From the TSFM Manifesto š
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football ā the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?Two things result from this fact:
I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.
II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.
To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.
Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .
In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term ofĀ abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.
Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.
In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;
“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.
For example
“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”
Says who exactly?
Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?
This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.
This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.
However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.
A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, butĀ who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.
Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.
Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main playersĀ in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.
I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will orĀ theĀ courage or the imagination to follow it through.
We are anything but bampots. Rather, weĀ have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.
I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.
I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.
If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.
This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.
This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmenĀ free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.
Whether laws were broken or not, theĀ players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing someĀ back slapping, makingĀ jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.
The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.
@Ryan Gosling
2 points
1 Everyone deserves a fair trial with no one being intimidated
2 Saying you wish someone doesn’t get attacked or intimidated by a mob doesn’t mean you think he is a paragon of virtue – it’s just ordinary decent attitude.
And of course since there is a lot of muck to be uncovered wrt Rangers it is natural to hope that Whyte is not made a convenient scapegoat (whatever his own crimes may or may not have been) and other guilty parties don’t get off scot free.
Just had an amusing thought…
Will we see the ex-SFA CEO, Gordon Smith – who was Director of Football during Whyte’s reign – called up to court to repeat his opinion on the Ibrox mess ;
“I knew nothing about anything.” š
valentinesclown says:
November 29, 2014 at 12:58 pm
========================================
I certainly wouldn’t disagree with what you say. However at the end of the day Bears have to decide on what kind of club they want and I actually believe a more united support could achieve their aim whatever it is.
Personally I think it important to expose what IMO is the fallacy of increasing fan shareholding especially in the current situation at Ibrox. It will provide zero influence in the current set-up.
But I return to the Bears having the right to make their own decisions even if in retrospect they prove to have made a mistake – they are not alone in that š
I just wish I could see some signs of Bears actually discussing whether their objective of buying more shares is just more good money being thrown away. I support money being gathered either to buy shares in a new Rangers or to actually finance such a project.
But to inject it into the current set-up in advance of the agm vote on the disapplication of pre-emption rights wrt shares IMO is sheer lunacy and no matter whether the 75% is achieved or not will remain so given previous history of money squandering.
StevieBC says:
November 29, 2014 at 2:19 pm
___________________________________
š Good old Schultz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q
StevieBC says:
November 29, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Just had an amusing thoughtā¦
Will we see the ex-SFA CEO, Gordon Smith ā who was Director of Football during Whyteās reign ā called up to court to repeat his opinion on the Ibrox mess ;
āI knew nothing about anything.ā š
======================================
The Herald – Saturday 29 May 2010
“Thereās always opportunities. You never know when the phone is going to ring or youāre going to bump into someone who has got a wee plan for you, and we have been very, very fortunate, we really have. Thatās all we can say.”
TSFM says:
November 29, 2014 at 1:18 pm
==============================
A number of good points very well made TSFM. This blog gets up the noses of the mainstream media. Let’s not spoil that side of it by prejudicing any court proceedings. Having said that the behaviour of some of the mainstream media regarding this case has been appalling so far. Desperation for convictions has seen many an innocent person languishing in prison. History proves that to be the case.
Phil’s latest, Oh Dear, things go from bad to worse it seems
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/wise-guy/
scapaflow says:
November 29, 2014 at 3:32 pm
1 0 Rate This
Philās latest, Oh Dear, things go from bad to worse it seems
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/wise-guy/
———–
In spite of the less than glowing repports about the state of the stadium he’ll still release funds for December?
Bit puzzled by the commercial dividend he’ll release and how much that will be. A war chest? Enough to keep the show on the road for six months more or enough to fund a kind of controlled liquidation? Pressing the reset button seems the in phrase.
Danish Pastry says:
November 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Or is it simply the realeasing of monies due in a bloc, at a discount/other benfit to Mr Ashley?
Either way it doesn’t sound like new money to me.
Nope, too deep for me. Don’t understand use of the term dividend – from what to the shareholders of what? Also converting from 6 monthly terms to one-off. Again, what? In, out, shake it all about?
Big Pink says:
November 29, 2014 at 2:33 pm
=======================================================
Old Polish saying – they’ve seen a lot of hard times:
“I saw nothing, I heard nothing, I know nothing, I forget nothing!”
Sounds pretty good in Latin – wonder which august body will adopt it first as their motto:
“Nihil vidi, nihil audivi, nihil scio, nihil sum oblitus!”
