Good Evening,
Whilst it is understandable that the continuing events at Ibrox remain a hot topic among all Scottish Football Fans — especially given the views of some sections of the press on such events– the never ending rush down the marble staircase is certainly not the only show in town.
The other morning we were treated to the “scoop” that Alistair Johnstone is afraid that Craig Whyte– the once proclaimed Multi Billionaire from Motherwell- may well still be pulling all the strings at Ibrox! This is a fear which is shared by those who walk the corridors of Hampden Park as they, too, are terrified of the prospect of Whyte returning in some shape or form and coming back to haunt them, especially as he has been deemed unfit and proper, banned sine die, and generally ridiculed for his past actions.
However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.
At this juncture, no one in authority knows who Blue Pitch Holdings are and, strangely, no one in authority knows who Margarita Holdings are either! Yet these two “holdings” whoever they may be, may well hold all the power down Govan way…… with the SFA completely powerless to find out who they are let alone get into any dialogue with them. All the SFA can do is talk to the appointed Directors and officers of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
This, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Meanwhile, they will have no difficulty in finding out who the new shareholders of Dunfermline Athletic are. Those shareholders will come from the fanbase and will be clearly registered at Companies House, with the result that ultimately those fans/shareholders will appoint Directors who will then attend meetings and speak and opine on their behalf and in essence be the ” Voice of Dunfermline” at Hampden.
Perhaps, similar will follow from Heart of Midlothian?
However, those at Hampden — if they have any sense at all– will be most wary of events happening in the east end of Glasgow come November.
In the middle of the month, Celtic PLC will hold its AGM and amidst the items on the agenda is the fan driven notion that the Club— through its Directors—- should go further in holding the SFA to account and enquire into the granting of club licences, and in particular how it granted Rangers a club licence that allowed entry to the Champions League in 2011 when the small tax case was outstanding.
The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.
Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..
It is on this basis, that Peter Lawell and Co say the AGM motion is not necessary. Note that saying that the motion is not necessary, is not at all the same thing as saying that what the motion seeks to achieve is not necessary or does not have the support of the board!
There will be those at Hampden who severely hope that the Celtic Board are successful in voting this measure down as obviously they deem their original reply sufficient and would like to end the discussion there.
However, my own view, is that whether the motion is successful or not, there are those within the SFA who will recognise there is trouble staring them in the face here. Real Trouble!
Let’s recap for a moment and draw some threads together.
Celtic’s past Chairman, Dr John Reid, said only a couple of years ago that the SFA was clearly not fit for purpose. He did so in the context of events surrounding Neil Lennon and other matters, but was unshakably robust in his condemnation of an institutionalised uselessness which he saw pervaded the Hampden ranks.
Prior to that, Henry McLeish produced a report which stated that he too had concerns about the Governance of Scottish Football and called for openness and transparency.
In the intervening period, we have seen Mr David Longmuir, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, find himelf without a position following reconstruction– and this partly as a result of club chairmen being apparently kept in the dark about his payment, bonuses and expenes. I understand that there was considerable anger from some at the way in which they had been treated by Mr Longmuir.
Then there is Mr Campbell Ogilvie, El Presidente, who himself benefited from a Rangers EBT and who held sway at Ibrox during a period of time when Rangers– by their own admission— made unlawful and illegal payments to three high profile players in breach of tax laws and SFA/SPL rules. It is these breaches and the consequent Wee Tax Bill which has caused all the angst among Celtic fans and has lead to the highly regulated legal step of tabling a motion at the club’s AGM.
Basically, the position seems to be, that as at the due date when the appropriate documents and declarations were made for a Euro Licence by Rangers for 2011, the wee tax bill was outstanding and due. If it was overdue, then the SFA could not and should not have granted them a licence……. and potentially Celtic should then have been put forward as Scotland’s representatives in the Champion’s League.
However, that did not happen, and Ranger’s were granted a licence– something that the Celtic Directors clearly felt was not correct.
They may have disagreed with the awarding of the licence because there were those at Rangers at the time who declared that a payment to account had been made to the tax office– allegedly £500,000– and that they had entered into an agreement to make payment of the balance by instalments. Had that been so, then all would have been hunky dory and no more would have been said.
Alas, however, no such payment appears to have been made at all, and no such agreement was entered into and so, on that basis, the tax bill was overdue and outstanding as at 30th June in terms of Article 66 and as such no Euro Licence should have been granted.
However, the argument does not end there.
Auldheid, has posted frequently on these pages about the ins and outs of the licensing provisions and the mechanism and so I will leave that detail to him as he is far more expert in these areas than me.
Now, one of the SFA functions is to have an auditor– someone who can check books, contracts, paper work and so on, and it is part of the SFA licensing function to be satisfied that all the paperwork is of course correct and in proper fashion before they issue any licence.
In this case, it is alleged that the SFA did not perform their function properly.
In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter.
Yet, for whatever reason, no such check appears to have been made, and if you recall a Radio Scotland interview with Alistair Johnstone, Rangers submitted the forms, the SFA replied with one or two enquiries about the BIG tax case which were answered, and thereafter the Licence appears to have simply dropped through the letter box without further ado.
