Armageddon? What Armageddon?


Twopanda says: June 10, 2014 at 6:49 pm “World Cup `Bagsies`” ——————————————- Twopanda’s World …

Comment on Armageddon? What Armageddon? by Castofthousands.

twopanda says:
June 10, 2014 at 6:49 pm

“World Cup `Bagsies`”
Twopanda’s World Cup bagsie as sponsored by Campbellsmoney.

Teams currently unselected:

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Castofthousands Also Commented

Armageddon? What Armageddon?
redlichtie says:
June 11, 2014 at 4:26 pm

“Kinda lost touch with the “registered office tennis” match…”
It is an interesting observation nevertheless.

There was a Limeharbour address for Sevco 5088 at one point. The Vine Street address also sounds familiar.

I had got the impression that Field Fisher Waterhouse (Patrick Cannon) were the mechanism by which big hands duped CW. The audio of CW signing various documents has ‘Patrick’ on the other end of the phone confirming he will retain documentation until CW authorises release.

If Sevco 5088 are now registered with FFW it could mean a number of things including:

1. CW has relinquished his claim and has assigned Sevco 5088 to another party.
2. It was always part of the plan that FFW would pick up Sevco 5088.
3. The duping was in some way time barred meaning that given the passage of time CW’s claim falls.

Any further speculation by me would be mere speculation.

Armageddon? What Armageddon?
Paulmac2 says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:21 am

“The question is did CG buy the football club/the business?…if he did TUPE applies and the associated costs..or did he buy assets only?”
I am willing to accept that the Rangers business continued following the events of 2012 based on, if nothing else, their continued existence. The TUPE discussion has been enlisted as a metaphor for the nature of this business continuation and different perspectives have been emoted depending on which facet is being observed. However, speaking from the position of a seat on the Glasgow Underground, I am unashamedly a little confused about how a bankrupt business manages to extricate itself from certain death. It may be a perfectly legitimate and well precedented process but like David Attenborough, I am fascinated by the intricacies of the animal kingdom.

At the point Rangers fell into administration, their biggest creditor, HMRC, wanted their money back and Rangers didn’t have the aye readies.

So the business goes into administration whereby a bunch of guys with no emotional attachment to the business arrive and try to sort out the financial turmoil. Their primary objective is to keep the business going and to this end they attempt to negotiate with creditors a reduction in the amount of debt. Should this process be successful they will have achieved a CVA. The business will thereafter continue albeit in a slimmed down format and with a bunch of suppliers (creditors) that are non too happy how they have been treated but are willing to give it another try.

It turns out that a significant portion of the creditor value (HMRC) are not content to accept their outstanding monies being whittled down to a few pence in the pound. They’d just as soon see the business liquidated (all the assets sold off in a fire sale) as settle for such a derisory amount. So no CVA is achieved. The business has no continuing viability. The components that comprise that business will be disassembled and sold in job lots to whoever can make use of them. The purpose being to obtain as much return as possible for the creditors.

I know HMRC stated that they were happy for the business to continue, I am just fascinated by the mechanism by which this purpose was achieved.

So, prior to the liquidation process, a bunch of ‘assets’ that pretty much represent the bones of the business is sold off. That’s fine. Why go to a fire sale if there is someone who can make good ongoing use of big chunks of the bankrupt business. To use Paulmac2’s analogy, the tractor, barn, slurry tank and pig house can be sold as a job lot to the farmer next door who can make use of all these items congruently. It likely provides a higher price than their piecemeal sale.

Where the fascinating jump comes for me is that after NextDoorFarm Ltd buy these assets, the cousins of the previous owners of BankruptFarm Ltd move into the old farm house and continue trading as if nothing had happened.

Having seen this evolution unfold before our eyes there is nothing shocking in this and my following repetition of the arguments will likely prove laborious but…

The whole point of having a money based economy is so that account can be made. When accounts are not settled in timescales agreed then disputes are ventured upon. When these disputes become insoluble legal recourse is taken for which much precedent likely already exists. The punishment for bankrupting a business beyond the point of rescue is oblivion. Or is it? Well no. It is actually inconvenience to the point of irritation.

At this point the scorpion sting the animal that is conveying it across the stream.

Armageddon? What Armageddon?
easyJambo says:
June 8, 2014 at 1:08 pm

“Assets Realisations (£)
Goodwill 1
The SPL Share 1
The SFA Membership 1
Leashold Interests 1
Player Contracts & Registrations 2,749,990
Stock 1
Subsidiary Companies Share Capital 5
Heritable Properties 1,500,000”

Paulmac2 says:
June 9, 2014 at 10:47 pm

“The business was not sold or bought… the assets were”
The Sale and Purchase agreement documents that appeared last year between RFC(IA)/D&P and Sevco 5088 had a provision for an ‘Asset Purchase’ in the event that a Company Voluntary Agreement was not arrived at. Since indeed a CVA was not approved then it is presumed that this asset sale was executed.