Smugas says:
November 29, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Nope, too deep for me. Donāt understand use of the term dividend ā from what to the shareholders of what? Also converting from 6 monthly terms to one-off. Again, what? In, out, shake it all about?
========================================
Phil Mac blog post ‘Wise Guy’
Noted problematic issues of ‘colloquial bangers’ or elevators from the 1980’s which could be expensive to replace.
Also noted their position in the structure and specialist removal of same, which may not be cheap.
Also noted problematic issues of further re-wiring to handle the ‘new’ elevators.
The recent Wifi was very expensive, there is a need for re-wiring.
Smugas says:
November 29, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Nope, too deep for me. Donāt understand use of the term dividend ā from what to the shareholders of what? Also converting from 6 monthly terms to one-off. Again, what? In, out, shake it all about?
—————-
I’d say that this refers to monies dues to TRFC/RIFC/Celestial Entity from Rangers Retail. That was my thought on reading Phil’s article.
My apologies in advance for long post, but after spending some time re-reading the original Share purchase agreement between MHL Wavetower and Liberty 06 May 2011
(I know !) š ā
This part (not being a lawyer) seems odd.
It appears as if the purchaser (CW) or “connected persons” have to, in the case of an insolvency event make sure that “arrangements” are in place that he, they or any or some of them will Control (whether directly or indirectly) such Successor Entity” Last paragraph below”
Question to legal beagles reading, how can a seller (SDM) set a condition like this in a purchase agreement for a future event? or am I just writing mince?
“Subject to Clause 6.6, the Purchaser acknowledges that it is its intention to invest or procure an investment of a further aggregate amount of Ā£20,000,000 (in excess of the amounts required to be invested pursuant to the provisions of Clauses 6.3 and 6.4) between the first anniversary and fifth anniversary of the date of this Agreement in the Company in cash and not in specie by way of either (i) a new subscription for New Ordinary Shares each fully paid up in the capital of the Company or (ii) a capital contribution with no right of recourse to the Company (for the avoidance of doubt not to be in the nature of debt or borrowings). The intention set out in this paragraph shall be fulfilled by subscribing or contributing or procuring the subscription or contribution of Ā£5,000,000 on (or during the calendar year preceding) each of the second, third, fourth and fifth anniversaries of the date of this Agreement unless by the time of any such anniversary the Purchaser has previously subscribed or contributed or procured the subscription or contribution of more than the cumulative total of funds required to be subscribed on that and all previous anniversaries between the first and fifth anniversary (inclusive). Subject to the requirements of the Company’s business and having regards to its cashflow requirements in the reasonable opinion of the directors of the Company, the Purchaser agrees with the Seller and the Company to procure that a minimum of 75 per cent, of the funds invested pursuant to this Clause 6.5 are used in connection with the squad of football players maintained by the Company, including but not limited to the payment of salaries, other benefits, transfer fees and related costs and expenses.
If there is a subsisting Insolvency Event at the date of the relevant anniversary set out in Clause 6.5, the Purchaser shall not be required to invest or procure the investment of funds in the Company as contemplated by Clause 6.5 but the Seller may require that the Purchaser complies with its obligations under Clause 6.5 by investing in another company or person (Successor Entity) by serving written notice on the Purchaser, so that the references to “Company” in Clause 6.5 are read as references to such Successor Entity and so that Clause 6.5 otherwise applies and is enforceable by the Seller and such Successor Entity. The obligation of the Purchaser to invest in such Successor Entity shall apply only if such Successor Entity, at the time when investment is required in accordance with that Clause, is or at that time arrangements are in place such that it will be at some point in the future:
6.6.1 the owner of the whole or substantially the whole of the business and/or assets of the Company as at immediately prior to the Insolvency Event; or
6.6.2 a successor to the footballing activities of the Company; or
6.6.3 a successor to material intellectual property rights of the Company,
provided that Craig Whyte or any Connected Persons (taking all of the interests of any such persons into account) has, or arrangements are in place such that in the future
he, they or any or some of them will Control (whether directly or indirectly) such Successor Entity. The amount which the Successor Entity is by reference to Clause 6.5
required to invest in the Company shall be reduced on a Ā£1.00 for Ā£1.00 basis (to but not below zero) by the amount by which the consideration paid by such Successor Entity
on an arm’s length basis to become the owner or successor as referred to in Clauses 6.6.1 to 6.6.2 exceeds the total amount owed by the Company in respect of the Total
Purchaser Debt at the time of such change of ownership or succession.”
