It’s now seven years since the festering sore on the skin of Scottish Football became fully septic, causing the liquidation of Rangers Football Club. Many of us at that time felt that the environment which had enabled the systematic, industrial scale cheating by that club, having now been exposed as unfit to fulfil its purpose, would be dismantled and replaced by something more accountable, more transparent, more honest.
Many more of us thought that other clubs who were the victims of the cheating that had gone on would be seeking a clear-out and a rewrite of the rule book, if for no other purpose than to ensure that a repeat was not possible.
We were all mistaken.
Let’s be honest about this. Football, whether it is played in Scotland or Argentina, at the Maracana Stadium or at Fleshers Haugh, is a rules-based endeavour. The rules of the game – both on the field and in its administration – are there to ensure as level a playing field as possible, to ensure that the constraints put on one club are the same for the rest.
Referees are in place to ensure the rules are complied with on the pitch, albeit with varying degrees of success. No matter what you might think of the guys in black, their craft is carried out in full public gaze, and consequently they are accountable to public opinion.
Off the field though, things are rather more opaque. Without the revelations of Charlotte Fakes for instance, we would never have known that a club had applied for a licence with false information, to a committee partly comprised of two folk who were employees of that club, and by extension part of the deception. Nor would we have known that the Chief Executive of the SFA had written to the club in question looking for approval on how the controversy surrounding the issue of the licence could be managed in the media.
The detail of the crimes of the people in charge of our game are the domain of those who have relentlessly pursued the truth of these matters. The devil is always in the detail, and the real devil is concealed in the fact that many of us are forced to switch off when confronted by the daunting prospect of having to follow that multi-threaded narrative.
In that regard, we owe much to the likes of Auldheid and EasyJambo (and many others) who unravel those threads for us and present the facts in a way most of us can follow. By doing so, they have allowed us to keep our eye on the ball.
Despairingly though, the upshot is that no matter what the facts tell us, Scottish football, at boardroom level, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, has no interest in seeking justice, or more importantly, clearing house.
The sins of the past will be the sins of the future, because the authorities have learned no lessons in the wake of Rangers’ liquidation, and in fact have now enshrined Doublespeak as the official language of the game.
No sporting advantage is a curious phrase used to describe sporting advantage
Imperfectly registered in lieu of not registered
Same for Different
I could go on, but the sins of one club, whilst fundamentally undermining the integrity of the sport in this country, are not the real problem. The authorities who set out to distort, bend, break, and tear up the rule-book are.
So too are the clubs who have refused to back their fans’ demand for proper oversight of the game, who have stood back and said nothing (except: “nothing to do with us guv!”) whilst their Patsies at Hampden do their dirty work, refusing to engage with or explain themselves to fans. These are the real culprits, they who have betrayed the trust of their own supporters. And if we are looking for a reason, look no further than their bank balances.
The recent scandal where the SPFL shared the outcome of its Unacceptable Behaviour report with the Scottish Government on the basis that it would not be made public shines a harsh spotlight on this.
The football authorities currently receive public funds from government, but in a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, they are accountable to no-one but themselves – and that’s how they want to keep it.
Publication of the SPFL report would put them at risk of having the accountability that they fear thrust on them. No-one in football wants the sectarian blight on our game to be cast under the glare of public focus. Especially if it becomes apparent that the game itself is the medium in which sectarianism thrives best.
And they know that it does exactly that. The trouble is that the societal divisions caused by sectarianism is a money maker. The old adage sectarianism sells has never been truer. The divide and rule model of empire applied to football. It is good box office.
But making football accountable could force measures to be put in place to cut out sectarian behaviour – and the clubs do not want that. It’s not the fear of being held responsible for their own fans’ behaviour under Strict Liability that worries the CFOs of our clubs – it’s the fear of losing the hatred which sees the money – bad money if you will – roll in.
Why did the cover up take place? Because losing Rangers was just not acceptable to football. Removing one of the vital protagonists in a money making cartel that thrives on hatred was a greater fear than any altruistic notion of sporting integrity (also now Doublespeak for “lack of integrity”).
Who could have foreseen that amidst the chaos surrounding Rangers demise, that they were only a symptom of the greed and couldn’t care less attitude of the money-men in football, and that our eyes would eventually be opened to the possibility that the football industry in Scotland is itself the enemy of public harmony?
Ironic perhaps, that the beautiful game, born out of the sense of community felt by the founding fathers of all our clubs, would emerge as a major malign influence in those communities.
There is no doubt that football is not prepared to cede any of its sovereignty to its customer base. They will go on – as long as we continue to bankroll them – in exactly the same way, like their bedfellows in the media a self-regulating industry with little or no regard for the public.
