Bad Money?

ByBig Pink

Bad Money?

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.

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

738 Comments so far

redlichtiePosted on9:45 am - Aug 2, 2019


John Clark 1st August 2019 at 21:12

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.

+++++++++++++++++++

Good catch John. Must be squeaky bum time for the other two who are now really at the sharp end.

Have had my share of managing tough cashflows in the past but what these guys have to face is probably way, way beyond that.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on9:57 am - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 1st August 2019 at 21:14

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!

++++++++++++++++++++

How about this as a rough scenario for King & Co getting out with some dosh :

  1. RIFC take the stadium and other assets in exchange for the loan to TRFC being written off (can't remember the figures) – properties are now owned by 'RRM holding company'.
  2. Incoming investor (lets call them 'SevcoUSA') pays off/comes to separate agreement with Close and effectively takes over the 'Rangers' franchise for £1. 
  3. 'RRM holding company' receives rent from SevcoUSA for a guaranteed period after which Sevco USA has the right to buy the stadium and assets for an agreed price. 'RRM holding company' agrees not to sell to any other party. BTW SevcoUSA are on a full repairing and insuring lease.

And they all live happily ever after. Well there’s still Big Mike to make peace with…

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:08 am - Aug 2, 2019


redlichtie, did we ever get an answer to John Brown's question about the stadium;

 

"Where's ra deeds ?!"

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:45 am - Aug 2, 2019


It is said that a recession is when your neighbour loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours. Living in Euroland and looking across the sea it looks like my neighbours are (if the Bank of England are to be believed) heading for a recession. In the good old days the football industry was one of the few business' that benefited from hard times as people took to the terraces to vent frustration and lose themselves for 90 minutes from the harsh realities of life. That of course was when it was affordable to do so . Recession of course doesn't just affect the man on the street ,they affect the businessman as well and more importantly as far as this subject is concerned their ability to fund shortfalls in hard times. When bad news homes into view in the football world the squirrels are released to divert attention to, for example, China . In the murky world of politics and finance squirrels tend to take on a far more menacing appearance like Saddam, Assad , Gaddafi etc . The current dispute with Iran and the ratcheting up of war talk is more by design than accident . Those who are aware of General Wesley Clark's warning of the plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years starting with Iraq then Sudan Somalia Lebanon Libya Syria and finally Iran realise how cold and calculated these events are planned and executed. It is here I have to apply my own brakes before diverting into a rant on 9/11. But back to the plan , those who fail to plan ,plan to fail . Does Dave have a plan ? Not in my opinion , evidence would suggest he has knee jerk reactions to events . How do economies collapse ? Well they say very slowly at first and then all of a sudden. The current economic woes have been festering since pre 2008 when we were informed we were just 2 hours away from total global collapse , I believe we didn't fix anything then but merely kicked the can and we are now in cul de sac territory. This won't just affect the UK , Deutsche bank is in a precarious position and will be Lehmans X10 if it collapses , the contagion and domino effect will be global . Those living on credit and in debt will be the first casualties and when the sharks smell blood it's time to get out of the water. 

best wishes

Private James Fraser , Funeral Director.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:01 am - Aug 2, 2019


rougvielovesthejungle 2nd August 2019 at 07:52

'…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 '

++++++++++++++++++++++

Very brave, and that'll be Complaint 13 against the BBC to join the other 12 cited recently by Supporters’ Voice!broken heart

I heard laughter in the studio as English mentioned the £30m bid, clearly mocking the supposed Morelos bid.

 

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:15 pm - Aug 2, 2019


redlichtie 2nd August 2019 at 09:57

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I suspect there would be an "adverse" reaction from the fans if the holy stadium was seperated from the "club" and John Brown Esq's heid may well explode this time but in a less controlled way than last time.

Isn't there an issue with ownership of the stadium and the small matter of an outstanding legal claim?

If the new owners bought the company for a £1 they would have assumed around £19m of debt not counting the players purchased on the never never and at the same time will have incurred a new rental liability and the need to find £20m(?) at some future date to buy the stadium. An alternative would be to pay off part of the interco debt which allows RIFC to wipe its face together with some pocket money for King to restock his wine cellar.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:06 pm - Aug 2, 2019


You may recall that the RIFC "Loan Note" conversion approved in June allowed for around 70m new shares to be issued.

Companies House is now showing that RIFC issued 27,542,721 of those shares on 28 June, indicating that at least some of the outstanding loans have now been converted to shares. Indeed the number of new shares issued comes to the exact total of those allocated to cover the Loan Notes held by Douglas Park (21,124,906) and George Letham (6,417,815).

As it stands, King, Taylor and Scott have yet to convert their Loan Notes to shares. I'd expect to see further notifications as their Loan Notes are converted. However, the three remain creditors of the company for the moment.

The partial conversion will probably mean that some debts will remain in their end of year accounts (to the end of June) with around £8.5m of the £14m loans still outstanding.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:21 pm - Aug 2, 2019


As an aside to the above Loan Note conversion, Douglas Park is, for the moment, RIFC's largest shareholder with 30m shares, against NOAL's (King) 21m.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:34 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 12:15

'..Isn't there an issue with ownership of the stadium and the small matter of an outstanding legal claim..'

++++++++++++++++++++++

Didn't I see a post some considerable time ago to the effect that someone had checked the Title Register and Title Plan ( at a cost!- £30.95 currently) ) only to find that it named 'Rangers football club' as the owners at time of last purchase in 2012?

If there is a problem, perhaps it might be because which of the two 'Rangers' . (Remember, the original, now dead ,Rangers had the word The in their Articles/ Incorporation when it became a limited company.

That's maybe just my idle speculation, but I can't think what other legal problem of ownership there could be?

And I'm not going to spend £31 quid to check!broken heart

 

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:37 pm - Aug 2, 2019


easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 13:06 You may recall that the RIFC "Loan Note" conversion approved in June allowed for around 70m new shares to be issued. Companies House is now showing that RIFC issued 27,542,721 of those shares on 28 June, indicating that at least some of the outstanding loans have now been converted to shares. Indeed the number of new shares issued comes to the exact total of those allocated to cover the Loan Notes held by Douglas Park (21,124,906) and George Letham (6,417,815). As it stands, King, Taylor and Scott have yet to convert their Loan Notes to shares. I'd expect to see further notifications as their Loan Notes are converted. However, the three remain creditors of the company for the moment. The partial conversion will probably mean that some debts will remain in their end of year accounts (to the end of June) with around £8.5m of the £14m loans still outstanding.

