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.
I am pleased to note that some Bears have actively started the debate on the faint possibility of forming a new ‘Rangers’ on various fan sites.
My personal position wrt to Rangers is that Bears are the only ones who can determine what kind of new club they will support or indeed whether they still want to support the existing version no matter where it takes them.
Still the debate which I have read on Gersnet is interesting with some thoughtful contributions worth reading. It does of course reveal the deep divisions that currently exist within the Rangers support and the difficulties in starting a new club.
But what to me is important is that some are now prepared to come into the open and at least discuss the possibility.
RM remains wedded to the ‘support the board’ PR line and have identified the SFA as the main enemy of Rangers and the survival of an Ashley-funded team in blue playing out of Ibrox presumably with SportsDirect sponsored jerseys.
Their main initiative appears to be a march to Bellahouston Park before a home game to show the SFA they mean business. Appears they can’t even summon the energy to march on Hampden these days.
I have undernoted some comments from Gersnet:
I have to confess to be rather less offended by DJ’s actual “thoughts” (expectation levels and all that) and rather more by the ET editor’s decision to give them a voice.
It is very foolhardy of a major newspaper to knowingly give a platform to that kind of pot-stirring nonsense. Like most of the MSM, they scorn what they term paranoia, and yet here they are supporting it. A very irresposible and dangerous business decision no doubt of benefit to Outram (or whoever owns them these days), but I wonder how it fits in with the bottom line of Greater Glasgow health board?.
ecobhoy
The remarks you post are encouraging, but of course it remains to be seen how representative they are. I fear though thatany such initiative would fail. Not because there aren’t any progressive Rangers fans out there, but because of the hostility they would face from other factions within the support.
Think though of the opportunity to have almost everyone in football rooting for you on what would be a proper journey to establish a club in the best traditions of the game. Perhaps a club that would truly be the envy of the rest of us?
Won’t happen though, and that is a pity.
Sorry, whilst I acknowledge whole heartedly the sense spoken in the gers net extracts I absolutely love,
“It could allow us to have a club to follow, not a business”
But I thought the club…….
Derek Johnstone reckons the SFA are scared Rangers may dominate in the future and asks if that is why Ashley has been denied. No doubt SFA Board Member Peter Lawwell is uppermost in his thoughts. Having said that there was a unanimous vote to reject Ashley which included Campbell Ogilvie.
I have no sympathy whatsoever with newspapers having declining sales if they are willing to allow this ridiculous nonsense to be printed. The SFA Board simply followed their rules. Clearly Johnstone does not have the intelligence to understand that. He is an absolute buffoon of the highest order.
How to spoil a Boxing Day? read the last para in Mark Walker’s piece in the Herald today, where he does a Chick Young and talks about King’s ‘settlement’ with SARS, with no mention that King is a convicted fraudster.
Fair enough, Walker’s piece is about the possible re-opening of a number of big tax cases and how that might mean more trouble for King.
But still, what is it that chokes these journalists and prevents them from using the ‘convicted’ word?
I wonder, have some of the gers bloggers on their site been given the Low/Shennan book ,The McCANN TAKEOVER, “The Inside Account”for their Xmas, all I can hear from there sites is an awful lot of pennies hitting the floor, a lot.
Apologies, I was not referring in any way to the famous penny arcade, anyone thinking I was must have their DJ head on.
Allyjambo I think you hit the nail on the head . .
The pilgrims travelled in search of a Rampant Rangers and along with their fellow travellers in scottish football + the media . . have no interest in the emasculated version they have found at journeys end.
The mention of Jinnah made me realise that since the extinction of the life-force in 2012 , what we have been watching was not a rapid western style burial under 6ft of soil .
Rather its been an eastern style flotilla formed by the SFA SPFL SMSM etc to escort a funeral barge drifting serenely downstream .
The funeral pyre has meanwhile slowly burned itself out , the last flames have now flickered and died. Only a few glowing embers remain.
Now the plug can be pulled and the barge allowed to sink. .
Big Pink says:
December 26, 2014 at 12:37 pm
ecobhoy
The remarks you post are encouraging, but of course it remains to be seen how representative they are. I fear though that any such initiative would fail. Not because there aren’t any progressive Rangers fans out there, but because of the hostility they would face from other factions within the support.
Think though of the opportunity to have almost everyone in football rooting for you on what would be a proper journey to establish a club in the best traditions of the game. Perhaps a club that would truly be the envy of the rest of us? Won’t happen though, and that is a pity.
========================================================
The whole gersnet thread on the subject is worth a read. As to whether it could happen – well who knows?
For me the important thing is that Bears are discussing such a thought which in itself is a bit of a revolution IMO.
But I reckon some of the hatred that has sprung-up within the Rangers support will never actually be healed particularly on the boycott issue no matter whether the current incarnation succeeds or fails. There’s a generational watershed there I reckon.
Still things simply can’t continue much longer and I think the Somers email is critical especially if there are others to follow. Seems to me that the action taken by Rangers on the email proves it is legit although how it came to be made public is another matter.
And as others have commented – why has Ra Meeja got no problem in using this email and info when we had all the powder-puff excuses being used to ignore the CF stuff.
Derek Johnstone says:
“I am shocked. I would like to hear the SFA’s reasoning behind the decision. I can’t believe some of the decisions the governing body are making.”