Hard to see what Ashley wants out of this. Is it just a challenge he kind of enjoys? Who wants a stadium that needs such upkeep? You could build a tidy wee stadium from scratch for Ā£20m, well you could over here. Mon the Flesher’s!
Wouldn’t any lend-lease arrangement surely saddle the tenants with responsibility for upkeep? That could be a real drain on the finances even after kiss and make up with those Blue Knight chappies and DK.
Well done Spartans.
Jake Cantona says:
November 29, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Iād say that this refers to monies dues to TRFC/RIFC/Celestial Entity from Rangers Retail. That was my thought on reading Philās article.
____________________________________
After some head scratching that was what I came to think too. If it is, then from Ashley’s point of view it’s money that would inevitably be due to the club and so it’s not costing him anything. At least it might tidy it up, by removing it, from any future balance sheet, if one is required! It does make me wonder, though, if it’s replacing any further loans he might have been considering because he now knows the poor state of any further security he might have been looking to š
Interesting?
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/11/whos-whitehall-civil-servant-spending-hours-each-week-editing-footballers
Danish Pastry says:
November 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm
============================================================
Indeed.
It is puzzling.
I think it is a fluid situation and I think we’re all agreed that MA is no benefactor.
He has a decision to make about whether or not to stick with this one.
LLambias is very clear that he should walk.
Moreover he has told MA that.
TSFM says:
November 29, 2014 at 5:13 pm
Interesting?
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/11/whos-whitehall-civil-servant-spending-hours-each-week-editing-footballers
———————-
Get with the program TSFM! I posted a link to this yesterday afternoon š
Ah, ok that makes more sense. So the cash raised by RR on profits on shirt sales from Christmas would previously have been drip fed in on a monthly basis over the next 6 months instead will now arrive in a lump sum in January.
The problem being of course that these monies are already factored in she calculating the future borrowing requirement of Ā£8m.
MA buys or controls Brands – itās his business
He allegedly wanted and maybe gains the IP – or he doesnāt
Important perhaps to keep things going or, a new start up
In whoevers hands I don`t know – but a pretty penny will be asked by whoever has IP “ownership”
We`ll see
tp
So Phil reveals that RIFC/TRFC are trying to raise immediate cash by bringing forward dividend payments due in the coming year. I assume that these sums are from Rangers Retail and that this will come at a cost – both now to MA and later when such cash will still likely be needed but unfortunately will already have been spent.
Beggars can’t be choosers though and the future will be dealt with if and when it arrives.
Another warning signal to the footballing authorities that options are close to running out. No-one can make a later claim that this has come out of the blue. (Well it has but you know what I mean…)
Wonder if they have thought about approaching a specialist in this market? A company used to helping sporting organisations smooth cashflows. One with (previously) deep pockets. Ticketus anyone? šæ
Scottish Football has a strong Arbroath.
There are times when I sit back and consider everything that’s gone on, and continues to go on, in this saga – and I often find the whole thing incredulous. I almost have to pinch myself to make sure I’ve not been doing a Bobby Ewing.
I downloaded my Kindle version of the Guardian this morning, as usual, expecting to see some comment re the Craig Whyte hoo ha yeaterday. What do I find? Absolutely nothing. Down here in England there is practically zero coverage of what should be a massive story. Why is there no appetite to pick this up and run with it? Alex Thomson has dabbled with it (seems a long time ago), but I could lift any newspaper down here and and find no mention of this story whatsoever.
Talk to anyone down here about the Scottish game, and you hear the same old ill informed guff about “missing Rangers” and everyone feeling so sorry for poor McCoist.
I’m begining to think that there exists a fear that this whole farrago could blow open a massive can of worms across the sport
This seemed like a pretty decent stab at explaining that, Eco.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-accounts-10-key-facts.1417180705
redlichtie says:
November 29, 2014 at 6:34 pm
16 0 Rate This
So Phil reveals that RIFC/TRFC are trying to raise immediate cash by bringing forward dividend payments due in the coming year. I assume that these sums are from Rangers Retail and that this will come at a cost ā both now to MA and later when such cash will still likely be needed but unfortunately will already have been spent.
=====================================================================================
That is my understanding as of now.