_____________

Now there's a surprise! RIFC/TRFC getting deeper into debt and the man causing so much of that debt is currently holding off converting his loan notes into shares. EJ, do you know if there is an irrevocable undertaking to convert these loan notes, or could King in, say, an insolvency event, decline the opportunity to turn his notes into shares? I wouldn't be surprised if he's got that eventuality covered – in his own best interest.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:50 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 13:37

Now there's a surprise! RIFC/TRFC getting deeper into debt and the man causing so much of that debt is currently holding off converting his loan notes into shares. EJ, do you know if there is an irrevocable undertaking to convert these loan notes, or could King in, say, an insolvency event, decline the opportunity to turn his notes into shares? I wouldn't be surprised if he's got that eventuality covered – in his own best interest.

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

That thought had crossed my mind, but I'll give King & Co the benefit of the doubt that there was ulterior motive in holding back at this stage. The GM that approved the conversion was held on 19 June and the conversion is time limited up to the next AGM (probably November/December), so there is still plenty time to exercise the conversion option.

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on1:51 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Excuse me for going off topic, but I wanted to post this before it disappeared from the BBC website.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49202980?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland&link_location=live-reporting-story

Can anyone confirm whether or not the Record used the same panel (top right) in editions sold in Aberdeen? Leaving aside the tenous factual accuracy, I would have thought last night's results would have merited a different emphasis.

 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:57 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 1st August 2019 at 21:14

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

Who on Earth would want to buy a Scottish football club which has made substantial losses in every year of it's existence, is predicting ongoing losses, has made itself a toxic brand and has the fanbase they have.

They must be running out of multi-millionaire fans willing to lose a fortune funding an expensive hobby by now. 

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on1:58 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Companies House today : 

RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC

2 Aug 2019 SH01 Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 28 June 2019

SFNASA

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:03 pm - Aug 2, 2019


JC – Is this what you were looking for?

https://imgur.com/CUdIbpQ

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:10 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Homunculus 2nd August 2019 at 13:57 Bogs Dollox 1st August 2019 at 21:14 ======================================= Who on Earth would want to buy a Scottish football club which has made substantial losses in every year of it's existence, is predicting ongoing losses, has made itself a toxic brand and has the fanbase they have. They must be running out of multi-millionaire fans willing to lose a fortune funding an expensive hobby by now.

___________________

I've always felt that if no sugar daddy was prepared to buy the basket of assets, debt free, for any more than £5.5m, then it's difficult to imagine someone coming in to pay off millions of pounds worth of debts, even if the club cost them no more than £1. I have my doubts, too, that many/any of the concert party would not be looking to get something back to cut their not inconsiderable losses.

There's also the thought to consider that there would be no point in buying that club unless you were prepared to sink many more millions into it just to catch up with Celtic.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on4:07 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Allyjambo2nd August 2019 at 14:10

Back in 1994 with a bankrupt company and a dilapidated stadium a businessman bought Celtic and the rest is history.
Rangers can be rebuilt but not under the ownership of the current amateurs.
Maybe the company/club needs to crash and shed it's debt and then be bought by a real businessmen who will keep the zealots out and win over the sensible members of the community who are willing to connect with another new club minus the historical baggage and bigotry.
The SFA, a few years ago, changed the rules to enable a new franchise to stand in the shoes of the old one.
For the avoidance of doubt I'm not advocating this. Merely pointing out that there is a route out of this debacle and it's toxic effect on Scottish football.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:31 pm - Aug 2, 2019


easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 14:03

'…JC – Is this what you were looking for'

+++++++++

Yes, thank you, eJ, I think it probably is.

I clearly conflated the wee footnote reference to the new name , with the SevcoScotland, and that makes my speculation about the grounds for dispute a bit futile.

It was the Henderson &Jones action , aiming first at a large sum [£19m/] , dropping to £3m[?] only to be raised again to  a significantly higher figure ( and BDO's readiness to 'discuss' settlement] that inclined me to think there was some kind of claim to a supposed Sevco5088 pre-novation title to ownership of Ibrox.( I remember you explained to me that you didn't think it was)

Is the central question still 'was there a novation? ' Was Sevco5088 the original purchaser of the assets, but before any change in title could be effected, SevcoScotland claimed ownership, renamed SevcoScotland as 'TRFC Ltd.

Are such deeds of novation 'public documents' , able to be seen , for  fee, in the same way as title deeds?

 

 

  1.  
  2.  
View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:52 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 16:07

I'm not saying no one will come in to buy TRFC, just that no one was prepared to spend any more than £5.5m for the basket of assets when it came debt free. Not an indication that many 'Rangers' people are prepared to dig deep, and we can be pretty sure that those who did step up, eventually, are tapped out now. What's more, Alistair Johnson, a man most would think has plenty of contacts in the US/Canada, has failed to come up with anybody in 7 years and looks to have given up on the club (when was the last time we heard anything from him?).

The situation, and the reputation of Celtic, was quite different when McCann took over than what is to be found at Ibrox. and we don't know what might await there over and above the known debts. In addition, there was no recent history of court cases (and who knows what might be ongoing or about to appear?) and no bad feeling with kit suppliers etc. In addition, TRFC supporters have shown themselves only too ready to chase off genuine billionaires just because they don't show genuine Rangersness. They've also shown themselves only too happy to boycott when their club's board looks to run the club on a sustainable model.

All they have going for them is a big support, but they already fill Ibrox and are still making a loss.

Ultimately, any prospective buyer will have to be prepared to spend mega bucks, from the off, and not be expecting to see any return for a very long time – if ever. There might be someone, or some company, out there prepared to do that, but they've been waiting and watching the club become less viable for some 7 years now, and the longer they wait, the worse the prospect becomes.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:05 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 16:07

—————————————————–

I know you didn't say it, but can I just point it out anyway, it is important to bear in mind that Celtic did not shed it's debt. The debt was paid and the club grew from there. The businessman of whom you speak did not want to see the club die, so he put his money in to prevent it. He could easily have gone the way of others.