Says a lot about the SFA’s governance of late that people are shocked and are requesting to hear the rationale behind what is, in essence, an entirely vanilla scenario.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the rules stipulate that dual interests are not permitted. Dispensation was given to assist Sevco Scotland (as it was then known) during a period of extreme uncertainty. Certain caveats were agreed to, most notably that the dual interest should be no greater than 10% of the shares and no influence was exerted over the running of the company which owns the club.
So far, all very sensible. However, those caveats were completely ignored by MASH when they forced the removal of CEO and CFO, and placed their own man in the Chief Exec’s office.
The SFA had no choice but to initiate disciplinary proceedings and, with those proceedings still pending, MASH belatedly apply for permission to formalise the control they have already taken – and Johnstone “would like an explanation” why that permission is denied! Presumably “them’s the rules” is insufficient?
I’ll give him leeway for being shocked at the SFA suddenly applying the rules as I think most of us were, but to imply doing so is somehow underhand and to request the reasons WHY the rules are being applied just highlights how weakly the governing body is viewed.
Re the SMSM printing the Somers email and not the CF stuff, I imagine it’s because the provenance is much clearer with the former.
In my line of work, it’s not unusual for a few admin assistants to have access to senior management’s mailboxes. If one of them decided to show the contents of those mailboxes to the media, it’s not illegal as they have legitimately accessed the information. Probably against the Ts&Cs of their employment contract, but not illegal. Therefore the media can run with it.
As I understand the CF situation, there remains a question mark over who leaked the documents. It is therefore unclear whether that person legitimately had access to the information and, post Leveson, the SMSM have a reasonable excuse not to touch it.
Some of you may remember that I emailed the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service at the end of November as follows :
“Response and Information Unit
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
0844 561 3000
I read yesterday,in that most august organ of the press, the ‘Daily Record’, that the COPFS has published a list of the names of some of the witnesses who are to be called to give evidence in the trial of those persons accused of ‘fraudulent activity’ in the matter of the purchase of Rangers Football Club.
Is it remotely possible that this could be true?
If it is indeed true, and one never knows with the Daily Record’, may I be provided with that list of names, please?
Yours in some perplexity, …’ ”
A flurry of pre-Christmas emails made me miss this reply I received on 23rd from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service to my query:
“Dear Sir,
COPFS does not publish lists of witnesses in advance of a trial.
Yours sincerely ‘
Response and Information Unit
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service”
___________
Short, sweet,and no doubt accurate.
And just another little indication of the deceitful, misleading creatures who write deceitful, misleading crap in the DR.
I’m all for a free press, but the sooner the DR dies, the better for Scottish society as a whole.
John Clark says:
December 26, 2014 at 3:19 pm
I’m all for a free press, but the sooner the DR dies, the better for Scottish society as a whole.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In our house the DR died when Willie Allison gave up a well paid job as Sports Editor to become Press Officer at Ibrox
GoosyGoosy says:
December 26, 2014 at 3:57 pm
‘In our house the DR died when Willie Allison gave up a well paid job as Sports Editor to become Press Officer at Ibrox..’
——-
Was that the same press officer who was known to Sir Alex as being “The principal muck-spreader ..”?
Just fancy that!I wonder is there a current equivalent? :irony:
Good afternoon and festive greetings to all. With regard to the SFA at last following the rules when deciding upon MASH involvement with Scottish football.Two things irritate..1/Why did this meeting take place so publicly before the disciplinary meeting scheduled for early next year. 2/ If ,as some posters suggest, the decision not to accept Ashley is somehow a precursor to
the once and future chappie being shown the red carpet,why was it a unanimous vote when PL was involved.
I am more and more coming round to the idea that Ashley is Blue pitch(kudos to the poster who weeks ago posited thus) and already holds more shares and onerous contracts than you can shake a stick at and Lambias is just a smoke screen.Will Ashley fold? I think he still has a trick or two left
@ModgePKR says:
December 26, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Re the SMSM printing the Somers email and not the CF stuff, I imagine it’s because the provenance is much clearer with the former.
In my line of work, it’s not unusual for a few admin assistants to have access to senior management’s mailboxes. If one of them decided to show the contents of those mailboxes to the media, it’s not illegal as they have legitimately accessed the information. Probably against the Ts&Cs of their employment contract, but not illegal. Therefore the media can run with it.
As I understand the CF situation, there remains a question mark over who leaked the documents. It is therefore unclear whether that person legitimately had access to the information and, post Leveson, the SMSM have a reasonable excuse not to touch it.
========================================================
Personally I don’t have a clue where either set of emails emanated from. However you make an interesting point in that the MSM would require to know the circumstances behind both sets of ‘leaks’ to make the different judgements as to whether they could use the emails or not.
I find it a bit difficult to accept that the emails used by SoS would have passed through layers of different admin assistants or that they would even have had access to them.
I say that simply because they weren’t run of the mill admin emails but concerning an obviously serious and delicate issue being dealt with at Board level.
As to CF I have posted on here many times over whether the material could have been used or not and the crux of what I stated was that it was never necessary to actually use the emails but simply to ask pertinent questions based on info gleaned from them.
That was never ever done and there was absolutely nothing standing in the way of SMSM journos doing their job – they chose not to. Whereas now they have decided to act wrt the SoS released email. That is the issue that interests me much more than the actual provenance of the emails in question.