Fluid situation, but contrary to the SMSM line I am told that there needs to be action to bring in cash for wages in December.
The SMSM view seems to be that there is money for payroll in December, but not January.
bailemeanach says:
November 29, 2014 at 7:32 pm
=======================
TBH it’s not much of a story “up here” either never mind “down there”ā¦. certainly Aberdeen anyway. It’s a story that the SMSM only report up to a point IMO and only a relatively few internet bampots keep it vaguely honest and in the news. This may well change when the court cases and follow ups start to roll. I look forward to some of the weasel wordsmiths and evasive mouthpieces who have ben taking the p*** for years, being subject to a half decent QC examination.
In the meantime, TSFM, keep the pressure on, hell mend the press, they’re fast becoming irrelevant!
Back in the heady days of Charles Greens launch of Rangers Int. on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange it occurred to me that many Rangers fans were likely to invest. Actually I thought at the time that if one were able to draw a venn diagram that compared investment in the previous incarnation of Rangers via shares or debentures with uptake of the then current offering the intersection would be significant.
As it happened a few brief TV appearances by the big handed Yorkshire man espousing a grand and speedy return to the big time and the handing out of a few cups of tea, was all that was required in persuading Rangers fans to part with something of the order of five million pounds.
The reason that I raise this at this point is that I may have been slightly misunderstood in a previous post.
There is a movement among some Rangers fans groups that seek to gain influence by buying shares in Rangers Int.
My question in regard to how effective this might be is rather obvious.
Who previously owned the shares the fans groups are buying?
Clearly there is no indication that they have the finances to buy out any significant holding whose influence they may object to.
Given the numbers and looking at some of the small scale share trades over the last year or so. The only conclusion that I can come to is that fan groups have over a period of time acquired bit by bit the shares relinquished by fellow fans when the loss of share value was reluctantly considered no longer acceptable.
It is of course impossible to pin these numbers down but groups such as Rangers First would do well to give some thought as to the effectiveness of spending any money raised with the ultimate aim of fan ownership of Rangers, on shares in Rangers Int.
Real fan influence and ownership is only increased when those who are not fans give up their stake.
OK Phil here’s a crossword clue: Banger from the 80’s requires specialist removal (4,7)
redlichtie says:
November 29, 2014 at 6:34 pm
20
0
Rate This
So Phil reveals that RIFC/TRFC are trying to raise immediate cash by bringing forward dividend payments due in the coming year. I assume that these sums are from Rangers Retail and that this will come at a cost ā both now to MA and later when such cash will still likely be needed but unfortunately will already have been spent.
================================================
It’s happening all over again.
The last time it was JJB that up fronted cash for rights.
They got burned.
However, I’m sure Mike will have other assets tied up if this is the path he chooses.
Interesting read here from 2012 on the excellent Swiss Ramble blog about Newcastle United under Ashley. For anyone who’s not yet had their fill of financial analysis for the weekend:
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/newcastle-united-life-in-northern-town.html
Also, Craig Whyte’s new look is part Rik Mayall, part Christopher Walken.
Jake Cantona says:
November 29, 2014 at 8:29 pm
__________________________________
Definitely Rik Mayall. Said this to several folk yesterday š®
Didn’t Red 32 end up paying the money up front as well, contrary to their agreement? I’m sure they reported that at the start of this season. They just never said whether it was this season only or the whole three seasons worth
scottc says:
November 29, 2014 at 8:46 pm
=============================================
32Red: Yes they did-that helped to pay the wages one month.
Use the search function on my site.
ulyanova says:
November 29, 2014 at 8:14 pm
============================================================
I’m rubbish at crosswords.
š
OT
@Jean, hadn’t thought of Rik Mayall. But can see it in the photo linked to below. Now just need to work out which of the others is Eddie Hitler š®
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/10/f6/aa/10f6aa3c1193df35da1c42d7d6ea39bb.jpg
While a dividend from Rangers Retail (RR) would obviously be welcomed by TRFC, I don’t believe that potential contribution to TRFC cash flow can be very significant.
In an earlier post, I attempted to include a table which showed the results for RR for 2014 and 2013 and the 51% share that belongs to TRFC.
RR began operations during the financial year ending 30th June 2013.
The 2013 accounts show that during that period, RR made a profit of Ā£498k for the part year that they traded. The 2014 accounts show that RR made a further profit of Ā£1,157k for that year.