I am a supporter of Strict Liability, and we have already had discussions on the pros and cons of such an intervention. It is also clear that there is no SFM consensus on that. I want to leave that aside for the moment, because we do have a consensus surrounding our desire to see greater accountability in the game, and it is clear that fans’ voices, however temperately and eloquently articulated, are falling on deaf ears at Hampden.
The women’s game at the World Cup has recently provided us a window into the past, of the origins of the sport in Scotland. That which is a celebration of each others endeavour, skill, excellence and culture. The spirit of our game nowadays is a million miles away from that, because the market has taken over.
Taming the wild excesses of the market is the responsibility of government. It’s about time the Scottish Government did just that. It is certainly clear that the SFA or the SPFL have zero interest in reining themselves in.
We have suggestions if anyone is listening.
@redlichtie 13.06
I've noticed he has updated it to say the first tranche was 40% and the total legal bill will be 1.2m plus 600k for their own legal costs. If the damages are north of 10m as has been suggested then the unknown costs for Hummel and Elite are also added it looks rather bleak . Serious questions have to be asked of the authorities who allowed King anywhere near our game .
Allyjambo 31st July 2019 at 07:22
……TRFC have, of course, illegally/improperly entered into contracts with Elite and Hummel who may well decide to take the club to court to recoup any loss of earnings due to their now worthless contracts. They are, I believe, covered by indemnities to this effect….
AJ, as I understood it the indemnity enjoyed by Elite relates to any claim by a third party against them regarding the rights that TRFC claimed to be able to bestow on Elite. The ability of TRFC to so do was obviously something that SDI and then the court disagreed with, the court noting also that the parties (Elite/TRFC) had entered into this arrangement with their eyes open. That doubtless was why Elite sought and received such an indemnity.
It is unclear to me if Hummel have a similar indemnity from TRFC. It would not surprise me if that is the case and if so there could be further substantial costs down the road for TRFC if SDI take action against Elite/Hummel.
Separate from the indemnity/indemnities is the question of TRFC now being unable to fulfill their side of the agreements struck with Elite/Hummel. Will that lead to claims from those two parties against TRFC for loss of profits and any costs they may have incurred? Did Elite sink £500K into upgrading premises on the basis of the contract with TRFC?
In section 7 (8) of the Order it instructs TRFC not to 'deliver (insofar as not already delivered) any of the items noted in points under 'Sponsorship' on pages 5 and 6 of the Elite/Hummel Agreement for the football seasons 2019/20 or 2020/21."
Where does that place the Murray Park/Auchinhowie/Hummel Training Centre For Conveyor Belts/World Class Breakfasts?
The Mike Ashley Club 2012 Centre might be a good replacement name…
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
I see that the court document Phil posted includes a statement that…
"16. Rangers application to appeal is dismissed."
No one anywhere seems to have commented on that, but does that mean King has no option to kick the can down the road? I know he can still drag on the suggested discussion re damages a little.
redlichtie 31st July 2019 at 13:42
Just to clarify, I was not suggesting the indemnity was the only reason Elite and/or Hummel might raise an action against TRFC, just using it to strengthen their case.
I suppose, though, that it will all depend on how these two companies view the prospect of:
a) successfully winning damages;
b) winning damages actually being worthwhile – there's often little point in suing for damages when the defender is going bust, leaving the litigant with a pointless legal bill;
Or, conversely:
c) not suing TRFC leaving Elite and/or Hummel looking like soft touches when it comes to delinquent customers.
A wee trip down Memory Lane , courtesy of The Guardian Knowledge .
“The tackle by Sevilla’s Joris Gnagnon on Liverpool’s Yasser Larouci got me thinking: what’s the longest ban a player has received for an offence in a pre-season game?” asks Trent Duvall.
Andrew Newcombe has a suggestion: “Current Heart of Midlothian boss Craig Levein was banned for 10 matches during his time as a Hearts player following an altercation in a pre-season game at Raith Rovers. Following a disagreement over defensive duties, Levein punched and broke the nose of fellow Jambo Graeme Hogg, in retaliation to a head-butt. Hogg was also handed a 10-match ban and this was added to an existing three-match ban, so he was effectively suspended for 13 matches.”
What is the hottest match ever played in England?
Read more
At the time of the rammy, Hearts were losing to Rovers, whose striker Gordon Dalziel remembers it well. “It was just before half-time,” he told the Daily Record’s 10th anniversary piece, “and I got in between Craig Levein and Graeme Hogg and got an effort in on goal at the Raith end of Stark’s Park. Henry Smith turned it round the post for a corner but an argument then broke out between Levein and Hogg about who was meant to be marking me. I was winding them up and laughing and saying that I was having a stormer and I was a difficult player to mark at the best of times. The last thing I said to the pair of them was: ‘I don’t want you falling out over me.’ I then told them to calm down.