I don’t know the guy Houston but if he’s told journos his source for the emails, as your theory would imply, then I doub’t if anyone else would give him any emails in future.
Going back to the CF material the green light was given for that to be used earlier this year when a judge at the Royal Courts of Justice ruled that it could be used in next year’s civil case of BDO v Collyer Bristow. Indeed after that ruling CF material was used in various stories.
Still it will all probably come out in the wash at the end of the day 🙄
In 2006 JJB Sports entered into a 10 year deal with Rangers that should have guaranteed the Ibrox club a total return of at least £48m. If JJB could make money from that deal, we can probably assume that Rangers Retail have the potential to turn a profit each year in the order of perhaps £6m – £8m.
If so, I would think (though I do not know for certain) that the amount MASH Holdings have lent TRFC in the past few months, can easily be covered by the dividend that the club will already be due from their holding in Rangers Retail.
One would think (though I have no hard facts on the matter) that the lead up to Christmas and the first few weeks of January would be an important time for any retail company. For a sporting retailer it would be particularly key that football kit sales are not disrupted at a time when mum’s are buying presents for their men-folk and younger kids.
With that in mind. it seems to me that MA will not be too disappointed that the SFA have waited until Christmas Eve before refusing to sanction his proposed increased stake in RIFC. With the Christmas purchases already made, we can expect that the hard decisions can now be implemented.
Remember, even if he wanted to, the numbers don’t seem to work. MA couldn’t have purchased much more than £3m without exceeding the 30% threshold that would have triggered a compulsory offer for the entire company. We know, of course. that the club needs around £8m to get to the end of the season.
The more I think of it, the less conviced I am that MA ever wanted to increase his stake. All he has done, in the short term, is advance TRFC their own money and keep the kit sales going to Christmas.
Over the longer term, perhap liquidation of RIFC (but crucially not TRFC) gives MA the greatest chance of keeping alive the, apparently lucrative, merchandising deal with the club.
A voluntary liquidation of the holding company would not incur any points penalty in the league and give some “real Rangers men” the opportunity to buy the club. Perhaps the club’s landlord will offer a reduced rent for a season or two to allow them to find their feet.
In these circumstances, MA would offer (or force) a buy-out of TRFC’s stake in Rangers Retail. One of the the club’s main income streams would be cut off; but they should still, if budgeting carefully and the fans remain loyal, be able to remain solvent and might even reach the top league.
If I am correct, Derek Lambias is key to getting TRFC (“the Club”) to the point where they are at least a going concern. Huge cost cutting is the order of the day.
Otherwise, the holding company may have to sell the club to some off the radar shyster for £1.
Craig Houston with another exclusive?
ecobhoy says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:04 pm
As to CF I have posted on here many times over whether the material could have been used or not and the crux of what I stated was that it was never necessary to actually use the emails but simply to ask pertinent questions based on info gleaned from them.
That was never ever done and there was absolutely nothing standing in the way of SMSM journos doing their job – they chose not to. Whereas now they have decided to act wrt the SoS released email. That is the issue that interests me much more than the actual provenance of the emails in question.
=================================
I think we have every right to question whether the media only use e-mails (if legally permitted), or glean questions from information made available on the Internet if it suits their agenda. From what I can see the media come down firmly on the side of the Rangers debate where they see what in their eyes are the good guys. Somers is a bad guy in their eyes therefore they have gone for the jugular. It is as clear as night follows day the media see King, Murray etc as the only satisfactory solution, and the only chance of a return to the hubris of the past.
easyJambo says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Craig Houston with another exclusive?
==================================================
Looks to me that Houston has decided to cross the Rubicon. That provides a real challenge for those controlling Rangers in how they manage to stop him.
He obviously has had access to quality information and is claiming to have more with regard to shirt sponsorship.
But the dynamite is the comment as to when Ashely stepped on-board the good ship Dignity. Now that certainly intrigues me.
John Clark says:
December 26, 2014 at 3:19 pm
And just another little indication of the deceitful, misleading creatures who write deceitful, misleading crap in the DR.
===================================================================
@John – you are making me do something which I never ever thought I would do which is defend the DR 😆
Away back in November the DR ran a story naming McCoist as a witness in the upcoming criminal trials and IIRC also naming Murray and Smith as witnesses.
I posted at the time that McCoist aka loose-lips had obviously been unable to hold his water and revealed he had received a letter from Crown Office which allegedly indicated he was going to be a witness.
I said at the time and still believe that what he had received was a letter to arrange for his precognition to determine whether he would be of any use to the Crown as a prosecution witness.
It seemed having received his own letter he phoned his mates to break the news and learnt that they too had had a visit from Royal Mail and I’m sure he didn’t sink any ships by passing that info on to the DR – presumably accidentally. 😉
I would think it’s almost inevitable that the three would at least make the list of possible witnesses although they might not eventually be called. So on this occasion the DR can’t be faulted IMO. Sorry John 🙁
I also said at the time that witness lists weren’t made public and indeed the Crown doesn’t legally need to inform the accused of the prosecution witness list until the indictment is served which IIRC can be done up to 29 days before the trial commences.
