while newco are a Ltd company. Right?
Something’s still not right though. Where’s the “The” in front of “Rangers”
Anyway it just looks like a typo or an oversight of some sort. For a moment I thought oldco really had risen from the dead.
Eoinel Jessi says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:23 pm
My attention has been drawn to a rather significant detail. (Thanks, Pat)
Has no one noticed that the name of the Granter on Ashley’s Advance Notice to the Land Register is “Rangers Football Club Ltd?”
That’s Oldco!.
—————————————————————-
Actually it isn’t 🙂 Oldco was The Rangers Footbasll Club Plc.
I have dealt with the issue of the granter being a non-existant legal entity viz ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’ earlier in the thread if you check back.
So has ashley just made it impossible for the 3 bears loan to be accepted , at least for the next 35 days unless they loan without security?
ecobhoy says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:46 pm
1 0 Rate This
Actually it isn’t 🙂 Oldco was The Rangers Footbasll Club Plc.
I have dealt with the issue of the granter being a non-existant legal entity viz ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’ earlier in the thread if you check back.
========================================
Thanks, Eco.
Blood Pressure has returned to manageable levels.
wottpi says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:27 pm
parttimearab says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:32 am
Copies of docs on Sons of Struth Facebook page.
Definitely showing Sports Direct.Com Retail Limited as opposed to MASH.
Big Mike knows how the SFA/SPFL like to be careful with legal definitions regarding who is who!
Keeping MASH out of the picture no doubt gives him options and legal arguments that he is not in control, just a sucker for loaning out to struggling Scottish national treasures.
=====================================================
IIRC Ashley is the biggest shareholder in SportsDirect and SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd is a subsidiary of SportsDirect again IIRC.
incredibleadamspark says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm
2
2
Rate This
The abuse of Delahunt is crazy and it’s got me thinking about how important our use of language is to overall debate. In an ideal world no words should be banned and we’d just exercise our own judgement about the effect certain words might have on another group. Sevco is fine, by the way. Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco. See. Sevco. Faux outrage is embarrassing and I’ll stop just short of Voltaire on this one.
When I see Rangers fans described as ra people, the clan and the darkside I wonder how I’d feel about contributing on this site if I were a Rangers fan. I’d probably avoid it to be honest. To me the use of such language seems counterproductive to the overall aims of TSFM. Words. Complicated, eh?
_______________________________________________________
You make a fair point.
But I think ‘ra people’ can only ever refer to a subset of fans of the Ibrox club. I think it is and should be acceptable to refer to the undersirable subset in such terms. The word is not offensice, and is used by an element of the Ibrox support to refer to themselves – albeit less pejoratively than hereabouts. Not all Liverpool fans were ‘casuals’, but there is no reason not to refer to the hooligan element of that club in the 1980s in such terms. The same applies here I think.
Nothwithstanding the fact that there are other decent fans of the club and a distinction needs to be made. One way of easily making such a distinction is by use of such terms, instead of elevating the knuckle dragging journalist threatening subset with the honorific of ‘TRFC fans’ or whatever.
‘ra people’ is intended to exclude the moderate decent elements.
ecobhoy says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:46 pm
1
0
Rate This
Eoinel Jessi says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:23 pm
My attention has been drawn to a rather significant detail. (Thanks, Pat)
Has no one noticed that the name of the Granter on Ashley’s Advance Notice to the Land Register is “Rangers Football Club Ltd?”
That’s Oldco!.
—————————————————————-
Actually it isn’t 🙂 Oldco was The Rangers Footbasll Club Plc.
I have dealt with the issue of the granter being a non-existant legal entity viz ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’ earlier in the thread if you check back.
______________________________________________________
Isn’t oldco now ‘Rangers 2012 Ltd’?
(short for Rangers 1872-2012 Ltd, presumably)
ecobhoy – I may be wrong (wouldn’t be the first time) but I don’t think the 35 day period refers to repayment of any loan, but rather grants Ashley (or rather Ashley related organisation) a time period during which they can obtain security against the assets.
As you correctly ask, how could Sevco possibly be in a position to repay the capital? A share issue in such a short time window is surely impossible.
Like I say, I may be reading things wrongly. I am not a business man at the end of the day and I have no doubt the fine minds on here including yours will have us all understanding better very quickly.
ecobhoy says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:51 pm
Yes of course but my point is that the SD operation has no direct links to RIFC such as holding shares or having employees in both operations (remember Leach resigned all his directorships a few days before his Ibrox FD appointment)
Given the SFA stance re his share ownership he is just boxing clever, in legal terms, to stay on the right side of the authorities.
Rules are rules after all.
I truly am losing my memory and forgot the significance of SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd. And it’s very interesting as the notice of security lodged could relate to Rangers Retail Ltd.
I originally posted the following info on TSFM back in July 2013 and it’s self-explanatory:
This could well be another step in the dance of death that Rangers Retail is apparently sleepwalking into.
incredibleadamspark says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm
When I see Rangers fans described as ra people, the clan and the darkside I wonder how I’d feel about contributing on this site if I were a Rangers fan. I’d probably avoid it to be honest. To me the use of such language seems counterproductive to the overall aims of TSFM. Words. Complicated, eh?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I agree
There are too few TRFC fans contributing to this site
But I bet there are thousands reading it.
In among all the posts using the language you refer to, there are unvarnished updates on the very latest situation at Ibrox. You just can`t get that speed,consistency and accuracy anywhere in cyberspace