“But Hogg then squared up to Levein. I think he threw the first punch or a shove in Levein’s direction and then they had a set-to. Levein threw two haymakers which I can only describe as a superb effort that Mike Tyson would have been proud of. I was killing myself laughing and jokingly gave Hogg the count of 10 as he was flat out. I didn’t realise the severity of the blows or the fact that Levein had actually broken Hogg’s nose. It was a couple of dull ones that Levein hit him with and, to be fair to him, it was his own teammate. It was a stupid argument over nothing in a pre-season friendly. It was typical of me during my career. I was a cheeky-chappy-type striker and I started banter with defenders and many an argument. But when trouble started I just ran like fuck.”
Oh , my sides !
BREAKING NEWS
Rangers striker Alfredo Morelos has turned down a lucrative £30m move to Chinese Super League club Hebei Fortune.
The three-year deal would have given the Colombian wages of £10m-a-year before tax.
Sky Sports News understands Hebei were willing to match Rangers valuation of the striker, believed to be in excess of £15m, although no official bid was received.
The Chinese window shuts at 5pm UK time today.
paddy malarkey 31st July 2019 at 15:00 Oh , my sides ! BREAKING NEWS Rangers striker Alfredo Morelos has turned down a lucrative £30m move to Chinese Super League club Hebei Fortune. The three-year deal would have given the Colombian wages of £10m-a-year before tax. Sky Sports News understands Hebei were willing to match Rangers valuation of the striker, believed to be in excess of £15m, although no official bid was received. The Chinese window shuts at 5pm UK time today.
___________________
It's handy having Sky as your PR outlet. And what is it about the Chinese and Morelos? It's only ever them that get a look in with him. And they always leave it to the last minute, too.
Re : £30m "bid" for Morelos from China
I'll only believe it when Kheridine says he's seen the bid .
Timtim@12.58
You raise a good point re the exposure of the 3 TRFC directors. I wonder how long they are prepared to put up with this stress? It’s clearly too late for the latest court finding but who knows what else may be coming down the pike and positions must be being considered.
Hebei Fortune already have four foreigners, the maximum allowed, on their books. (Only three can play at one time.) One would have to leave before 1700hrs today.
There's a 100% surcharge in effect on signing foreign players. A £15m player would cost the club an additional £15m in taxes, totalling £30m. A £7.5m player would attract a £7.5m premium, totalling £15m.
I'm just popping out, now the thunder & lightning has stopped, to let a giant squirrel out of the Sports Direct XL Bag 4 Life it's been captive in.
Shirley, it is decision time at Ibrox now?
If you haven't got a hope in hell of being able to fund;
– all of Ashely's legal costs
– your own legal costs
– unspecified, material damages
– normal, operating costs
– an external loan of £7M (?)
…then why would you pay out £445K hard cash by August 16th, as per the Court Order?
(Assuming this detail is indeed genuine).
Time to fold now – or anytime up until August 15th?
'Ex Ludo 31st July 2019 at 16:37
Timtim@12.58
You raise a good point re the exposure of the 3 TRFC directors. I wonder how long they are prepared to put up with this stress? It’s clearly too late for the latest court finding but who knows what else may be coming down the pike and positions must be being considered.'
#############################
They'll have had personal assurances from the Group Chairman. Surely that'll be good enough, particularly with his impeccable reputation?
Danish pastry anyone?
https://twitter.com/handtsport/status/1156556868975812608?s=21
Another court case on the event horizon perhaps?
Is my understanding of the situation wrt SDIR V TRFC in that what is to be paid by August 16 is base court costs , and that the parties have been sent away to try and find a way of redressing SDIR's losses due to TRFC's breaches of contract or , failing that , have them imposed by the judge at a later hearing ?
With a court declaring that a member club's Company Secretary – a legal professional – as being "untruthful"…
With the same member club being dragged through the court's for dishonouring contracts for kits, for memorial walls, etc…
With the same member club creating confusion about what kit they can wear in future games – and which supplier is allowed to manufacture the kit, etc…
Will the SFA consider this mushrooming accumulation of bad publicity and dodgy business dealings to be "bringing the game into disrepute"?
[Another rhetorical question.]
Think that's only a portion of SDI's total costs, PM, but yes they are supposed to discuss acceptable damages soon or the court will make a judgement. Of course, TRFC are still claiming that the £1m cap to damages applies. The judge and SDI are saying it may be allowed to stand, but even if it does the judge has already indicated that £1m isn't enough to cover the amounts SDI lost out on, so if TRFC and SDI can't agree, he will undoubtedly find a way to award SDI what he sees as acceptable. Whether that is by way of a cash payment or a future retail deal overwhelmingly tilted in favour of SDI remains to be seen. Basically, this either screws them immediately or slowly in my opinion.