HirsutePursuit says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:10 pm
I wouldn’t disagree with anything you have said and recently I too have wondered why Ashley would want to go down the 29% share route rather than just loan enough to keep the lights on.
Of course maybe that’s what he intends to do and will make the grand gesture of giving the SFA an assurance he won’t increase his shareholding. He doesn’t need to in any case as he through other legal entities ‘controls’ Rangers financially to a large extent IMO.
The thing is that ‘control’ might not be regarded as such by a court of law vis-a-vis the SFA Rules.
I suppose it all depends whether he is in for the short or long term in terms of direct involvement although I would be gobsmacked that even if only for the short-term that his various contracts aren’t legally binding on any future purchaser of Rangers at least for a number of years.
ecobhoy says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:04 pm
=============================
In my experience (which is in blue chip financial companies) the PA’s have complete access to the entire mailbox, which includes all sub-folders. Therefore all it takes is one of them to break ranks; there’s no need for layers of people acting in concert. These staff are in a position of trust and they know they’d lose their job (and reference) if any indiscretions are alleged, much less proven.
In addition, the IT administrators can also easily access things – and they can also disguise their actions much easier if they felt the need.
I’ve been involved in a couple of high profile scandals (well, relatively speaking!) and I can’t believe how easy it was for junior staff to see things they shouldn’t.
I’m speculating here, obviously, but with the recent redundancies of long serving staff, some of whom may only be loyal to “the club” and who may see the current board as an enemy within, may have felt it was in the best interests of the club to release this email. I wouldn’t even be surprised if someone senior advised such a hypothetical, disgruntled ex-employee in how best to do so. Revenge and money are powerful motivators at the best of times but when one believes oneself to be in the right, it wouldn’t take much more persuasion for most people to blow the whistle, in my opinion.
Obviously, this is all just my own ponderings as to how this story made the MSM but one thing seems clear – the legal people of the MSM are happy no wrong doing occurred. It’s therefore safe to assume that there was no hacking or anything and they’re comfortable whoever gave them this was authorised to at least see it, albeit not release it.
Re the CF stuff, I completely agree an impartial, motivated journalist would be all over it and would be asking all sorts of awkward questions. It is my opinion they’re using provenance as an excuse not to touch it. After all, one doesn’t always have to publish an agenda in order to influence people. Not giving any publicity at all to that which contradicts one’s agenda can also be effective in manipulating opinion.
ecobhoy says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:32 pm
But the dynamite is the comment as to when Ashely stepped on-board the good ship Dignity.
=========================
Indeed…and the how ought to be interesting too (assuming there is substance to this)…
If one of the offshore “entities” v.interesting … and there’s always ticketus…just the type of tax efficient scheme to attract the high nett worth individual….
All just speculation and guess we’ll just have to wait and see…
parttimearab says:
December 26, 2014 at 6:38 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:32 pm
But the dynamite is the comment as to when Ashley stepped on-board the good ship Dignity.
=========================
Indeed…and the how ought to be interesting too (assuming there is substance to this)…
If one of the offshore “entities” v.interesting … and there’s always ticketus…just the type of tax efficient scheme to attract the high nett worth individual….
All just speculation and guess we’ll just have to wait and see…
=====================================================================
Tbh – I would be very surprised if there was an involvement with any of the offshore shareholders as I simply don’t see Ashley being daft enough to go down that road.
Some Bear sites are mentioning other details but I will wait and see what Houston posts on the matter.
ecobhoy says:
December 26, 2014 at 6:03 pm
‘..@John – you are making me do something which I never ever thought I would do which is defend the DR :lol:’
———
Jackson’s piece in the record on 26th November contains the sentence
” WALTER SMITH and Sir David Murray head a list of star witnesses who have received letters from the Procurator Fiscal ahead of the Rangers fraud case against Craig Whyte, Gary Withey and the Duff and Phelps three.”
That certainly suggested to me that jackson was implying that he had seen a list. Like you, I thought it highly improbable that such a list would ever be made available to anyone, and I agree that various individuals may have told each other that they had received individual letters or what not. And some blabbermouth talked to Jackson ( unless he was just guessing, of course-which any of us might have done!)
Loose journalism! The scourge of the age!
But I thought I’d just get confirmation from the horse’s mouth that the what had come out of the horse’s rear end was, indeed, crap! 🙂
The SoS info released tonight made me check the minutes of the TRFCL Board Meeting dated 31 October 2012.
Ashley is last name on the last list of shares issued – whether that means he was actually the last I simply don’t know but he wasn’t one of the original investors in Sevco 5088 Ltd/TRFCL.
The minute isn’t clear datewise but it doesn’t look as though he was a shareholder in mid-August and might not have been until Sep/Oct 2012.
It’s noted that he has paid £1 million over which may well be payment for his 3 million shareholding. If he was paying 33p a share then he got a good price for some reason – perhaps the Rangers Retail deal?
Also noted that the Rangers Retail joint venture was for 7 years.
Imran Ahmad noted that Tennents and SportsDirect both interested as shirt sponsor for £2 million and that SportDirect also interested in stadium naming rights but no indication of payment by them/to them for that 🙄
Big difference between £2 million and what SoS is claiming tonight – I wonder what will actually be paid when ‘red’ deal terminates?
Another unrelated issue I noticed which I hadn’t before and might explain why Lee McCulloch seemed to get a fair number of appearances.