It is interesting to note that the results for the half year to 31st December 2013 show RR made a profit of Ā£1,153k, so for the second half of the 2014 financial year, RR only made a profit of Ā£4k. That is due to the disclosures regarding inventory bought above cost and lease obligations in exiting the Belfast/Glasgow Airport stores.
If we assume that those impairments are a one off, and that RR have had another successful trading period up to Christmas and made a further profit of around Ā£1,100k since June 2014, the total profits of RR since inception are Ā£498k + Ā£1,157k + Ā£1,100k = Ā£2,755k.
TRFC have a 51% share in these profits, so if RR pay out the estimated maximum dividend of Ā£2,755, TRFC get Ā£1,405k and Sports Direct get Ā£1,350k. However, the 2014 accounts show shat a small dividend was paid by RR during the second half of the year, so TRFC have already received a Ā£113k dividend.
The maximum dividend that I can see RR paying out to TRFC in the immediate term is therefore about Ā£1,300k – helpful in getting through to the end of January, but I’m sure it has already been factored into the Ā£8 million requirement to get through the next 12 months.
Danish Pastry says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:06 pm
OT
@Jean, hadnāt thought of Rik Mayall. But can see it in the photo linked to below. Now just need to work out which of the others is Eddie Hitler š®
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/10/f6/aa/10f6aa3c1193df35da1c42d7d6ea39bb.jpg
————–
The bald one from Duff & Phelps. All makes sense now.
ulyanova says:
November 29, 2014 at 8:14 pm
5 0 Rate This
OK Phil hereās a crossword clue: Banger from the 80ās requires specialist removal (4,7)
———
(Can I have a go?)
Dire Straits (Money for Nothing)?
PS Jake š
Remind me how was it the Police came to investigate the initial takeover ? were there some disgruntled boys in blue who follow the blue who took it upon themselves or just doing their job impartially or were there boys who follow the jersey who complained to the boys in blue or a bit of both? Next question. What happens if the accused are found guilty ? solitary confinement and their own exercise yard and plastic surgery and a move to where there are no supporters on release, difficult mind you when there are so many worldwide. š
Rangers were a total basket case before White came in so should White not be suing the knight in the Teflon suit for selling him a pig in a poke.
Can anyone point me to an accurate (i.e uninterpreted by the SMSM) list of the actual charges faced by Mr Whyte? What I read in the Scottish press simply makes no sense to me.
I think you and me neepheid are the only sad buggers not out tonight
It will be interesting to see what happens if Mike bankrolls ‘The Rangers’ to the end of the season and then the SFA turn round and say ‘no you can’t own a controlling interest or undue influence’?
He may be forced to walk away and yet be owed a large sum of cash. Would he then demand immediate repayment and force administration?
He perhaps might only get pence in the pound because RIFC would be the main creditor. He may not have the required debt to block a CVA and force liquidation.
bailemeanach says:
November 29, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Ā£Ā£Ā£Ā£Ā£
Iām begining to think that there exists a fear that this whole farrago could blow open a massive can of worms across the sport
%%&%%%
Imagine a TSFM or an RTC scrutinising English football. Lifting the lid on the stank that is the EPL would be cataclysmic.
SDM was a big fish in a puddle, in England they are used to an uncritical, fawning, travel junket, compliant press.
Naw yer no, but I’m listenin tae Aff the Ba fae lunchtime. On nightshift taxi duty tae pick up ma boy.
Great show wae Stuart & Tam, Tony Roper, infectious laughter!
briggsbhoy says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:18 pm
________________________________________-
Add me to that list. I am a sad old bugger who is never out š
davythelotion says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:27 pm
_______________________________________
That’s what I was thinking Davy – this is corner shop stuff in comparison to EPL dealings
The Charges?
The polis are in the process of charging the driver of the getaway car with masterminding the entire heist .
The entire and combined forces of the Scottish establishment from top to bottom have worked and will continue to work in tandem to ensure the real culprit is never ever brought anywhere near to justice on any of this stuff …because the implications are too much for them to ‘bear’ .
melbournedee says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:07 pm
That’s the point, this is booking income early & at a discount by the sound of things.
The key point, for me at least, assuming Phil’s source correct, is that, this is not new money, its not another loan. We could be seeing the outer limits of Mr Ashley’s beneficence.
The AGM is sure going to be interesting.