I suppose it is possible for Rangers to shed it's debt. If the people running the PLC are willing to write off a vast sum of money. It's difficult to imagine why they would do that though. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that Rangers are running at these losses with pretty much full houses, Celtic weren't getting full houses at the time so there was a whole lot of potential income if the club could bring the fans back. There was also the ability for the club to be floated on the stock exchange and bring in a load of money by selling shares in itself. The current situation is not analogous with Celtic no matter how many times people suggest it. The share issues have happened and the money has simply been (over)spent. 

I think it's very unlikely that the PLC will write off tens of millions of pounds, then give away the subsidiary, with all of its assets, for someone else to come in and take over. Even if that did happen that person would then have to start covering the losses, make the brand attractive again and pander to the supremacist supporters who would expect instant success. 

How many times do people expect a new messianic figure to appear. How much money do they expect thrown at this broken entity.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:34 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Further to David Low's assertion that he thought Hearts would be a buy-out target, Ann Budge has released a statement today, looking back, then forward to her plans for the club. If you're a Hearts fan you will recognise the transformation in the club, whether or not you agree with everything she has done (current performance on the park notwithstanding). 

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/chairmans-statement-1

She concluded the statement with a commitment to continue leading the club for at least the next two years to oversee the transition from private to fan ownership.

I promised to look after the Club… on behalf of the fans… for 5 years.  At the end of this current financial year, I will have been filling the joint role of Chairman / Chief Executive for 6 years.  Becoming the largest majority fan-owned club in the UK will require a smooth transition, particularly when we can anticipate considerable change in the Scottish/European football landscape. Additionally, given all of the good work that has been done over the past five years, we absolutely do not want to stand still during this transition. To help achieve all of this, I am fully committed to leading the club forward for a minimum of a further 2 years in order to provide both stability and continued growth and development so that we can continue to reach new heights in both a business and footballing sense.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on5:34 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Allyjambo2nd August 2019 at 16:52

 

1

 

0

 

Rate This

 

 

Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 16:07

There might be someone, or some company, out there prepared to do that, but they've been waiting and watching the club become less viable for some 7 years now, and the longer they wait, the worse the prospect becomes.

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

And with every day that passes the club gets cheaper to buy and with franchising already allowed under SFA rules it must be attractive to buyers who can pick it up cheap, run it within it's means and build from there and sell at a premium at some future point.

I'm not considering a Rangers supporting billionaire to be the one to do it because there are non and the turnaround needs to been by outsiders who can sideline the rougher elements and change the culture.

 

View Comment

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:41 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra's performance at the Festival.

Image

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:46 pm - Aug 2, 2019


macfurgly 2nd August 2019 at 13:51
…………..
If it is not a loss it’s a win the positive has always to be peddled.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:11 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 16:52
Alistair Johnson, a man most would think has plenty of contacts in the US/Canada, has failed to come up with anybody in 7 years and looks to have given up on the club (when was the last time we heard anything from him?).
………………..
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-director-alastair-johnston-still-12189132

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:35 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Following on from my post above, something i came across the other day.
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1155942708562653186/photo/1
…………….
King has always pushed to get his placemen into ibrox.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:39 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 17:34 Allyjambo2nd August 2019 at 16:52

 

Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 17:34 Allyjambo2nd August 2019 at 16:52 Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 16:07 There might be someone, or some company, out there prepared to do that, but they've been waiting and watching the club become less viable for some 7 years now, and the longer they wait, the worse the prospect becomes.

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

And with every day that passes the club gets cheaper to buy and with franchising already allowed under SFA rules it must be attractive to buyers who can pick it up cheap, run it within it's means and build from there and sell at a premium at some future point. I'm not considering a Rangers supporting billionaire to be the one to do it because there are non and the turnaround needs to been by outsiders who can sideline the rougher elements and change the culture.

_______________

I'm afraid that while the club might become worth less as ST money is used up and it's debts mount, it doesn't become cheaper to buy, for all it's (external) debt will have to be covered, either repaid in full, or taken on as an ongoing liability. And that's assuming the current majority share holders are prepared to write off all the money they have put into it – and that's not a given.

As Homunculus correctly said, when Fergus McCann took over at Celtic, the crowds were at a very low ebb leaving a huge income stream just waiting to be tapped. Similarly at both Partick and Hibs there is seats to be filled on a regular basis making a potential increased revenue stream available in the short term, and that without the need to trim back vastly on spending to create a sustainable future.

Added to it all, of course, is the spectre of Celtic's 10 in a row. Imagine if a new owner came along within the current season and immediately made noises about trimming back on player costs to create that sustainable future, just as Celtic were about to complete 9 in a row? Try to sell Ibrox STs with the prospect of watching that procession for the next season! And the next…

If there's one set of supporters that only understands spend, spend, spend, it's that lot at Ibrox, and they won't accept anything less. At least McCann had a support grateful to him for saving the club from oblivion (the SMSM helped him with that) and so he had a bit of leeway before the overwhelming calls to catch up with Rangers were made (as I remember it).

Regardless of RIFC's shareholders preparedness, or not, to walk away with nothing, TRFC cannot be sold without first ensuring both RIFC and TRFC's creditors are satisfied in full (or, in the event of administration, by a CVA).

Again, I'm not saying there isn't someone out there ready to sink many millions into TRFC, I'm just saying it's not as straight forward, or as cheap, as you might think. And certainly not really comparable with what happened when Fergus McCann took over at Celtic.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:56 pm - Aug 2, 2019


eJ, that looks great.

 

The goals look a bit big though.  enlightened

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:06 pm - Aug 2, 2019


What's playing at Tynecastle tonight, I hope you all enjoy itlaugh

Oh, and I hope the link works

https://www.facebook.com/EdintFest/videos/407532299873169/

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on9:03 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 18:46

macfurgly 2nd August 2019 at 13:51
…………..
If it is not a loss it’s a win the positive has always to be peddled.