EasyJambo helpfully provides details of what this purported asset sale comprised. There are only 2 items of substantial value.

1. Player Contracts & Registrations 2,749,990
2. Heritable Properties 1,500,000

So what exactly was entailed in this transaction?

We know what constitutes the heritable properties; Murray Park and Ibrox.

Was the ‘business’ purchased? If you purchased a business would you break out on the invoice the cost of the employee contracts?

Recent Comments by Castofthousands

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I was watching some youtube concerning chaos theory a few days ago. Not that I understood it fully but the basic concepts were intelligible to me.

Chaotic behavour might be experienced by bridges for instance during high wind events. The predictable environment for which the structure was designed to sustain might be breached and oscillations set up that ultimately shake the thing to bits.
It seems that any system can sustain a certain level of complexity: Parameters that are exceeded without any catastrophic consequences. However if the ‘complexity’ continues to increase then it is likely that at some point the system will fall into chaos.
I think that is where we might be in the timeline of the farrago. Pressure has been ratcheted up over a number of years and now a major event has introduced a whole new level of complexity.
The SFA currently probably have the least control over events than at any time since 2012. Their tactics will be reactive: They will have no coherent forward strategy: They will not be in possession of an ethical framework that might help guide them to safety.
LNS now looks like part of the cover up. However this malfeasance was hidden in plain sight. Rather than being an instrument to mock football fans and supporters it has now turned into a gravestone that seems only to be lacking an inscription and dates. Football supporters weren’t meant to be able to decipher the legal jargon. In reality if you scratch the surface of the rhetoric of bile there is beneath a cohort of supporters who have a firm grip on the facts. Those supporters help inform their associates and thus attempts to create a false narrative have been foiled.
The situation is finely balanced between order and chaos. Who knows what events might sway this balance.
Perhaps a fans group will take some sort of legal action. Perhaps clubs will start to exact influence. Perhaps a wealthy private individual will take it upon themselves to mount some kind of legal challenge to LNS. These option may not all be feasible but there may be many others not yet considered that are.
Either way it looks like the good ship SFA is taking another voyage through the icebergs.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
AllyjamboJuly 8, 2017 at 10:09

“Until now, we have all looked at the mis-registration aspect only to be a ploy to avoid detection by HMRC, and undoubtedly it was, but I think it has blinded us to the quite simple fact that improper payments, definitely illegal within the confines of football, and possibly criminal within the law of the land, were made.”

Is the general lack of inertia in addressing this matter a symptom of a wider culture of casual payments within the game? We know that historically football has been quite lax in its fiscal controls. Does this history confer a collective guilt that makes clubs reluctant to become animated in current circumstances?

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
 DunderheidJuly 7, 2017 at 21:35
I wonder: can anyone give me a link to the SFA’s rules vis-à-vis the powers of its Board?

Might be amongst this lot. Hopefully the multiple links will stick.
SFA articles of association



Click to access SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf

SFA registration procedures

Click to access SFA_HANDBOOK_201-280_Registration_Procedures.pdf

SFA cup competition rules

Click to access Cup%20competition%20rules.pdf

SFA’s club licensing criteria (December 2013)

Click to access Prt%202%20Sct%208%20-%20Leg,%20Admin,%20Finance,Codes%20(2).pdf

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
DarkbeforedawnJuly 6, 2017 at 10:54

“Rangers were never, at any time, accused of operating an illegal tax evasion scheme and if they had been, this would be a criminal proceedings and not a civil one.”
” However, I cannot think of a single example in history where a club has had trophies stripped for owing a debt?”

The validity of the honours won during the EBT period is not questioned simply because the club had debts. The footballing integrity argument arises from the mis-registration of players.
RFC might argue that they believed the payments they made were legitimate loans and need therefore not appear as part of a players contract on their registration document. To accept such a level of ‘self-certification’ however would render the whole registration process pointless. The so called loans were so obviously part of the players contract that their absence from the registration process could be best explained by a wish to keep them hidden from simple scrutiny.
In effect the registration rules were circumvented to facilitate a commercial risk.
That doesn’t look a lot like sporting integrity to me.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
HirsutePursuitJuly 6, 2017 at 00:35
“Similarly, the commission could accept the idea that the EBT arrangements were legal in all cases.”
I appreciate you are simply stating the commission’s premise but it seems such a fundamental error for LNS’ panel to base their decision significantly on a separate decision that was subject to appeal (FTT BTC ruling). It was such an obviously contentious case that it would seem naive to latch onto it for any kind of justification.

About the author