Copy of Court Order issued in favour of SDIR against the Ibrox club. https://twitter.com/sharko67/status/1156356292530835456?s=19
Nawlite @ 14.05:
Judge Persey refused The Rangers leave to appeal but they could still apply to the Court of Appeal itself. Whether the Court of Appeal would overrule a High Court Judge is questionable, especially given the overwhelming nature of the judgement against the Ibrox club.
Maybe big Mick, will do a debt for equity swap.
I suppose the argument would be that by wearing the strip Rangers would be "assisting" Hummel / Elite in selling it. Therefore to do so would be to breach the Judges ruling.
I wonder if SD's very expensive lawyers have thought of that.
Astonishingly sad that more responsible figures in the Rangers-sphere have not, or have not felt able, to speak truth to the Ibrox powers in this fashion,
When dedicated Rangers-men like Brian Donohoe smell a rat, why not take notice?
https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/former-rangers-first-director-ex-16672277
Timtim 31st July 2019 at 13:39
17 0 Rate This
@redlichtie 13.06
I’ve noticed he has updated it to say the first tranche was 40% and the total legal bill will be 1.2m plus 600k for their own legal costs. If the damages are north of 10m as has been suggested then the unknown costs for Hummel and Elite are also added it looks rather bleak . Serious questions have to be asked of the authorities who allowed King anywhere near our game .
……………
Any news from the SFA about all this?
Can the club survive these costs
What rules are in place for a club with no kit to wear next season.
Are the SFA in contact with ibrox about what may come down the pipe line and how it will affect the ibrox club’s survival?
Ps. had a listen to the pod cast and it crashed on me( my side) will hopefully catch the rest later.
naegreetin 31st July 2019 at 16:31
14 0 Rate This
Re : £30m “bid” for Morelos from China
I’ll only believe it when Kheridine says he’s seen the bid .
…………………
Would that be the verbal bid with his own eyes?
CO they will have kit to wear next year, just not via Hummel. The judgement forces the retail deal back to SDI for season 2020-21, so they or TRFC will arrange a deal with another kit manufacturer.
I'm getting mixed signals re court ruling on matching rites,
Are TRFC able to play this season in this year's kit re Hummel/elite or do they have to play in a retro strip 2017/18?
nawlite 31st July 2019 at 20:23
…………
Who would touch them?
And if anyone did. Jesus! the contract would give the club even less than the alledged 10p they were getting when charles Green signed a contract.
CO, if they haven't enough cash to pay SDI what the judge thinks they lost out on as well as their court costs, I think the only option open to him to ensure SDI make up their losses is to insist on the forced deal to be so heavily weighted in SDI's favour that TRFC will be lucky to get even that. To get that money from 2020-21 strip sales, SDI will probably use their manufacturing contacts to get strips made. The Bears then have the decision to buy or boycott again. What a laugh!
easyJambo 31st July 2019 at 10:50
FOH’s own governance has put in place a “super majority”voting requirement in place for certain events, including the sale of shares in the club, the sale of Tynecastle, changing the team’s name or colours. The super majority will require a 90% vote from FOH members, rather than the norm of 75% for a special resolution. In setting such a high threshold, I believe that it will make it highly unlikely that the FOH members would ever vote for such events, except in the most extreme circumstances.
…………………
That reminded me of something i read, i may have even posted it the other day.
special resolution.
I believe i read that after the recent share issue king can block any special resolutions put forward to the board.
Who could scupper the ship and who can block any special resolutions to stop him. Or am i way off?
easyJambo 30th July 2019 at 21:50
It goes on to say that Rangers should pay £444,846.60 on account to SDIR by 4pm on 16th August 2019.
…………..
All these costs coming down the pipe line. Would some clubs who have had transfer dealings with the ibrox club be expecting the second tranche of any transfer fee to be paid to them before exmas to add to any costs coming down the pipe line.
Martin C @20.25
Judge Persey ruled that, in practical terms, it was too late to stop The Rangers wearing the Hummel kit this season. He ruled that SDIR was due damages in respect of the 2018-19 & 2019-20 seasons with the contract reverting to SDIR from tbe 2020-21 season. SDIR will be free to choose a manufacturer of its own choice, perhaps Puma.
So (apologies to Jacob Rees for my conjunction), can they wear ‘the’ tartan kilts or does Mike have the last rites to the woven wool? Asking for a neighbour.
Paddy Malarkey
I think you are correct. Judge doesn't want to hand down judgement if parties can agree, although given the track record of the defendant, he probably knows he's just kicked the can down the road for a few weeks.