————–

… and the smsm lapdog lackeys are off and running, heids doon, peddling like Lance Armstrong on crack (shurely shome mishtake. ed.), hair streaming in the wind, legs pumping, £30M for Morelos, title's in the bag, no 9 in a row Hello, Aberdeen is full of sheep, Stevie G Superstar, better breakfast than at Tiffany's……. (continued page 103).

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:03 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 19:35 

      Following on from my post above, something i came across the other day. https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1155942708562653186/photo/1 ……………. King has always pushed to get his placemen into ibrox. 

   —————————————————————–

    Good post C1 as it got me thinking. Do you think Uncle Mick would be more amiable to deal with, if his old pal Llambias (or A. N. Other), was given his job back?…. Could a thread-bare bear be tempted do the dirty?. 

     No matter how hopeful I may be, I don't see Ashley cutting off an income stream, and the best avenue to the truth will still be with Res12 and the courts, (when presented to them properly). 

    I do see him(Ashley) in the driving seat, knowing when to submit the bill if he wants the cash, and almost certain Sevco death.,Or, if he wants more clout, when to threaten a Winding Up Order. 

    "A new sherrif in town or deid?", might tempt some, or all, of the concert party to pursue a solo career.

     He would still own the debt of course…….Simply offering time to cough,  on his terms. …..The same as he did with his "Loans".

     The big question is, will having the debt be worth his while, or will he just take the cash?….

     Will this season, once again, be the season of the much loved, and mirthfully missed, "Blue-room musical chairs"?

    Whatever, it's not going to be straight-forward.  A major event, with major reactions. 

    There can really only be one explanation for King's punch-drunk stupidity in decision-making and desperate skelpings…… His desperate battle to maintain control.

      

    

    

      

     

     

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:08 pm - Aug 2, 2019


easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 17:41 Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra's performance at the Festival.

_________

That Phil Harmonic is some player, EJ, isn't it great to have him at Tynecastle? mail

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on9:23 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Apologies if I wasn't being clear.

I'm not saying a buyer should buy the company and deal with the debt and all the other baggage. I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. That's why I mention the franchising concept.

Sevco II would stay in the Premiership with a points deduction for an insolvency event because that is where it is headed without a serious injection of capital. Sevco I would be liquidated. The rules as they are now allow it.

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:30 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39

'…At least McCann had a support grateful to him for saving the club from oblivion .'

+++++++++++++++

And prior to that, of course, a bolshie support calling the Kelly Board to account and seeing off the nonsense bids from chancers [Cambuslang indeed!] or other property speculators.

If TRFC supporters were to direct against King and Co even a fraction of the anger that was directed by the Celtic support against the failed and failing Celtic board, they might have prevented the new club reaching the perilous stage it has reached.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:48 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23

 

I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. 

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

After a failed CVA what comes next is the liquidator selling off the assets to get the maximum return from the creditors. 

What happened when the previous club's CVA failed was not how administration is supposed to work, only a group of charlatans would have even attempted it. 

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on9:49 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 17:34

"with franchising already allowed under SFA rules"

———–

Corrupt then, corrupt now, corrupt forever. A concept unknown in Scottish football, manufactured by Doncaster for the sole purpose of maintaining an income stream despite the liquidation of a club characterised by 80 years of explicit sectarianism and 10 years at least of financial doping. An income stream that would have been there anyway, with a new club and 50,000 people looking for something in blue at Ibrox to support,  and with most probably relieved to have the opportunity to ditch the historical baggage.

The consequences of this, in my opinion, have been a resurgence of the old supremacist sectarianism and a realisation among fans of all clubs that the playing field will always be skewed as long as the current SFA / SPFL structure remains.

How far are they prepared to go to maintain this strategy and ensure the success of any club purporting to be "Rangers"?

 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:51 pm - Aug 2, 2019


macfurgly 2nd August 2019 at 21:03

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

 

Bearing in mind this time it was £15m to Rangers for Morelos, the club's valuation apparently.

The £30m was Morelos' wages. £10m a year for 3 years.

He knocked back c£200k a week it seems.

That lad must be really confident in house own earning potential. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:55 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23 Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Apologies if I wasn't being clear. I'm not saying a buyer should buy the company and deal with the debt and all the other baggage. I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. That's why I mention the franchising concept. Sevco II would stay in the Premiership with a points deduction for an insolvency event because that is where it is headed without a serious injection of capital. Sevco I would be liquidated. The rules as they are now allow it.

___________

Right, Bogs, sorry. Yes, but I personally don't think it will get that far and is more likely to end with a CVA should they fall into administration, purely based on the grounds that the total debt might be manageable and I feel Ashley would be content to accept a reasonable payment in a CVA while retaining the kit deal. Timing, of course, would be vital, like now while they have some ST money left to pay off Close Bros secured loan.

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on9:59 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Post Script:

I know, I know, the SFA are a Members Club and nothing will change as long as the Members are happy with where they are.

 

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:12 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Would any sane businessman (or woman) buy this operation with the history of characters that have been involved? Who knows what onerous contracts lie under the bonnet . The retail one that we do know of is toxic enough and I doubt Ashley will release his grip just because King has departed. The stadium issues are shrouded in mystery as regards claims on the title not to mention the hinted at roof problems (all gone quiet on that one) asbestos in the main stand and the rebars that seem to be holding it together . It is very interesting to note that King has not traded his debt for equity , where it puts him in the queue if there is an admin I'm not sure but getting something must be better than holding worthless shares in a bankrupt company. If significant revenue isnt brought in via the transfer market and/or they fail to make the Europa Group stage then things could worsen rapidly

Transfer window closes EPL- August 8 ECL- August 6 Spain, France +Germany -Sept 2 Italy-August 18 MLS- 7 August Portugal- September 22 – SPL -Sept 2

Aug 8/15  Europa 3rd stage – Aug 22/29 Europa 4th stage

further diary dates are Aug 16th for the 450k payment and Sept 23 for decision on damage amount. I don't know how things will pan out but I do know that if I was a creditor I would want my money asap.

 

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on10:14 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Homunculus 2nd August 2019 at 21:51

That lad must be really confident in house own earning potential. 