This is how it feels:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/29/hereford-united-new-owners-mistrusting-supporters?CMP=twt_gu
woodstein says:
November 29, 2014 at 4:28 pm
“…Share purchase agreement between MHL Wavetower and Liberty 06 May 2011”
———————————
I suspect that is a riveting read. I commend your perseverance.
I think you can form just about any type of contract the contracting parties are willing to agree upon. If the contract were to rob a bank for instance then that contract would not be enforceable for obvious reasons.
Placing constraints on the purchaser does seem a little bit odd since once the transaction is complete it will be difficult to enforce the terms. If I sold you my house but inserted clauses in the contract that insisted you carry our renovations then that indeed would seem curious. However it might be enforceable given sufficient will to do so.
The structure of the document extract has echoes of the Ticketus arrangement with CW in the way that the finance is staged but it would be unwise to speculate on this observation. The extract also reminds me of other similarly structured agreements that have come to our notice from time to time. I don’t think I’ve seen the 2011 SPA before so I don’t think my recollections are from this document.
Its difficult to discuss such speculation at the moment but perhaps there is some relationship between this document and others that have come to light.
PhilMacGiollaBhain
PM
Davy – David Conn is an impressive sports journalist, as per your link. He did a piece on Rangers, shortly after admin (if memory serves) and I was encouraged by that. However he produced nothing further on it, and the Guardian ran very occasional articles, either Press Association C&P jobs, or Ewen Murray toeing the “emerged from admin” line. Though to be fair to Murray, he’s more recently started challenging the myths. I wish Conn would get a grip of this story, he’s not afraid to rattle cages at big clubs (Liverpool & Spurs recently) and like Thomson, carries considerable journalistic clout.
briggsbhoy says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:47 pm
“Remind me how was it the Police came to investigate the initial takeover ?”
————————————
It has been intimated in the press that Alistair Johnson may have alerted the Police to possible skullduggery concerning the 2011 purchase.
=========================
neepheid says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:53 pm
“Can anyone point me to an accurate (i.e uninterpreted by the SMSM) list of the actual charges faced by Mr Whyte? ”
———————————-
Charges against the accused were not openly available to members of the public from the court. The media will have the better access to this information than the public.
From Pauls blog in my memory the last time CW encountered any proceedings.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/sfa-v-craig-whyte-calls-at-glasgow-sheriff-court-this-week-on-conference-call/
And another oldie from BRTH = Prescient? Next Im up in the atic to find my old LPs
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/planes-trains-automobiles-le-carre-whyte-and-russell-grant-by-brogan-rogan-trevino-hogan/#more-2383
scapaflow says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:39 pm
====================================================
You’re correct this is not new money.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
November 30, 2014 at 12:57 am
scapaflow says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:39 pm
====================================================
Youāre correct this is not new money.
————————————–
This give me a retro feel back to when we had an ops guy that we called “Jim Billmore”
Essentially we had “picked” orders before the plane had ever landed and billed them out on the system.
One time the plane didn’t land (crashed over AMS) and we were left with a 20 million dollar hole.
The practice is now banned in all US companies.
Being a Bampot does make one ever more cynical…IMO… š
So, all the indications seemed to be Dec / Jan as being the next ‘probable’ major decision point down Govan way.
There is uncertainty about Ashley’s commitment to the Ibrox outfit.
There is a relatively high chance that an insolvency event will happen soon.
And then there is the recent, very prompt, very efficient repatriation of Sir Craigie Bhoy – with attendant media scrum outside the court. (No sensible side exit for him).
So…is Whyte the latest squirrel?
Again, the media / TRFC will portray Whyte as the source of ALL the Govan club’s problems – but even more personalised this time x1,000.
So the least the SFA / SPFL can do is help TRFC or NEWTRFC any way possible.
And the administrators will do what they can for them – for the good of Scottish football of course.
Whyte’s arrest is well timed / convenient?
Or am I just paranoid?
Who said that…? š
Stevie BC
Looks like that so far.
Like everyone we know need to watch and wait. Fingers aff keyboards as it were to see just exactly what transpires.
I guess.
Meanwhile clock the very last paragraph from this Paul blog
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/legal-framework-the-for-winding-up-of-rangers-footbal-vlu6/
Apparently the poor chap who appeared in the dock immediately before Whyte’s case was denied bail despite only being charged with stealing a kettle.
This has caused some angst amongst those who wanted Whyte remanded in custody given what they see as the gravity of the charges facing the former Rangers owner.