The TSFM Board minute in October 2012 states he had agreed a 25% reduction in wages for 2012 to be followed by another 50% the following year. Quite hefty.
I think the rules refer to ‘influence’ rather than ‘control’, don’t they?
ecobhoy says: December 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm
———————
From the prospectus
29. Post Balance Sheet Events
RFCL has issued 8,075,000 ordinary shares through a pre-IPO fundraising for a total consideration of
£5,575,000 since 31 August 2012 which has been received by RFCL in cash.
———————–
These shares were taken up by the second group of additional places. According to CF docs the money was received by Rangers on the dates below for the three parties as confirmed in a “return of capital” series of emails involving Deloittes and the RIFC Board on 7/7 May 2013.:
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 £1,500,000
David Gowans 1,000,000 £500,000
Gorbon Limited 1,550,000 £1,050,000
Laxey and Partners 1,000,000 £1,000,000 19/10/2012
Eurovestech 600,000 £600,000 17/10/2012
Alan Mackenzie 500,000 £500,000
Richard Bernstein 400,000 £400,000 18/10/2012
Scott Mackenzie 25,000 £25,000
Total …… 8,075,000 £5,575,000
scottc says:
December 26, 2014 at 8:19 pm
The attached link quotes:
“has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club… ”
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=14110&newsCategoryID=1
Corrections to previous post “additional places” should be “additional placees”, “7/7 May 2013” should be “7/8 May 2013”
If one of the offshore “entities” v.interesting … and there’s always ticketus…just the type of tax efficient scheme to attract the high nett worth individual….
___ ______________________ ______ _
Ahem
Your talking RFC on AIM.
This wouldn’t be an attractive investment to anyone as in no one. Ever.
redetin says:
December 26, 2014 at 8:34 pm
That’s what I thought. They are more interested in who has influence over matters rather than who, on paper, controls matters. That’s why the Livingston (?) guy was getting into bother too. He had alleged ‘influence’ at other clubs
Can I give my views of this constant ‘ need to start a new club’ on here.
Let me tell you that as a supporter of Rangers who saw my first game in 1956 why should I give up on the club founded by Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath.
If that link was to be broken for some new phantom club I tell you now that link would be broken for me.
As long as their is a Rangers playing out of Ibrox that will do for me and thousands more.
Why should a 10 year period of bad management somehow negate my memories of Jim Baxter, Wille Woodburn , George Young, Ian McMillan, Paul Gascoine , Davy Cooper and all.
Rangers will never die, they are very much alive in the hearts and minds of thousands .
The present battle that has to be won is not really on the park (though that is bad enough) is the one off it.
I think it is time you all realised that.
Hope you all have had a Happy Christmas as I have.
ecobhoy says: December 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm
—————————–
The refunds to Eurovestech and Bernstein were made before 8 Jan 2013 according to another CF email chain involving FFW and the RIFC Board.
Laxey’s “refund” was made by a share transfer agreement between Laxey and Charles Green on 19 Oct 2012 and effected on 20 Dec 2013.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/11816637.html
ecobhoy says: December 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm
—————————-
From the linked share purchase dates, it would suggest that Ashley bought his initial 3M shareholding in October 2012.
Bernstein was Cert. No. 29
Eurovestech was Cert No. 30
Laxey was Cert No. 32
Ashley was Cert No. 35
However a JV deal with SD was announced by Rangers on 22 Aug 2012 which puts it within nine weeks of the asset transfer.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/1822-sports-direct-deal-confirmed
I guess that the line of enquiry for Craig Houston, is to find out if the timeline goes back before asset transfer, which could even put it into the Craig Whyte period of influence.
rhapsodyinblue says:
December 26, 2014 at 8:50 pm
‘….As long as their is a Rangers playing out of Ibrox that will do for me and thousands more.’
——–
The point, of course, is that whichever ‘Rangers’ may be playing out of Ibrox is manifestly NOT the RFC that Jim Baxter and the other acknowledged greats played for.
CG’s creation may be supported by many of the thousands who supported a club that legally died. All the nostalgia and sighing for the past , however, cannot make TRFC =RFC as was.The dead club cannot now add to its titles or trophies or honours. That is the perhaps harsh result of the foolishness and cheating of SDM, whom the ‘old’ Rangers fans allow to escape any blame for the death of their club.(Something which I for one cannot understand.He still is the Teflon man, out-brassnecking even CO)
In my opinion.
The new club, if it is bailed out of its present crisis, will develop its own history, quite unconnected with the history of the old.
And with supporters like Rhapsody, the Ibrox faithful are condemned to be bled dry by any unscrupulous opportunist who can steal their pennies, in perpetuity.
Enjoy your New Year, Rhapsody. Masochism brings its own rewards, so I am told.
Without, in fact deliberately and specifically avoiding the obvious legalistics re OC/NC you are obviously talking about the ethereal cloudy thing. The rangers will always be my rangers and all that.
I’m interested that you specifically link Ibrox. Sorry I can’t check back but I think you said ” 11 men in blue playing out of Ibrox” or similar. Does that mean if some sort of incubator type plan manifested itself that required playing elsewhere while the big hoose had the exterminators in to sort out the leeches it would be a non starter? As others have said that could be a helluva expensive treadmill you’re on.
scottc says:
December 26, 2014 at 8:19 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 26, 2014 at 6:15 pm
I think the rules refer to ‘influence’ rather than ‘control’, don’t they?
