Armageddon? What Armageddon?

By

Auldheid, I don’t think its illegal . It completely marginalises the …

Comment on Armageddon? What Armageddon? by Barcabhoy.

Auldheid,

I don’t think its illegal . It completely marginalises the minority shareholders, but anyone with half a brain knows that being on the outside when a business is controlled by a group or individual that you are not part of , doesn’t make you an investor , it makes you a donor.

Look at those who invested in Murray’s Rangers. Every single “investor” from Enic to King to small individual shareholders got shafted. The guys who gave £1 million for a blazer and a share in the “profits ” from Murray Parks conveyor belt of talent, got shafted as well.

Guess who never got shafted……the guy who controlled the business. The guy who handed out contracts to his own subsidiaries and the sold those subsidiaries at a healthy profit . He never got shafted, but when he valued his own shares and everyone else’s at a total of £1 when he sold to Whyte, it was game over for the other investors right then.

You would think BDO would be more than keen to investigate this , because this guy killed the business. However there hasn’t been a mention of this in any of the BDO interim reports. Isn’t that convenient.

Barcabhoy Also Commented

Armageddon? What Armageddon?
parttimearab says:
June 15, 2014 at 5:22 pm
2 0 Rate This

Barcabhoy says:
June 15, 2014 at 4:25 pm
The reason to do it, is because they don’t have absolute control. They have control , but not enough to guarantee the 75% needed to pass special resolutions, as was shown by the failure of Resolution 10.
—————————————————————-
But can they do it without going over the 29% threshold ?

—————-

How would anyone know, when they don’t know who BP & Margarita are . My suspicion is Rizvi is heavily involved, and they will buy and keep under 29.9 % and have another placeman take up available shares , but under the same anonymous control


Armageddon? What Armageddon?
Regarding the latest story of new shares being issued. The post below is what i posted on New Years day , explaining what I have always believed to be the plan. Nothing that has happened since has changed my view , in fact subsequent actions since January have reinforced it.
The initial investors in my view have been recompensed and are sitting with their investment in real terms having cost them nothing. In gambling terms , they are playing with House Money.

———
Barcabhoy says:
January 1, 2014 at 5:25 pm
0 0 Rate This

ecobhoy says: (2137)
December 31, 2013 at 5:39 pm
24 0 Rate This

Barcabhoy says: (316)
December 31, 2013 at 4:40 pm

@Barca

The thing about a Rights Issue or increase in shareholding that I can’t get my head round is why would those in control do it?

They have absolute control

================================

The reason to do it, is because they don’t have absolute control. They have control , but not enough to guarantee the 75% needed to pass special resolutions, as was shown by the failure of Resolution 10.

The business needs funds, a rights issue is the obvious way to do this. A loan from Laxey might be an option, but i suspect that would only be Plan A if they were thinking Administration, as this would allow Laxey to control the process.

A rights issue would force the institutions to invest or be diluted to the point the board have absolute control, and can pass any special resolutions that suit their purposes.

I have posted many times on here that my view is the key original investors have been recompensed for their investment by way of fees, commissions, salary, bonus , 1p shares and service contracts. They are therefore in control , having effectively invested zero. Investing cash now to get your side to over 75% and provide the business with operating capital, makes sense on a number of levels.

1 It allows media house to create a story that takes dead aim at Murray , McCall & co. Should they fail to take up the rights issue, they are an easy target for ridicule. They will be seen to have failed to walk the walk yet again. In effect you permanently kill them off as a credible alternative. Should the unlikely happen and the requisitioners take up their rights, then you have their money with them having no say or influence on how its spent

2 the business needs cash. If you dont invest, then some sort of insolvency event is a certainty. That brings risk, as was seen with Duff and Phelps

3 investing cash makes it more likely you will get support for the cut in expenses which are desperately needed. Again media house can spin this to good effect , at the same time as maybe now pointing out the reality of how McCoist has literally profited at Rangers expense. He should be #1 in the list of expenses to be cut, he is not as necessary now as he was 18 months ago. He should be worried.


Armageddon? What Armageddon?
Re Easdale

I would be surprised if this was true, but at Rangers anything is possible.

A jailed vat fraudster to be CEO of a plc !!

Just the type of person you want looking after the interests of the small shareholders !!

When you start off the cycle of power and ownership at Ibrox with Murray , who has cost the public purse £Hundreds of millions with his business collapsing, with his regime being found guilty of tax evasion ( a crime in most countries) and of industrial scale deception , then you really can’t have any real expectations of proper corporate governance.

That Murray’s board included a CEO who was investigated by the French authorities for possibly accepting a bribe, a criminally convicted tax evader and an entire board , including Mr Goody two shoes Alastair Johnston , who failed to report the tax evasion and deception , then it’s wise not not expect any standard of ethical behaviour.

The torch of corporate malfeasance was willingly passed to a guy who had been banned from serving as a Director for 7 years , but conveniently forgot to mention it to anyone. His successors included a serial go buster with the largest mouth in Yorkshire, and thats some achievement, and a lightweight who was only in post for long enough to get most of his investment back.

Sidekicks in this period included a Diredtor who’s only obvious benefit was that his mother had her own bank account, an FD who spent more time on videoing a drunken Chairman than he did in putting together a viable and sustainable financial structure , and another Chairman who’s lunatic spending was a significant factor in liquidation in his previous role as a manager.

He also conveniently ensured his personal friend and proven incompetent was installed as manager at a salary twice what Dortmund paid to one of the best managers in Europe. Just when you think the farce will never end, a half decent CEO is recruited. Immediately of course, non events like Chris Graham and the Sons of Struth set about undermining him for the benefit of the criminal tax evader in South Africa.