However, if remanded in custody a trial must start within 110 days. Instead, it is now within 12 months.
I note a poster on Kerrydale Street says the trial will not start until 2016 due to the volume of documentary evidence and the complexity of the case. They claim the defence lawyers have 100,000 pages of documents to wade through.
I know that in certain circumstances the high court can grant an extension to the normal 12 month period and the trial could therefore feasibly be delayed until 2016.
But is it possible to be confident in this sort of prediction at this stage in the game?
Will the various defence lawyers be aware yet of the scale of the documentary evidence that the prosecution will present?
Also, will they yet be aware of the full indictment of charges that will be presented at the actual trial?
I wish Paul McConville was still here š
It is just me or does anyone else find John Hughās reply and the leading question by Hugh Keevins totally and utterly bizarreā¦.
From Clyde yesterdayā¦.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Foi0Yfmhw
davythelotion says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Imagine a TSFM or an RTC scrutinising English football. Lifting the lid on the stank that is the EPL would be cataclysmic.
SDM was a big fish in a puddle, in England they are used to an uncritical, fawning, travel junket, compliant press.
—————-
I tell you what though, whatever the faults of the English press (and there are many), no English team that has gone fatally bust has ever been reported as having ’emerged’ from liquidation.
Jake Cantona says
I tell you what though, whatever the faults of the English press (and there are many), no English team that has gone fatally bust has ever been reported as having āemergedā from liquidation.
———————
You need to read about Middlesbroughs 1986 liquidation which they seemed to emerge from
Bill1903 says:
November 30, 2014 at 7:21 am
You need to read about Middlesbroughs 1986 liquidation which they seemed to emerge from
———————————–
I think you are wrong, it was well reported at the time as they had to change the badge and the name. The fans may now see them as the same Club but they are not and it was reported that way.
Bill1903 says:
November 30, 2014 at 7:21 am
You need to read about Middlesbroughs 1986 liquidation which they seemed to emerge from
———————
Yes, I remember that happening, but not much of the detail at this distance.
RayCharlez says:
November 30, 2014 at 2:57 am
Apparently the poor chap who appeared in the dock immediately before Whyteās case was denied bail despite only being charged with stealing a kettle.
==============================================================
CW’s hearing was in private with no press or members of the public present.
I would assume the man who stole the kettle – if he actually exists – appeared in public under summary proceedings and if the fiscal had opposed a defence motion to grant bail then there would be a short discussion in open court as to the pros and cons which the public would have heard.
This is probably a classic example of people forming a judgement built more on pre-existing bias rather than taking an objective view of ALL the facts.
In this day and age bail cannot be refused except on solid grounds. I obviously can make no comment on CW’s case as no one knows whether there was an objection to bail or not and if there’s no objection bail is automatically granted.
I would tend to think there wasn’t because this will be a complex trial – if it proceeds – and I doubt if the Crown Office would want to tie themselves to having to commence the trial within 110 days which is the case if an accused is held in custody without bail.
As to the length of time before a trial commences we are at a very early stage as we don’t actually know as yet who will remain as accused at that time. There are various reasons why an accused can drop-out and this can have a dramatic effect on shortening the length of any trial which starts out with a number of accused.
The Crown can request an extension of the 12-month limit and a hearing will take place to decide this. An accused has the legal right to be tried within ‘a reasonable time’ although it should be remembered that it might also suit the defence to agree to an extension.
It really is impossible to make any informed guess at this stage although worth noting that if a case is reduced from Solemn to Summary procedure the 12-month limit doesn’t apply.
As to the indictment that and the notice citing the accused to appear at court on the date of trial must be served not less than 29 clear days before the trial.
The indictment sets out the charges and provides a list of witnesses and productions for the Crown to use at the trial. Other witnesses and productions can be added as long as the laid-down procedure is complied with.
I would assume that if the defence wasn’t already aware of the extent of the documentary evidence which may be led then they now are courtesy of KDS š
A useful guide to all this which I have previously posted is: http://www.lemac.co.uk/resources/guides/Solemn_procedure.htm
Castofthousands says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:45 pm
neepheid says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:53 pm
āCan anyone point me to an accurate (i.e uninterpreted by the SMSM) list of the actual charges faced by Mr Whyte? ā
āāāāāāāāāāā-
Charges against the accused were not openly available to members of the public from the court. The media will have the better access to this information than the public.