====================================================================
The SFA Rule 19 complaint applicable to Mike Ashley personally refers to ‘no person’ having ‘any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club’ who basically has an interest in another club.
The problem I see is that the SFA might hold Ashley as having ‘power’ whether that amounts to control or influence or whatever is for them to determine after a hearing. However I’m not so sure a court would go down that road because the rule specifically refers to a ‘person’ and not to a private or public limited company even if that ‘person’ might ultimately control any of these companies.
This could be a long legal battle and then it could go to Europe where there would be a lot more sympathy to the European market’s commercial aspects IMO than protecting the privileged fiefdom of football where there is already an issue between FPP and Competition.
I don’t see this as a cut and dried situation and it really boils down to how hard Ashley wants to fight it. If a Board of a company has made bad commercial deals that isn’t necessarily conclusive evidence that a supplier had enough influence to bring it about.
Obviously a major point is the issue of MASH nominating directors. But I again don’t necessarily see that as conclusive if agreed by the Plc Board and backed by shareholders.
Possibly a bigger problem is the Somers email – but is it. In it he shows he has the power to cancel the SD contract so that hardly points to much influence from Ashley.
As I say I doubt a court would necessarily back-up an SFA tribunal which found against Ashley. However I can’t be certain as I haven’t a clue what evidence the SFA will present.
rhapsodyinblue says:
December 26, 2014 at 8:50 pm
If that link was to be broken for some new phantom club I tell you now that link would be broken for me.
________________________________________________
Really, really sorry to say this rhapsodyinblue but it has been broken.
It’s OK everybody. Stand down. The cavalry have arrived. The SMSM have spotted them galloping over the horizon. The SFA know they’re coming.
Are we now seeing why the SFA made their big decision the other day?
Am I missing something. Despite Phil’s legal advice, which I don’t doubt, that MASH might have a very strong case don’t FIFA and UEFA take very strongly against legal, as well as political, influence in National Governance of the sport? As we found out when RFC(now IL then IA) went to Justice Glennie at the CoS as opposed to CAS to appeal the Judicial Panel punishment of a transfer ban imposed over bringing the game into disrepute.
BREAKING NEWS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30605327?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
@RichwilBBC: Douglas Park has teamed up with George Letham and George Taylor to provide a £6.5m funding offer to Rangers
George Taylor bought 3.2% of shares in RIFC last month, the offer of £6.5million is to purchase all of the 40,739,000 new shares in Jan. They’ll want seats on the board for that too.
wildwood says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:22 pm
==============================
Assume you mean this….
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-takeover-stunner-motor-mogul-4878443?
parttimearab says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:26 pm
wildwood says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:22 pm
==============================
Assume you mean this….
===================
Yep!
First thought is the £6.5m minus the £3m that MA will be due back in April (?) doesn’t really take them forward so assume there must be more to it than this?
Ahh. So sporting integrity proven to be an SFA mirage. Instead we see them jumping in to support the faded tired remnants of Old Rangerdom.
Makes sense now!
iceman63 says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:44 pm
So sporting integrity proven to be an SFA mirage
=================================================
This could get interesting…presumably the SFA ought to have been blind to any alternative offers and dealt with Ashley’s proposals solely on their own merit…
Then again if Ashley’s proposals were the only game in town they would have potentially condemned a member club to admin or worse…
The new offer gives them an out wrt the latter and a potential noose to hang themselves (if they took it into consideration) in the COS wrt the former.
easyJambo says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:24 pm
BREAKING NEWS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30605327?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
@RichwilBBC: Douglas Park has teamed up with George Letham and George Taylor to provide a £6.5m funding offer to Rangers
George Taylor bought 3.2% of shares in RIFC last month, the offer of £6.5million is to purchase all of the 40,739,000 new shares in Jan. They’ll want seats on the board for that too.
===========================================================
Apparently 2 seats on the Board. Now we know why Res 9 was voted down as they could have bought the shares they wanted.
Now only if existing shareholder can they buy although they can apply for any amount if existing shareholder and the split then all depends on who else applies and how may shares they request.
I think Ashley will get annoyed and see this as a blatant attempt to marginalise him. Somers would obviously be out of the door immediately.
They might need to keep the Easdales over the proxy vote they wield.
Cue the sale of TRFC independently of RIFC to the Three Bears, with onerous contracts intact.
FAO rhapsody in blue (and others of the same belief)
The horse has already bolted. There is no legal continuity between the RFC of Struth, Jardine and Baxter and the current Rangers of Green, Ahmad & Ashley. Forget the tortuous arguments for a moment and just contrast those two different sets of names. Do they sound like the belong to the same tradition? The time for action (in terms of saving RFC) has long since passed. Arguing for continuity at this point is a bit like reading for (and failing) a degree in medicine in the hope that it will allow you to cure someone who died over two tears ago.
It is the gullibility of supporters like yourself, whipped into a frenzy by cunning salesmen like the aforementioned Charles Green, that is currently killing any chance of a new club revival. The only reason you believe in continuity is because a greedy man created a fairytale in order to dip your wallet. If the truth had been accepted in 2012 you’d be in much better shape today.