It's not all about the The Rangers…
There are still plenty of feel good stories in Scottish football;
"Fort William: Britain's worst football team win a game after four campaigns…"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49186402
Whoever released the squirrel about Morelos (and let's face it someone from within Rangers can't be ruled out) has had the desired effect due to the nature of the Scottish media. Morelos, who by Gerrard's own admission no club has bid for, is being discussed as a £15m player, despite no-one bidding for him!
Their PR works, but it wouldn't without a properly functioning media.
I am willing to bet if a court eventually has to award several millions in damages to Sports Direct, one of the arguments Rangers will put up will be that to pay it will impact on their ability to be competitive as a football club. Just like happened with the old club in 2012 when HMRC had the audacity to want paid.
There is something rotten to the core about an entity who believes it can break rules at will to it's own advantage, yet wail to the heavens whenever it catches up with them through the legal system. There is something even more rotten about a Football Association who does nothing to stop it.
I've just noticed that no less an authority than the club's manager, Steven Gerrard, has rubbished the ludicrous Morelos transfer bid from that Chinese club. That's the second time, at least, he's rubbished a TRFC transfer based PR moonbeam story recently and is obviously playing a different game to the club's board/PR people.
I wonder if he's deliberately getting up their noses or is genuinely unaware of why the club needs to continually push untrue positive PR stories. He appears to be either completely out of the loop and believes it's all down to the press making up stories to unsettle his players, or he is just not prepared to play along with the out and out lies that the board is spewing out.
Credit to him if it's the latter.
TRFC's current officers are Dickson, Blair and Robertson. As I understand it they are now in the firing line over the £445K to be paid to SDI by 4:00PM on 16 August 2019.
Setting aside the question of contempt of court if payment is not made, would TRFC have Director's Liability insurance for the trio and would that protect them if SDI enforced the claim against the three Directors on a personal basis? Are there any assets left post the Close charges? The stadium?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
I do like a bit of word-play & noticed this nice, simple one in the Herald's comments used by a contributor to describe TRFC's current legal difficulties: 'deja-blue'.
BTW, Hummel appears to have disappeared from TRFC’s list of sponsors on their home page:
https://rangers.co.uk/
Redlichtie @1019hrs:
Should TRFC prevail against Progres tonight, they'll have a EL Third Round Qualifying game at Ibrox on either 08.08.19 or 15.08.19. That match won't be on the season-ticket & is therefore a cash generator. I wonder if there will be a legal move by SDIR to ring-fence that gate-money for the 16.08.19 bill?
Jingso.Jimsie 1st August 2019 at 11:29
'..I wonder if there will be a legal move by SDIR to ring-fence that gate-money for the 16.08.19 bill?'
+++++++++++++++
You're thinking like a sharp lawyer, Jingo.Jimsie!
There was nothing in yesterday's Rolls ( cases listed for action today and into next week) to show that any petition has been lodged.
But if I were Ashley, I'd want to explore the possibility and desirability of making such a move.
redlichtie 1st August 2019 at 10:19
TRFC's current officers are Dickson, Blair and Robertson. As I understand it they are now in the firing line over the £445K to be paid to SDI by 4:00PM on 16 August 2019…
=========
redlichtie, yes this does raise further questions, as per.
And which Internet Bampot would want to be in their position just now? It must be debilitating being a director there: daily crisis management, frustration and worry. Can't be a pleasant drive into the office every morning.
Oh well.
But, these 3 chaps MUST be currently taking legal advice – i.e. reliable, external legal advice and not from Blair – to confirm the extent of any personal liability, and the scope of any relevant insurance indemnity.
Consequently, if the feedback is not to their liking, I presume they would have to seriously consider their own positions before August 16th.?
And finally: the SFA blazers will no doubt be in touch with James Blair – to find out where exactly he acquired his own, industrial grade brass neck !
With regard to the recent judgement in the latest SDI v TRFC case, would it be automatic for a judge's comments on a solicitor's conduct to be forwarded to the relevant body in Scotland (Law Society?) for investigation and possible action?
Calling into question Mr Blair's truthfulness in court and also pointing out what seemed to be clear conflicts of interest are surely issues of concern?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
StevieBC 1st August 2019 at 12:14
……And which Internet Bampot would want to be in their position just now? It must be debilitating being a director there: daily crisis management, frustration and worry. Can't be a pleasant drive into the office every morning.
Oh well.
But, these 3 chaps MUST be currently taking legal advice – i.e. reliable, external legal advice and not from Blair – to confirm the extent of any personal liability, and the scope of any relevant insurance indemnity.
Consequently, if the feedback is not to their liking, I presume they would have to seriously consider their own positions before August 16th.?
I think it is notable that there are none of the supposedly wealthy main Board members/shareholders on the TRFC Board. I assume any liability at TRFC will be approached in a joint and several manner.