——————————————————–
There are only three ways the detail which was reported in the press could have been released was either by someone with access but not the authority to release them – if that were the case that person would IMO be prosecuted.
However I don’t for one minute think that happened and I am certain the info could only have come from either the prosecution or defence and for a variety of reasons I doubt if any fiscal would have been daft enough to go beyond an anodyne statement such as: ‘a xx year old man has appeared in private on petition and was released on bail. It is alleged he was involved in a fraudulent scheme’.
Fiscals are notorioulsy careful about what they state in case it can be used against them by the defence so they give the absolute minimum.
It’s interesting to note the sparse details published wrt four other accused who appeared previously – basically zilch detail.
So the info could only have come from the defence IMO and there could be a number of reasons for that which I think might be unwise to speculate on. It’s worth noting that it isn’t illegal for the defence to provide these details from a private hearing.
NUFC blog on the euro qualification debate
http://www.nufcblog.com/2014/11/29/uefa-rules-how-rangers-newcastle-can-compete-in-europe/
tailothebank says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:38 pm
The Charges?
The polis are in the process of charging the driver of the getaway car with masterminding the entire heist.
The entire and combined forces of the Scottish establishment from top to bottom have worked and will continue to work in tandem to ensure the real culprit is never ever brought anywhere near to justice on any of this stuff ā¦ because the implications are too much for them to ābearā
=====================================================================
Well me might as well all chuck it and go home then ā
Let’s see what evidence is presented in public at a trial/s and whether that leads to other developments.
I happen to believe that there are plenty of people with integrity in our police and prosecution services who are not Establishment lackeys and would find ways to blow the whistle should there be any substance to your claims.
That’s not to deny that members of the Establishment, in any country, can have links and wealth that makes it difficult to take them down.
But there’s a funny thing about the Establishment in my experience. and that’s when a member steps over a certain line – often invisible to outsiders.
They become beyond the pale and their ‘protection’ melts away. I need look no further than the Mitchell libel case to illustrate the point I make. A real victory for PC Pleb against the serried ranks of the establishment IMO and I’m sure Rr Rowland won’t mind my allusion.
ecobhoy says:
November 30, 2014 at 8:48 am
Bill1903 says:
November 30, 2014 at 7:21 am
You need to read about Middlesbroughs 1986 liquidation which they seemed to emerge from
========================================================
As you appear to be the go-to man on this one could you pls supply the details as to how Middlesborough survived liquidation.
———————
Eco –
I inadvertently set this particular hare running, and while not wishing to start a totally irrelevant OCNC debate about Middlesbrough, this is the best summary that I’ve found, particularly as it puts the use of insolvency by football clubs into a historical context:
http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=14955
Rangers manager Ally McCoist has been given the go-ahead to continue scouting for January despite cost-cutting at the club, which needs an additional Ā£8m in loans or share capital to survive the season. (Herald)
And McCoist may look to Newcastle fringe players on loan, taking advantage of Mike Ashley’s Ibrox influence. (Mail on Sunday)
I’m certain that the word “influence” is used for a reason in the statement above.
Do the SFA get the Mail on Sunday delivered to Hampden or maybe the bunker?
scapaflow says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:39 pm
19 0 Rate This
melbournedee says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:07 pm
Thatās the point, this is booking income early & at a discount by the sound of things.
==================================================================================
…just as at Tesco…every little helps…till the chickens come home to roost…!
ecobhoy says:
November 30, 2014 at 9:56 am
0 0 Rate This
Letās see what evidence is presented in public at a trial/s and whether that leads to other developments.
I happen to believe that there are plenty of people with integrity in our police and prosecution services who are not Establishment lackeys and would find ways to blow the whistle should there be any substance to your claims.
Thatās not to deny that members of the Establishment, in any country, can have links and wealth that makes it difficult to take them down.
=================
Firstly, many thanks Eco for the excellent link regarding the criminal procedures in Scotland. Having spent my working life in England, it is very different from the procedures I am familiar with (and no, I’m not a habitual criminal, before anyone asks!).
On the establishment thing, I do believe that some awful things have been covered up over many years. Many will disagree. But one thing I am pretty sure of. You don’t run a conspiracy by bringing people to trial in open court. That really would be stupid.
What I really fail to understand is why a circus was allowed to develop outside the court last week, not once but twice. Somebody within Police Scotland should be answering for that. An absolute disgrace, in my opinion.