Listen to Donald Findlay, who quite rightly pointed out that, henceforth, any club purporting to be Rangers must build its own history. Nothing is stopping Rangers fans from preserving the spirit of the old club in a new enterprise. However, there can be no 55th league title. Look forward, not back. This is what you must do and the sooner you get on with it the better it will be for everyone in Scottish football – not least yourself.
It really is time to move on. Only when that happens will you be able to free yourself from sort of the parasites presently in control of TRFC. I strongly suspect that you will be given the opportunity to start again very soon.
You should make the most of it. Choose a new path.
the Three Bears are announced.. ha, the panto continues! who’s porridge will Goldilocks eat?
parttimearab says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:31 pm
4 0 Rate This
=============================================
£6.5m is not a great deal in these circmstances.
RIFC/TRFC remains a loss making business with no credit line from a bank.
You are correct to point out that Big Mike is owed £3m.
£2m of that secured against Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park.
iceman63 says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:44 pm
‘…Ahh. So sporting integrity proven to be an SFA mirage.’
———–
As we all, I think, more or less expected it to be.
People without integrity are, after all, people without integrity…..As Macbeth found, the next duplicitous act is easier than the one before..
ecobhoy says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:32
easyJambo says:
December 26, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Craig Houston with another exclusive?
==================================================
Looks to me that Houston has decided to cross the Rubicon. That provides a real challenge for those controlling Rangers in how they manage to stop him.
He obviously has had access to quality information and is claiming to have more with regard to shirt sponsorship.
But the dynamite is the comment as to when Ashely stepped on-board the good ship Dignity. Now that certainly intrigues me.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hi ecobhoy and easyJambo
Perhaps this helps
From Companies House
Charles Green acquires RFC assets in June 2012. Michael Forsey of Sports Direct forms a company called Rangers Retail Ltd in July 2012. He does a deal with Charles Green between July 2012 and Aug 2012
Under this deal
In Aug 2012 Green and Stockbridge are appointed Directors of the SD co called Rangers Retail. On the same date Forsey resigns and is replaced by Barry John Leach of SD
In Dec 2012 Ashley buys 4.3% of RIFC at the IPO (was this part of the RR July deal??)
The Spiv Interpretation
There was no RIFC in existence when Green negotiated the Rangers Retail deal with Ashley. Green therefore had carte blanche to negotiate the deal. Rangers Retail was 100% owned by Ashley prior to the deal. Afterwards, TRFC owned 51% of Rangers Retail but these shares had lower voting rights than SDs 49%which effectively ceded control to the SD Director on the RR Board. The deal also agreed an onerous division of the profit on merchandising sales alleged to be 75p per shirt to TRFC. In the event of a future liquidation event SD had the right to buy out the 51% owned by TRFC
We don’t know if this was a deal involving two or 3 cos
Meaning
Did Green sell the Sevco Scotland, IPO, History and rights to various contracts to an offshore co while he had full control? He could have done and then leased them back to TRFC on a fixed term basis for a nominal fee. If so he will have a separate deal with SD under which he can renegotiate with SD the RR concessions re logos, advertising rights etc. in the event of a TRFC liquidation
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
Ashley’s investment in the IPO was part of the deal whereby Rangers Retail was set up
Ashley has no interest in buying TRFC
But
He has an interest in preventing his 2012 shenanigans becoming public
Or
Put another way
The worse fear Ashley has is Green being arrested it all coming out in court.
For all we know
Ashley may even have been involved with Ticketus
Eoinel Jessi says:
December 26, 2014 at 10:59 pm
‘ Nothing is stopping Rangers fans from preserving the spirit of the old club in a new enterprise..’
——–
Least of all, the unanimous board of the SFA, it now appears.
GoosyGoosy says: December 26, 2014 at 11:07 pm
—————–
Just one point in your previous post that doesn’t stack up. Ashley didn’t buy into the IPO. He already had 3M shares in TRFC, as listed in the prospectus. My guess is that he made his investment in TRFC in late October 2012, but as you pointed out, it was probably linked to the earlier Rangers Retail deal with Green.
What is surprising is that the group want all 40.74m shares.
That takes the total number of shares in issue to 122.22m – giving the consortium 33.33% of the available shares.
Over 30% triggers an automatic offer to all other shareholders at the highest price in the preceding 12 months.
The highest price in the preceding twelve months was 35p on 6th August.
The other 81.48m shares in circulation could therefore cost the consortium an ADDITIONAL £28.52m.
The onerous contracts are still in place. 😯
What am I missing here?
easyJambo says:
December 26, 2014 at 11:23 pm
0 0 Rate This
GoosyGoosy says: December 26, 2014 at 11:07 pm
—————–
Just one point in your previous post that doesn’t stack up. Ashley didn’t buy into the IPO. He already had 3M shares in TRFC, as listed in the prospectus. My guess is that he made his investment in TRFC in late October 2012, but as you pointed out, it was probably linked to the earlier Rangers Retail deal with Green.
.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Fair enough
If Ashley was involved in contributing to Greens £5.5m to buy the Assets in June 2012
Then
Either
He got involved on the basis that Greens intention(with help from D&P) was to double cross Craig Whyte by switching the asset sale from Sevco5088 (Whyte,Green and Eardley) to Sevco Scotland(Green only)
Or
He got involved on the basis that the deal involved a potentially illegal conspiracy between Whyte, D&P and Green to sell liquidated assets back to the original owner at a distressed price
The vast majority of discussion on TSFM appears to concern shenanigans at Ibrox, which, to be fair, is at the top of the agenda in the Scottish sports media.