I can see an argument about TRFC being an operational (engine room) subsidiary and also the odd 'fit and proper' issue but I wonder how many wished to see very clear blue water between the two organisations, at least in a personal capacity?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
A fibbing lawyer, who is actually called out as a fibbing lawyer in court…
is as useful as a;
– holed bucket
– chocolate fireguard
– fart in a spacesuit
– as nauseam…
But, to be fair, Blair still has some way to go to reach 'glib and shameless liar' level.
Dignified indeed.
So , there we have it, any club interested in buying Alfredo will need to offer him more than 10m a year while stumping up 15m in transfer fee. This has been a Shoot Yersel In the Foot production from level 5 . Part of Alfredo's problem is he believes the hype but cannot match it on the park leading to frustration and lashing out.
It might be too early to call but all the runes are pointing in one direction, ruination. Tonight’s qualifier is going to define Rangers II season and the weans are not back at school yet. There is nothing to suggest in the Ibrox game that Progres could score 3 goals but it’s football. The Rangers II players must surely be consulting with their advisors as to their job security given the most recent developments. Will this uncertainty affect the players ability to perform on the park?. In case no one has noticed, domestic football returns at the weekend. Surely the SPFL are wondering, at least privately, if Rangers II will be able to fulfill their fixtures in the coming season.
Scottish football has never needed a strong Arbroath more.
'Timtim 1st August 2019 at 13:39
So , there we have it, any club interested in buying Alfredo will need to offer him more than 10m a year while stumping up 15m in transfer fee. This has been a Shoot Yersel In the Foot production from level 5 . Part of Alfredo's problem is he believes the hype but cannot match it on the park leading to frustration and lashing out.'
###########################
My recall may be faulty, but wasn't it reported in the SMSM (which doesn't make it true, of course!) that Morelos' advisers secured a substantial contractual improvement for their client from TRFC on each of the two previous occasions that this Chinese Giant Flying Squirrel (Petaurista Xanthotis) was released into the media spotlight by someone unknown?
(I don’t think it’s Level Sinko; more likely his representatives milking their client for every cent!)
redlichtie 1st August 2019 at 10:19 TRFC's current officers are Dickson, Blair and Robertson. As I understand it they are now in the firing line over the £445K to be paid to SDI by 4:00PM on 16 August 2019. Setting aside the question of contempt of court if payment is not made, would TRFC have Director's Liability insurance for the trio and would that protect them if SDI enforced the claim against the three Directors on a personal basis? Are there any assets left post the Close charges? The stadium? Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
________________
As the directors of TRFC then it is most likely that they are the sole operators of the club's bank account. As a result I am certain they will pay up the legal bill, and any more bills resulting from the most recent court case, rather quickly but they might be well advised to ensure all the club's funds are ringfenced to ensure Honest Dave can't get his hands on the filthy lucre. I am assuming, of course, that there are currently sufficient monies available to meet those bills.
In fact, if there is a genuine possibility that failure to pay whatever results from the case might lead to jail time, then they might be well advised to attach these funds accordingly and to hell with what that might mean to the club.
StevieBC
An ashtray on a motorbike ?
Must keep up. I made the assumption (madness getting all of eventually I suppose) that the court case left RIFC exposed, and that TRFC would be immune from any harm.
Not so. In fact it is the club and not the holding company that is in the same kind of (but reduced quantum) doo-doo that the old club was in.
Close Bros and soft-lenders are into RIFC yes?
Upshot is that TRFC can't be sold with debt (as yet unspecified) hanging over them. Another observation is that id the SDI deal was so bad for Rangers, how hard would it be to get a better deal from another sponsor which SDI would be less inclined to match?
Totally snookered in the jaws of a pocket.
Big Pink 1st August 2019 at 17:32
Must keep up. I made the assumption (madness getting all of eventually I suppose) that the court case left RIFC exposed, and that TRFC would be immune from any harm.
Not so. In fact it is the club and not the holding company that is in the same kind of (but reduced quantum) doo-doo that the old club was in.
Close Bros and soft-lenders are into RIFC yes?
===============================
No and Yes.
No – Close Bros are into TRFC (it's TRFC that owns the assets that the security covers)
Yes – the soft loans are into RIFC (it was RIFC shares that were issued in the DFE swaps)
Big Pink 1st August 2019 at 17:32
Must keep up. I made the assumption (madness getting all of eventually I suppose) that the court case left RIFC exposed, and that TRFC would be immune from any harm.
Not so. In fact it is the club and not the holding company that is in the same kind of (but reduced quantum) doo-doo that the old club was in.
Close Bros and soft-lenders are into RIFC yes?