So to move to a guy , with a terrible reputation and who has spent jail time for Vat fraud and having an unexplainable poly bag full of readies behind the sofa , is really what we should expect. Anyone repectable or credible will get savaged by the PR hit man, and like McColl , Paul Murray and Blin will disappear and leave the field to the criminally convicted and their pals.

Scottish Football could do itself a favour and immediately ban for life anyone found guilty of criminal tax crimes or fraud. Whyte got a life ban handed to him in very short order as Ogilvie attempted to divert attention away from his own and Murray’s role . The lack of responsible oversight from the SFA is frightening , but not surprising


Recent Comments by Barcabhoy

On Grounds for Judicial Review
Fisiani,

Celtic aren’t employing a QC . The fans are. 

Celtic have direct access , as a member of both the SFA and the SPFL. They have already succeeded in a committment from the SPFL to a wide ranging enquiry . We await the terms of reference of that enquiry. However it will not include the potential to set aside the LNS enquiry, according to Rod McKenzie

Hence the need for the fans to ask a court to do so.The basis is LNS was not provided with relevent evidence of use of unlawful or irregular tax schemes . LNS , by his own words , said he proceeded on the basis that these schemes were lawful. He also stated that the SPL had rules to prevent breaches of Sporting Integrity and he found Rangers guilty of that , but not in a manner that provided Sporting Advantage.

Based on what was hidden from LNS plus what has been ruled on by the Supreme Court , that conclusion by LNS looks fundamentally flawed

The SFA have failed completely in their role as protector of the game. I have no doubt whatsever that Celtic want fundamental change there. However at this stage the fans don’t have a specific decision that the SFA have made , in regards to the Sporting Advantage , that was the subject of an independent panel, and therefore open to a JR request 
I agree that the non decisions described above by BRTH should be the subject and included in an SFA commisioned fully independent review . However as yet they have decided a 3 monkeys approach is all we are getting . Lets see if Celtic get enough support from other clubs on this one 


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
1 The SPFL has guaranteed TV revenue for 3 years
2 Many clubs have record season book sales
3 Debt has been removed in most clubs
So ??
Why have SPFL clubs been silent so far , with the exception of Celtic , on the implications of the Supreme Court verdict
The argument is made that many are working hard just to make ends meet.
Fair enough , but when was that ever not the case in Scottish football.

 Are we to believe that there will never be an environment where clubs have an appetite to get Four-square behind the notion of Sporting Integrity ?

 
That can’t possibly be the case , otherwise why bother having a rule book .
Some clubs though are in relative robust financial health, their supporters have dug deep to help finance recent achievements.

 Don’t they deserve the respect , from club directors , of ensuring their club is treated exactly the same way as every club. Not every club bar 1

 
I’m looking particularly at Hearts , Aberdeen, Hibernian and St Johnstone. You have no excuses for silence , certainly not personal ambition for positions at the SFA or SPFL.
Do you really want your legacies to read :

 
I was scared to do the right thing in case we jeopardised some ticket revenue.
So I turned a blind eye to the actions of the authorities and 13 years of rule breaches by a member club “

 

That’s what you want to tell your grandchildren ?

If Clubs can’t speak out when they have guaranteed revenue, record fan support , are debt free and succesful , when CAN they be trusted to put Integrity at the top of their list of priorities…….or even on it .


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
LNS Though did comment on the Tax Case. He explicitly stated that as far as his enquiry was concerned the EBT’s were lawful and as such were not a breach of league rules
That is an important point. If the use of EBT’s in relation to their legality/lawfulness/regularity was a matter of no consequence , then LNS had no need to address them. The fact that he found it necessary  to comment on their legality is telling.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a breach of rules to use tax schemes which are irregular , unlawful , illegal or any of those categories 

Yet there has not been a single enquiry into these tax schemes. Is this because guilt had already been admitted by Rangers ? Is it because it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion that sporting advantage was gained ?


Time to Make Things Happen
Chill Ultra

How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ? 


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for fan behaviour.

1 Minor Incidents can be hugely exagerrated through social media and press coverage.
Take the recent statement by Club 1872 blaming celebrating Celtic fans for Celtic players being attacked, racially abused and having dangerous objects thrown at them. Now even allowing for the fact that the statement was made by the Moron’s moron Craig Houston, it received disproportionate coverage in the msm, virtually none of it ridiculing the shameful nature of the statement.

In the same statement Houston claimed damage to Ibrox stadium in a pathetic attempt to equate half a dozen broken seats with the £80k of wanton vandalism deliberatley carried out by Rangers supporters at Celtic Park
Now anyone with a more than a single brain cell can see through Houston’s lies and bitterness, however his claims were published in the MSM and as far as i’m aware have not been ridiculed by journalists in the papers that published them. They therefore become unchallenged outside of social media, and down the line gain a currency of “fact” amongst those who don’t know better

2  Serious incidents can be downplayed by press coverage

Graham Spiers aside not many in the MSM are prepared to report on the large scale singing and chanting which breaks the law in this country. As another example take the Scottish Cup Final of last season. If you only got your news from the MSM , then you would believe all 11 Rangers players were attacked on the pitch . We know that’s a lie, and at most it appears a single player was the victim of a single attempted assault.
However the media have largely ignored the actions of a large number of Rangers fans who went onto the pitch intent on committing violence. Those who didn’t ignore it, enthusiastically bought in to Jim Traynor’s fabrication of a valiant band who were only intent in defending their players.  

There may be other incidents involving fans of other clubs which could be used to illustrate the points above. The issue though is we can’t allow the MSM to determine what is and isn’t a serious incident. Most journalists , i think, wouldn’t deliberately  mislead, but there are  clearly enough who would based on their track record


About the author