And barely disguised glee at the predicaments down in Govan, following the AGM on Monday and the meeting with the SFA on Tuesday has dominated the blog this week.
Now, lacking respect for the individuals and alliances who have prospered from the millions which have passed through the ‘books’ of the new entity since Rangers were liquidated, possibly I should join with the merriment.
But no. The SFA will be well involved in ongoing movements at Ibrox.
The people dragging the cash out of the blue supporters and the Gary Ralston types are only a diversion. Our football authorities have up to this point worked tirelessly to keep a Rangers appear important to Scottish football supporters, via a lack of sponsorship, allocating important games such as semi finals and Internationals to the people running the unit at the time, giving tv companies cash to keep a blue Glasgow team on the telly, allowing key Ibrox personnel to make public statements which would bring penalties on other football figures……
Under pressure from here should be the people at the top of the SFA and SFL.
In a mildly curious way, I wonder whether Laxey Partners and the other biggy shareholders will let 40 739 000 shares go to bargain hunters at their expense?
I would have thought they would want to make damn sure that a bunch of small-time parvenus didn’t get too many bites at the carcase.
In fact, I’m damn near certain that there’s no way the 3 Bears will get their hands on anything like the quantity of shares that would see any of them on the Board.
I suspect that, like the master kidder King, they’re kidding themselves if they think they can pull a stunt like that.
Moguls? Check. Millionaires? Check. Personal wealth statements? Check.
That DR ‘exclusive’ is more than mere sycophancy, it reads like a demonstration as to how to get a golf ball through a length of garden hose.
John Clark says:
December 26, 2014 at 11:40 pm
0 0 Rate This
In a mildly curious way, I wonder whether Laxey Partners and the other biggy shareholders will let 40 739 000 shares go to bargain hunters at their expense?
I would have thought they would want to make damn sure that a bunch of small-time parvenus didn’t get too many bites at the carcase.
In fact, I’m damn near certain that there’s no way the 3 Bears will get their hands on anything like the quantity of shares that would see any of them on the Board.
I suspect that, like the master kidder King, they’re kidding themselves if they think they can pull a stunt like that.
=================================================
But if the consortium get all the shares they are looking for the existing shareholders can cash out at 35p.
Not what they paid; but probably the best offer they will get in a very long time.
borussiabeefburg says:
December 26, 2014 at 11:40 pm
‘.But no. The SFA will be well involved in ongoing movements at Ibrox.’
———-
Well, they are led by the best Administrator in the world,possibly still with a few unspent shillings in his pocket from the amount described by an old friend as scarcely enough for a good night out!
@Goosy – Ashley wasn’t part of the original consortium. See my earlier post re the prospectus and additional pre-IPO fundraising.
http://www.tsfm.scot/a-sanity-clause-for-xmas/comment-page-7/#comment-39934
HirsutePursuit,
They’ll table their offer in such a way their maximum ownership will be 29.9%.
They’ll expect at least some existing holders to pony up but, if the worst happens and no one buys any, they’ll only purchase the equivalent of 29.9%.
No one is going to go over 30% until the 12 month high watermark is a lot lower.
If each member of the consortium takes 11.1% of the 33,3% shares on offer, then there’s no way they exceed the 30% threshold.
Surely little bear and mummy bear could underwrite the offer to 29.9% and daddy bear could buy 10% in his own right (as an existing shareholder) and claim he’s never met the other two following the great porridge incident of 2012.
@ModgePKR says:
December 26, 2014 at 11:51 pm
1 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit,
They’ll table their offer in such a way their maximum ownership will be 29.9%.
They’ll expect at least some existing holders to pony up but, if the worst happens and no one buys any, they’ll only purchase the equivalent of 29.9%.
No one is going to go over 30% until the 12 month high watermark is a lot lower.
======================================================================
I expect you’re right.
The offer as reported by the BBC was for all un-issued shares and that tweaks my interest in the story that is being spun.
The narrative seems to be that resolution 9 (disapplication of pre-emption rights) was voted down at the AGM to prevent the consortium’s offer being considered.
It makes no sense. £6.5m repays the MASH loan and might pay January/February wages. Still doesn’t get the club to anywhere near the end of season.
Really puzzling.
And the onerous contracts are still in place. 😯
Immediately deduct £3m from that £6.5m for Big Mike.
Unlike EBTs his loans have to be paid back.
For the onerous spivs the three bears is perfect. Contracts in place, opm to put into place to pay them, probably a resurgence in bear pennies being spent, half season tickets bought, and someone else to face the angry hordes come cost cutting and money running out by , on my reckoning, March 2015.
Heads Ashley wins, tails he wins too I reckon.
I suspect that the dilution will hurt Laxey and some of the IPO investors, who have already taken a fair beating. More division, discord, chaos, factionalising, with no credible long term ( as in get to end of season) plan in place.
It is a wonderful never-ending story.
A big flying dug and some dodgy Eighties pop should send it merrily on its way.
3 Gent’s just got themselves a major problem with no solution.