____________________________
I got the impression David Low was caught up in a similar madness in the podcast when he seemed to infer that TRFC were not in as bad a position as RFC were (the quantum of debt not withstanding) just prior to the point they fell into administration and ultimate liquidation, because much of the TRFC debt is held by the holding company.
Regardless of where the bulk of the debt lies, TRFC are basically RIFC's only asset, and should RIFC fall into administration, all of it's assets would be called in to settle their outstanding debt, and that includes all the assets of the holding company's subsidiary. Besides, if TRFC were to transfer any or all of it's debt to RIFC, and then RIFC sold the club for, say, £1, then that would surely fall into the realms of gratuitous alienation and be a criminal act.
What a super wheeze it would be if a holding company could borrow money to finance it's subsidiary(s) then liquidate leaving it's subsidiary(s) in clover.
Make no mistake, if either RIFC or TRFC has an insolvency event, then they are both very much in it together.
Jingso.Jimsie 1st August 2019 at 15:58
My recall may be faulty, but wasn’t it reported in the SMSM (which doesn’t make it true, of course!) that Morelos’ advisers secured a substantial contractual improvement for their client from TRFC on each of the two previous occasions that this Chinese Giant Flying Squirrel (Petaurista Xanthotis) was released into the media spotlight by someone unknown?
…………………
Hence the need to get him off the ever increasing wage bill and get some needed cash into TRFC
………….
‘Timtim 1st August 2019 at 13:39
So , there we have it, any club interested in buying Alfredo will need to offer him more than 10m a year while stumping up 15m in transfer fee. This has been a Shoot Yersel In the Foot production.
All this speculation may disrupt the player who it has been said does want away, but with a price tag that no one will match. Could be trouble ahead.
Allyjambo 1st August 2019 at 16:30
redlichtie 1st August 2019 at 10:19 TRFC’s current officers are Dickson, Blair and Robertson. As I understand it they are now in the firing line over the £445K to be paid to SDI by 4:00PM on 16 August 2019. Setting aside the question of contempt of court if payment is not made,
As the directors of TRFC then it is most likely that they are the sole operators of the club’s bank account. As a result I am certain they will pay up the legal bill, and any more bills resulting from the most recent court case, rather quickly but they might be well advised to ensure all the club’s funds are ringfenced to ensure Honest Dave can’t get his hands on the filthy lucre. I am assuming, of course, that there are currently sufficient monies available to meet those bills.
……………..
It is times like this, these directors and the SFA will be thankful Mr king never did pass that fit and proper to sit on the club board.
Big Pink 1st August 2019 at 17:50
4 0 Rate This
Upshot is that TRFC can’t be sold with debt (as yet unspecified) hanging over them. Another observation is that id the SDI deal was so bad for Rangers, how hard would it be to get a better deal from another sponsor which SDI would be less inclined to match?
Totally snookered in the jaws of a pocket.
…………………..
Something we spoke about the other day.
Who would now do a kit deal with the ibrox club? And if any did it would not be in very good terms for the ibrox club, and these awful terms could be easily matched by Ashley.And to add to that, would the ibrox fan base buy replica kit from Ashley? I believe if it were the case they would not buy in the numbers that they have done. Leading to even less revenue that the 10p they were getting form the charles Green signed deal.The ibrox fans blind faith in king will now see their club hung strung for many years(if they survive many years) The old ibrox club relied on european football to generate income, by god this ibrox club will rely on european football even more than the last ibrox club
Totally snookered in the jaws of a pocket.
AllyJambo@18.19
Now that’s a place we’ve not been for a while- the realms of gratuitous alienation. If memory serves that phrase surfaced via the late Paul McConville and again when Charles Green snapped up the assets of Rangers I for £5.5 million which then magically became £70 million in the IPO of Rangers II.
Progres could do the Bampots a huge favour and knock The Rangers out of Europe tonight.
Then everyone can simply skip X months of kicking the can down the road, and huge volumes of pathetic PR p!sh in the SMSM.
Cluster One I believe that TRFC has their next sports goods supplier lined up already: Winfield.
[That one's for the oldies, and/or those like myself whose parents couldn't afford the coveted Adidas trainers, and had to settle for the cheap ‘Adidas 4 stripes’ from Woolworths.]
I'd just been thinking earlier today that it was about time for a stadium revaluation! 🙂
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
'redlichtie 1st August 2019 at 19:07
I'd just been thinking earlier today that it was about time for a stadium revaluation!'
######################################
Stewart Robertson has mentioned, on several occasions recently, that many 'unseen' stadium & infrastructure improvements have been made at Ibrox during this close-season.
Preparing the ground (literally & figuratively!)?
Ex Ludo 1st August 2019 at 18:44
AllyJambo@18.19
Now that’s a place we’ve not been for a while- the realms of gratuitous alienation. If memory serves that phrase surfaced via the late Paul McConville and again when Charles Green snapped up the assets of Rangers I for £5.5 million which then magically became £70 million in the IPO of Rangers II.