"Alfredo Morelos: Rangers striker urged to 'address speculation' by Steven Gerrard"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49205675

Wtf  Freddy? Get out there and tell them. You DID NOT knock back £200k per week, you DID NOT cost us £15M. Get out there Freddy.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:05 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Corrupt official 2nd August 2019 at 21:03
………….
king has been sniffing about ibrox since 2012.In 2012 he wanted to sue David Murray for £20 mill.
In Aug 2013 he agreed to pay the SA Revenue Service R706.7 million to settle his tax debt, then in Dec 2013 he pledged i’m ready to put cash into gers.
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1157036741737484288
By 2015 he wanted to pay back every penny of clubs debt and bring back gers oldco. By 2017 he had paid Ashley £3mill to renegotiate a better retail deal and by 2019 he has made a right mess of everything.
King has not been trying to manipulate his way to the top at ibrox to now be told what to do.
“A new sherrif in town or deid?”,
I believe if king was to go down he would take it with him, he has not hung around this long for nothing

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:08 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 21:08
2 0 Rate This

easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 17:41 Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra’s performance at the Festival.
………………….
Times like these one can only think back to Jimbo and his brass bands, how he would have loved that.
……………….
Ps. will get that sorted tomorrow BP

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:15 pm - Aug 2, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23
The rules as they are now allow it.
………………….
Because of that it was decided to persevere with the current system, which sees clubs handed a 15-point penalty for entering administration and 25 points if it happens again within a five-year period.”

It has also been agreed that, in future, the SPFL Board will have the sole responsibility for adjudication regarding clubs who might face liquidation.

“It will be down to the board to determine any conditions for a transfer of membership if a club is liquidated and attempts to go down the newco route,” said the source.

“That may include any new owners posting a bond for security.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-football/10631856/Scottish-football-abandons-plans-to-automatically-relegate-clubs-in-administration.html

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:06 am - Aug 3, 2019


Any truth in the rumour – that I've just started – that there has been a £30M bid to lure James Traynor away from Ibrox?

 

Apparently the bold Boris is keen to bring Traynor down to London to be his dedicated 'spin doctor'.

 

After watching Sky's reportage on the massive, Chinese  bid/non-bid for Morelos during the week, Boris is convinced that Traynor will be able to easily shift any old bollox to the MSM down south.

 

King has demanded that the transfer money is paid directly to him – in black bin bags of readies.

King has also insisted on driving Traynor himself direct to Downing Street… without passing Shirebrook and without losing £10M.

 

Traynor's PR p!sh output has not just jumped the shark…

it has jumped a dead, bloated, blue whale washed up on a scummy, rubbish strewn beach on a deserted island,

 

…alongside all the discarded and washed-up, Scottish newspapers.

enlightened

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:36 am - Aug 3, 2019


Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23

'.I'm not saying a buyer should buy the company and deal with the debt and all the other baggage. I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. That's why I mention the franchising concept.'

++++++++++/

I think I know what you are thinking, Bogs Dolox: pretty much what I am thinking!

The SFA/SPL/SFL got a huge fright when the consequences of the knighted cheat's dirty, dirty cheating eventuated.

They themselves then cheated and lied.

They arranged matters so that the dirty cheating was not punished as it ought to have been -by expulsion from Scottish football in utter ignominy and shame. 

Instead, they allowed a brand new club they had newly admitted into Scottish Football to claim in the commercial market place to be the most successful football club in the world in terms of sporting honours and titles. Having already lied, they must now continue to lie.

In their guilt, they had to hastily redraft 'the rules'. 

They are beneath contempt.

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:51 am - Aug 3, 2019


StevieBC 3rd August 2019 at 00:06

'..Any truth in the rumour – that I've just started – that there has been a £30M bid to lure James Traynor away from Ibrox?'

++++++++++++++

James Traynor? Who he? 

The most useless turd of a PR man whose main talent lies in getting up the noses of the very people (who, if they had any personal integrity, would tell him to gtf).

What a useless, bullying, hectoring, geezer to have as a PR man!

I very much regret that any tiny fraction of what BBC Radio Scotland paid him in his support for 'Rangers' came out of my licence fee!

He has been as useful as  PR man as Blair has been as a company secretary.

 

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:09 am - Aug 3, 2019


John Clark 2nd August 2019 at 21:30 Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39 '…At least McCann had a support grateful to him for saving the club from oblivion .' +++++++++++++++ And prior to that, of course, a bolshie support calling the Kelly Board to account and seeing off the nonsense bids from chancers [Cambuslang indeed!] or other property speculators. If TRFC supporters were to direct against King and Co even a fraction of the anger that was directed by the Celtic support against the failed and failing Celtic board, they might have prevented the new club reaching the perilous stage it has reached.

__________________

And this is what I was referring to when I said the SMSM (inadvertently, I'm sure) helped McCann – by providing the bears with so much mirth inducing coverage of their hated rival's travails that they actually kept the Celtic supporters fully informed of the true state of their club. Even now there appears to be a huge section of TRFC's support believing the club they now support is in fine health, and that is why they would, almost certainly, be unprepared to welcome a saviour not prepared to put stopping 10 in a row at the top of his agenda.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on7:29 am - Aug 3, 2019


Not withstanding the fact that Hebei Fortune already having a full quota of foreign players, amongst a host of other things, made the story ridiculous, but has anybody considered that whoever released the squirrel was implying that they made an illegal approach to the player or his representatives.

No official bid – no acceptance of a bid – no permission to talk to player or his representatives.

Morelos rejected terms – how could he know what terms offered with Hebei not having permission to talk to him or his agents

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:43 am - Aug 3, 2019


Can’t do link things but recommend the BBC article on EFL sides Bury and Bolton this morning.  Site veterans will notice “a tone” that used to be used in reporting on Club financial matters up here too.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:48 am - Aug 3, 2019


Homunculus 2nd August 2019 at 21:48 Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23 I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. ================================================ After a failed CVA what comes next is the liquidator selling off the assets to get the maximum return from the creditors. What happened when the previous club's CVA failed was not how administration is supposed to work, only a group of charlatans would have even attempted it.

_____________________

Just been thinking about that, Homunculus, about how the quantum of debt of RFC was so huge, and still not fully known at the time, that the likelihood of any creditor getting a reasonable payment from the sale of the club's assets was negligible. So negligible that no one was watching how the administration was being conducted. All scrutiny was directed at how they were going to 'save' the club.