———————————————————-
I don't think that's quite right, though the principle is.
From memory the £5.5m magically became about £22m or so due to the release of negative goodwill. Basically the assets had a value an awful lot higher than what was paid for the whole kit and caboodle.
The £70m or so is a nonsense figure which includes the cost to rebuild the stadium. It does not represent just actual assets.
So you are right he paid a shed load less than the fair value of the assets, though not as much as you are suggesting.
Cluster One 1st August 2019 at 18:19
Hence the need to get him off the ever increasing wage bill and get some needed cash into TRFC.
——————————————–
Or perhaps the dawning realisation that there has been zero interest, and won't be, especially at the apparent asking price, so they may as well squirrel out a big positive whopper……………And perhaps calm the nervous questioning of supplies and services.
So loaded in fact, that they can take the SD, Hummel and Elite hit and knock-back da mega-bucks, on top………….Really?.
Is there a piano-wire snapping emoji?…..It's like an episode of Wyle. E. Coyote over there…….Only it's real.
https://twitter.com/theclumpany/status/1156999583651782657?s=21
A very reasonable request to make I feel. I wonder what’s holding them back?
redlichtie 1st August 2019 at 10:19
"…TRFC's current officers are Dickson, Blair and Robertson…"
+++++++++++++++++++
Blair is company secretary both of TRFC Ltd and RIFC plc.
I am not entirely sure that a simple 'secretary' who is not explicitly named as a 'director' ( with voting seat on the Board) is personally liable under law for any 'wrongdoing' that is the result of the decisions made by the voting members of the Board.
I don't know, of course, but I suspect that JD Blair will have his personal back covered if or when any kind of balloon goes up. " Don't look at me, I just took notes and filled in forms and gave (crap, as it happens, but the best I could do) legal advice as ordered or sought. I made no decisions!"
Sort of Nuremberg defence?
Homunculus @20.40
I need to keep better records.
Allyjambo1st August 2019 at 18:19====================
One of the interesting points David Low was making in the podcast was that the intercompany debt with RIFC could be written off prior to sale. The Close Bros loan could be repaid/refinanced and the SDI amounts due could be paid off by a new American/Chinese/Far East investor who may be willing to buy TRFC itself for say a £1. In essence this TRFC is more saleable because it doesn't have a huge tax debt. But of course does it actually own the assets it claims to.And does anyone want to buy it?
Obviously there is nothing in this for King & Co other than to have pride in selling to someone willing to fund the club and keep it alive!
Ex Ludo 1st August 2019 at 21:07
'…A very reasonable request to make I feel. I wonder what’s holding them back?'
++++++++++++++
I suspect they are paralysed by fear that they might only make things worse or are so blindly thirled to the nonsensical propaganda that comes from their fuhrer ( a German word for 'leader', I believe?) that they do not see any problem.
(And, of course, they have the SFA 'backstop'- permission not to die with arrangement s suitably made to 'prevent' death)
JC@21.39
My question was rhetorical but I agree with you that it is fear that is holding them back.
Rule 1 : The Dear Leader is always right.
Rule 2 : If the Dear Leader is wrong, see Rule 1.
https://twitter.com/agentscotland/status/1157034496723755008?s=21
Success in Europe. C’mon the Co-efficient!
Ex Ludo 1st August 2019 at 21:07
4 0 Rate This
https://twitter.com/theclumpany/status/1156999583651782657?s=21
A very reasonable request to make I feel. I wonder what’s holding them back?
……………….
Maybe Club1872 will flex their shareholding muscles and requisition an EGM to demand answers from the RIFC board
…………………
I believe king now holds the power to block any special resolutions put forward at an EGM
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1156948732728041472
Nice to see the BBC finally waking up to the level of p1sh that emanates from Ibrox – on their match commentary on the website last night they put up a tweet from Tom English along the lines of Aberdeen will be bracing themselves for multi million offers from China (for Cosgrove) following his hatrick.
It certainly gave me a laugh and maybe a wee glimmer of hope of a more rational editorial stance going forward…..
I appreciate it's just wishful thinking, but…
Karma would be cruel indeed, if…
TRFC hit the buffers…
whilst still involved in the Europa League competition.
Fingers and toes crossed.
Headline from The Daily Mail, (I know).
"Millwall given just a £10,000 fine for racist chanting after fans sang 'I would rather be a P*** than a Scouse' in Everton FA Cup tie – as they agree to 'action plan' to stop discrimination at The Den"
=====
A £10K fine for EVERY game where an SPL team's fans sing similarly, offensive songs – should resolve the problem rather promptly, you would think?