Now, however, the creditors in an administration are more likely to feel they could get a good dividend and, quite possibly, be more likely to insist on getting full value for the assets of TRFC, which was so very clearly not the case when the original club failed to achieve a CVA – at no time were the administrators trying to amass the maximum income from the sale of assets ahead of 'saving' the club.

So, it might well be that if TRFC falls into administration that the unsecured creditors will look for a very healthy dividend, and remember, for his own benefit, King, himself, was looking for the real Rangers Football Club to be liquidated! Who's to say he won't join with the creditors and look to maximise his return from a liquidation. A liquidation that sees the break up of all the club's assets.

I think it's a certainty that should RIFC/TRFC be heading to an administration that Dave King will be looking to maximise any dividend/reduce his loss from the sale of the club's assets.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:27 am - Aug 3, 2019


Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 07:48

———————————————————–

Indeed, however always bear in mind that people didn't lend money to TRFC, they lent t to RIFC which in turn lent it to TRFC.

So as far as I am aware TRFC don't actually owe King any money. They owe it to RIFC of which he is a major shareholder. 

I believe that Close is owed money directly by TRFC but as I understand it they are a secured creditor so the CVA would be or no interest to them. They would get their money before the CVA, which is for the benefit of the unsecured creditors.

It goes back to the question, why would the board of RIFC be willing to right off tens of millions in debt. Other than in some fantasy World. They would be more likely to "buy" the assets from their subsidiary, but can they do that if other people hold security over them. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:40 am - Aug 3, 2019


Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 08:27  Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 07:48 ———————————————————– Indeed, however always bear in mind that people didn't lend money to TRFC, they lent t to RIFC which in turn lent it to TRFC. So as far as I am aware TRFC don't actually owe King any money. They owe it to RIFC of which he is a major shareholder. I believe that Close is owed money directly by TRFC but as I understand it they are a secured creditor so the CVA would be or no interest to them. They would get their money before the CVA, which is for the benefit of the unsecured creditors. It goes back to the question, why would the board of RIFC be willing to right off tens of millions in debt. Other than in some fantasy World. They would be more likely to "buy" the assets from their subsidiary, but can they do that if other people hold security over them.

_____________________

While you are correct that TRFC don't owe King any money directly (as far as we know) if King can control RIFC he effectively controls TRFC, and the signs are that he does control RIFC, then if King wants to push for liquidation (remembering this is all very much conjecture) my point is that the dividing line between the holding company and the club is of no consequence when it comes to what happens to the assets of TRFC.

The fact that Close Bros loan is secured doesn't make much difference to the overall picture (though might make it worse) as they will have to be satisfied first, either with what's in the bank account, or if there's not enough, by taking control of the secured assets. I am sure they will want the cash. The upshot of that is there will be a smaller pot to be shared out amongst the remaining creditors, making a CVA less attractive to them than if there was no secured creditors. 

It's all conjecture, of course (but funmail), but whatever transpires, the dividing line between RIFC and TRFC is not going to make the least bit difference to what happens to the assets should it come to administration and is not going to be a factor in saving the club, other than making it administratively easier to sell the club should the quantum be sufficient to satisfy the debts or a CVA be accepted.

On the debts that belong to TRFC or RIFC. Is the SDI case not against the club as opposed to the holding company? If it is, that would mean any subsequent debt would belong to TRFC, and so the bulk/all? of the debt would belong directly to TRFC, though, again, that makes no difference to the overall picture.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:45 am - Aug 3, 2019


Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 23:08 10  Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 21:08 2 0 Rate This easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 17:41 Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra’s performance at the Festival. …………………. Times like these one can only think back to Jimbo and his brass bands, how he would have loved that. ………………. Ps. will get that sorted tomorrow BP

_________________

Funnily enough I thought of Jimbo when I was posting the link last night. I do hope he's well and if you're looking in, Jimbo, please give us a wee shout to let us know you how you are laugh

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:48 am - Aug 3, 2019


Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 09:40

I'm not disagreeing with you AJ, just pointing out that it is the parent company (controlled as you say by King) who will be the major unsecured creditor. In an administration they would be looking at what was left over after the secured creditors were dealt with.

The current assets with security over them are 

(1) All and whole the subjects on the west side of Broomloan Road, Glasgow registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA68492; and

(2) All and whole the subjects known as Edmiston House, Harrison Drive, Glasgow, G51 2YX, being the subjects registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA29534 and GLA62016.

(3) Training Centre Youth Academy, Auchenhowie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow 

(4) Floating charge

Unless there are rules against it, RIFC will be the creditor which will agree to accept or reject a CVA. So basically writing off tens of millions in debt or liquidating the assets of TRFC to get the cash in to then distribute between the shareholders, King included.

That's if the administrator sees a Ltd Company which is a viable business going forward, after having decimated the playing squad, sacking staff, and cutting costs wherever possible. 

I just don't see the fantasy scenario where someone comes in and buys the subsidiary with all of it's assets for £1. I have been wrong before though. 

 

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:04 am - Aug 3, 2019


Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 10:48 Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 09:40 I'm not disagreeing with you AJ, just pointing out that it is the parent company (controlled as you say by King) who will be the major unsecured creditor. In an administration they would be looking at what was left over after the secured creditors were dealt with. The current assets with security over them are (1) All and whole the subjects on the west side of Broomloan Road, Glasgow registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA68492; and (2) All and whole the subjects known as Edmiston House, Harrison Drive, Glasgow, G51 2YX, being the subjects registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA29534 and GLA62016. (3) Training Centre Youth Academy, Auchenhowie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow (4) Floating charge Unless there are rules against it, RIFC will be the creditor which will agree to accept or reject a CVA. So basically writing off tens of millions in debt or liquidating the assets of TRFC to get the cash in to then distribute between the shareholders, King included. That's if the administrator sees a Ltd Company which is a viable business going forward, after having decimated the playing squad, sacking staff, and cutting costs wherever possible. I just don't see the fantasy scenario where someone comes in and buys the subsidiary with all of it's assets for £1. I have been wrong before though.

_________________

I'm not disagreeing with you either, Homunculs, just enjoying the debate laugh

I doubt, though, that a holding company could ever be allowed to vote on a CVA as it has control over the debt racked up in the first place, and I'm sure that's not the only reason why. What's more, should TRFC fall into administration, as RIFC's only asset, RIFC would follow as night follows day, and vice versa.

Without the necessary legal qualification or knowledge, I feel sure I can categorically state that debt to a holding company does not bestow on the holding company the right to vote for, or against, a subsidiary's CVA. If for no other reason it would leave a massive loophole running right through company law that any and every crook and conman would use incessantly.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:35 pm - Aug 3, 2019


Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 11:04

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

This seems to relate to what you are saying

"With the support of 75% (by value) of the unsecured creditors who choose to vote on the proposal (at least 50% of whom must not be connected to the company), a company can use a CVA to impose legally binding terms on dissenting unsecured creditors"

So the holding company would have even less control over a CVA of it's subsidiary than it would normally have due to the level of debt.

So the issues with administration for TRFC and using that to "shed debt" would include.

1, Dealing with the unsecured creditors.

2, Getting a CVA through.

3, Getting an administrator who wouldn't decimate the staff at all levels.

4, The fact that the debt being shed is mostly to the PLC in the first place.

5, Having a viable business going forward.

Liquidation of the assets individually to raise cash for the creditors just seems like a much more realistic prospect if you want to raise money.

The alternative, selling the whole lot for £1 brings in the sum total of £1 for the creditors but loses all of the assets, all of the debt, everything. Why would King etc want to do that. Who would want to take it on.

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:47 pm - Aug 3, 2019


Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 12:35

Thanks for that, Homunculus.

I think it's important to remember, too, that as the only asset of RIFC, and assuming RIFC had external debt at the time, if TRFC falls into insolvency, RIFC must also become insolvent having no income, and no assets, to support/cover it's debts. The whole shooting match would be in administration, with, I suspect, RIFC's administration, as the holding company, encompassing that of TRFC.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:53 pm - Aug 3, 2019


Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 23:05

      I believe if king was to go down he would take it with him, he has not hung around this long for nothing. 

————————————————–

    I would agree with every word of that and go further, in so much as he would do so without even the slightest nod, to the legality of his actions…….

    On the other side of the coin, I doubt Ashley would bat an eye-lid having him jailed. 

    I was alluding more to the hold he has over the other bears being fractured. A hold that must be wearing thin and the cause of many sleepless nights. 

    Of course I am only speculating, that Ashley would rather have if not more management/control, then at least, "easier", management/ control, over his revenue stream…………He appears to be in, or close to, a position to get it. 

    In no way, are Sevco in a position to receive a "favourable settlement", and even the rampaging hordes must have twigged to that by now. (?????). ……T3B's will most certainly have.

   And yeah……I think big Mick might enjoy the vindication in taking it  back.

    TBH though, Ashley has so many options available to him, it would be a lucky guess to predict……… King?… No so much.

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:13 pm - Aug 3, 2019


There have been reams and reams of SMSM coverage of TRFC financial woes in Court in the last week.

 

There has been even more chatter right across social media about the latest, embarrassing Ibrox shambles.

 

Yet, not a peep from our leaders in Scottish football.

 

Nothing from the SFA.

Nothing from the SPFL.

Nothing from club leaders, ( although TRFC did 'reassure' their fans that it's not as bad as it seems… ).

 

Typical.

 

And I presume that the SFA CEO is simply banned from engaging with the SMSM – to express his views and display some leadership ?

[Rhetorical question.]

Or, has Petrie locked Maxwell away in the Hampden bunker?

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on3:18 pm - Aug 3, 2019


Hello to all of you. Great to see informed debate continuing on here. I haven't missed a day since I joined and still love the banter. Don't really feel informed enough to enhance the debate but it does arm me with info for discussions with others. Keep it going.enlightened

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on4:35 pm - Aug 3, 2019


Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 12:35

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

I’m sure this has been answered before but I’m still confused over why there is a Standard Security listed for Auchenhowie created in 2002 but not delivered until 2012 in favour of the Scottish Sports Council and also a Charge (SC42 5159 0011) for Auchenhowie created and delivered in 2012 also in favour of the Scottish Sports Council.

Are there two separate loans involved or is this a touch of belt and braces after 2012?

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:13 pm - Aug 3, 2019


Giovanni 3rd August 2019 at 16:35

I’m sure this has been answered before but I’m still confused over why there is a Standard Security listed for Auchenhowie created in 2002 but not delivered until 2012 in favour of the Scottish Sports Council and also a Charge (SC42 5159 0011) for Auchenhowie created and delivered in 2012 also in favour of the Scottish Sports Council.

Are there two separate loans involved or is this a touch of belt and braces after 2012?

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

I'm sure that they relate to the same "security". I suspect that some elements of the transfer of the security from RFC (2012) plc (IL) to Sevco Scotland/TRFC were missed first time round in 2012, but were sorted out in May 2015.

Those omissions may include a "negative pledge", in that TRFC could not offer Auchenhowie as security without the permission of Sportscotland.  The question only became relevant when Sportscotland became aware of Sports Direct taking a security over Auchenhowie for a loan in Feb 2015. Sportscotland would have wanted to preserve their first ranking security.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:07 pm - Aug 3, 2019


easyJambo 3rd August 2019 at 18:13

'….The question only became relevant when Sportscotland became aware of Sports Direct taking a security over Auchenhowie for a loan in Feb 2015.'

++++++++++++++++

I rather took the view that Sportscotland were unaware ( or maybe were not bothered) until 2015 that legally TRFC Ltd was not the Rangers FC of 1872 that had signed anything and therefore could have repudiated any contract signed in Murray's time.

I believe Sportscotland took their eye off the ball, and simply bought into the myth that TRFC was the same Rangers and had merely changed owners.[I posted about this some longish time ago]

On the back of the experience of having the then First Minister sticking his oar in in defence of a tax cheat ,and of a SMSM stuffed full with succulent lamb and wholeheartedly determined to propagate the myth of 'continuity Rangers' and avoid any criticism of SDM,  my trust in Sportscotland as a body handing out public money fell to zero.

[I may have written to them, might even have got an anodyne reply- but I can't be bothered at this stage to check]broken heart

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:23 pm - Aug 3, 2019


jean7brodie 3rd August 2019 at 15:18

'..Hello to all of you..'

++++++++++++
Haw, 'Passionflower', broken heart I was beginning to think you had been locked up by the Spanish Inquisition  for supporting Catalan independence or something!

It's very good to have you back and to know that you are safe and well…..

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:55 pm - Aug 3, 2019


StevieBC 3rd August 2019 at 14:13

'…And I presume that the SFA CEO is simply banned from engaging with the SMSM ..'

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of all the many indicators that there was an underlying collusion between the 6th Floor and Ibrox, Regan's readiness to obey CW's order NOT to send a particular letter is perhaps the most telling.

Following the Regan example, Maxwell of the SFA will utter nothing to the Press that has not been okayed (is that a word?) by Ibrox.

Maxwell, like Regan, is of course an employee. But he is not an employee in the same way as the other employees at Hampden Park ( to whom I attach no blame for working for such a rotten-at-heart organisation) 

He has to do as directed by the Board.

Or resign: and by so doing send a message to the world that Scottish Football 'governance' is a sham, a pretence, addicted to fostering a monumental lie for the most base reasons,  and desperately scared of being investigated by an independent body.

I think Maxwell should resign.

Indeed, I think no one with the interests of Scottish Football at heart  should choose to apply for or accept the post of CEO, until the stable has been cleared  of the horseshit and those who dumped it, and who keep dumping it.

 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:43 pm - Aug 3, 2019


John Clark 3rd August 2019 at 22:07

easyJambo 3rd August 2019 at 18:13

'….The question only became relevant when Sportscotland became aware of Sports Direct taking a security over Auchenhowie for a loan in Feb 2015.'

++++++++++++++++

I rather took the view that Sportscotland were unaware ( or maybe were not bothered) until 2015 that legally TRFC Ltd was not the Rangers FC of 1872 that had signed anything and therefore could have repudiated any contract signed in Murray's time.

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

Sportscotland may or may not have been aware that they held a security over Auchenhowie prior to Rangers insolvency. However, they would certainly have been aware of RFC's demise.

The 2002 security lodged on 6 July 2012, makes reference to Sevco Scotland having acquired the property on 15 June 2012.  I can only assume that the administrators lodged the updated security with Companies House.

The administrators would have been in contact with Sportscotland prior to the sale of assets, given that it was a secured creditor of the club.  It may be that all the administrators advised was that they would do the needful to change the property owner and that Sportscotland was happy with that, at that time.

The problem only arose what TRFC granted security over Auchenhowie in February 2015 to SD, possibly without Sportscotland's permission.

Someone in Sportscotland may have been advised of SD's interest, or discovered it for themselves, after the event. Alternatively, someone at TRFC realised that security had been granted to SD without Sportscotland's permission and sought to correct the problem.  The newer security includes a "negative pledge", hence the May 2015 document.   Paul Murray witnessed the new security document on behalf of TRFC.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:11 am - Aug 4, 2019


easyJambo 3rd August 2019 at 23:43

'..It may be that all the administrators advised was that they would do the needful to change the property owner and that Sportscotland was happy with that, at that time.'

+++++++++

Yes, that is certainly a possibility.

But Sportscotland seems still to have been somewhat lax in ensuring that the 'new ' property owner was the entity that had signed the original contract: specific reference had to be made to the  contracts signed by RFC 1872 being accepted by TRFC .

 

View Comment

finnmccoolPosted on2:51 am - Aug 4, 2019


If the 'soft' loans given to TRIFC were converted to shares does this mean that any inter-company loans, if indeed they were classed as such, to TRFC would then be cancelled?

Has NOAL converted loans to shares?

If TRFC goes into administration, can creditors not pursue TRIFC for moneys owed?

I have tried to get my head around this omnishambles of a business for years and still can't figure it out.

It seems to me that there are 2 assets:

1  Season ticket revenues

2  Ibrox

As things stand, I think asset No 2 has more future value than asset No 1.

View Comment

scottcPosted on9:11 am - Aug 4, 2019


finnmccool 4th August 2019 at 02:51

If the 'soft' loans given to TRIFC were converted to shares does this mean that any inter-company loans, if indeed they were classed as such, to TRFC would then be cancelled?

It's a fair question. The loans to RIFC were converted to get round the UEFA FFP rules. However, if the loans to TRFC still exist as debt then surely the 'club' have not got round the rules at all and would still be in breach, although I guess that would really depend on what the accounts say, re income and expenditure at TRFC level

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:41 am - Aug 4, 2019


https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1157949048533504001
……………..
Something i had on the sportsscotland will get the murray park sale cash before Mike Ashley

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on11:49 am - Aug 4, 2019


scotc @ 9.11

Auldheid would have a better understanding then me but my understanding is that UEFA accept the concept of a holding company operating the club and would not be concerned if the holding company meet FFP even if the club wouldn't.  What I am unsure out is the level of debt the holding company is permitted before it doesn't meet the FFP criteria.  I would assume it has to be a percentage of group turover given that RIFC has no revenue stream other than dilution of its own shares

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:49 pm - Aug 4, 2019


Cluster One 4th August 2019 at 10:41

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

Indeed, as they are secured creditors.

However as soon as SD have a legally enforceable debt (even if unsecured), and TRFC don't pay it, then there is nothing to stop them moving for a winding up order. 

The defence against that would obviously be placing the club into administration, and that's when things start to get really messy.

The only other option is paying them what they are owed.

 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:58 pm - Aug 4, 2019


So, when are Duff & Duffer expected at Ibrox?!  enlightened

 

Somehow, this time around I don't think they'll be Administrators of choice. 

 

But, IF things are as bad as we think – and there is not another mysterious source of funding to keep the lights on – then you would expect Robertson or King to make extremely discreet enquiries to validate all their options, in all eventualities?

 

View Comment

bect67Posted on3:24 pm - Aug 4, 2019


By Gerrard's logic, SEVCO already 2 points behind Celtic!

View Comment

Comments are closed.