You will also recall that the existence of the wee tax case became known BEFORE Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shareholding in May 2011. In fact it was the subject of News Paper headlines weeks before the deal was completed, and so the fact that there was a wee tax bill was well and truly in the public domain.
When it came to filling in the appropriate forms,either, the SFA were mislead by those then at Rangers with regard to that tax bill, OR, they simply failed to do the requisite checks and make reasonable enquiries before they issued the licence.
However, the uncomfortable fact also remains, that one of the chaps who must have been in the know re the admittedly unlawful and offending side letters, contracts and payments to the three players concerned was Campbell Ogilivie who was on the Rangers Board at the relevant time when the contracts and irregular payments were made under the Discount Options Scheme from 1999 to 2002/3. Indeed he may even have initiated the first payment to Craig Moore in 1999. I reiterate that no one has ever contested that this was an unlawful scheme, and the irregular payments and paperwork are not denied in relation to that scheme.
There are Celtic shareholders who believe, rightly or wrongly, that when it came to the granting of the Euro Licence, the SFA did not play them fair on this occasion and that the wheels within Hampden were oiled in such a way that Rangers were favoured and Celtic were disadvantaged. It is a point that looks to have already been considered by the Celtic Directors in 2011, with the result that they concluded that they should formally write to the SFA and seek clarification.
However, we now have the prospect of those same directors having to go back to Hampden and say ” Sorry, but I am forced to bring this up by my shareholders. I have a legal duty to them to enquire further”. Even if the motion is refused, the point has been made– there are shareholders who are demanding answers– just as shareholders of other clubs demand answers about the ever so secret 5 way agreement and other matters which have hitherto been not for public consumption.
The SFA have nothing to fear of course as they can simply repeat their previous answers,demonstrate that all was above board, and rest easy in their beds.
Except that answer did not satisfy the Celtic Directors on a previous occasion as they decided to take the matter to UEFA, and it would appear that some Celtic shareholders remain dissatisfied with the known stance of the SFA and so they want the Directors of the club to delve further. Without wishing to point out the obvious, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted rigorously or that those at Hampden were in any way economical with the truth or omitted certain details from the previous explanation, or covered up a failure in procedures—- well such omissions have a habit of becoming public these days whether that be through the internet or otherwise.
The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control. The Blazer and club mentality that was once so widespread within the governing bodies is under increasing attack and is being rendered a thing of the past.
In short, the move by Celtic shareholders, is making it plain that they will demand proper corporate governance from their club in ensuring that any alleged failure in corporate governance by the SFA or SPFL is properly investigated and reported on.
Of course, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted properly for whatever reason, then it could be argued that Celtic were disadvantaged in monetary terms along with other clubs who may have been awarded Europa League licences, then the consequences could be cataclysmic. Hence a tendency to circle the wagons rather than admit to failures in the process that need addressing.
It is this reluctance to come out and accept that the licensing process appears to have failed, say at what point the process failed and what needs to be done to address those failures that in many ways has driven the resolution. It is clear to all that something is amiss but the SFA will not admit it, probably from fear of the consequences of doing so? Perhaps some form of indemnity, a lessons learned enquiry with no prejudice might help?
It would come as no surprise to me at all if there were those at Hampden who live in dreaded fear of admitting that their processes were flawed and that a grave mistake was made. Under these circumstances, there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!
From Sky interview
=================
“…When asked to respond, a Rangers spokesman told Sky Sports News: “I find it odd (McColl) didn’t mention the two chief rebel protagonists Malcolm Murray and Paul Murray.
“Everybody in the city knows McColl’s team don’t have the necessary institutional backing for the AGM and this looked like a last desperate throw of the dice.
“Interesting too that Mr McColl cannot commit any more media time as well as repeatedly failing to commit any investment in the club he professes to love. Strange behaviour for an alleged billionaire.”
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9001233/businessman-jim-mccoll-has-vowed-to-bring-stability-back-to-troubled-rangers
============================================
Would the ‘Rangers spokesman’ be Irvine – or even Traynor ?
Or is Traynor out of the picture now, as previously suggested here by others ?
upthehoops says: (601)
October 31, 2013 at 6:43 pm
Anyone who doesn’t wish him well really has no place in a civilized society.
There but for the grace of God and all that.
upthehoops says: (601)
October 31, 2013 at 7:01 am
Aberdeen Asset Management has lost a lengthy court battle over a scheme used a decade ago which paid £31m of bonuses to seven senior employees, including its founder and chief executive Martin Gilbert. In a statement, HMRC said: “This decision will be a big help when we come to argue other cases that are currently in the courts.”
=============================================================================
Would this be the same Martin Gilbert, who features on the front of “The Accountants’ Magazine” (The ICAS in-house comic) alongside Scotland’s wealthiest bus driver, aka Mr Gloag?
Such are the role models being foisted upon us….oh me miserum!
Just spent a wee half hour listening Jim McColl talk about his business history. Very revealing. A man who is driven to make a profit, and who, on the face of it, does just that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ftugixbwLA8
borussiabeefburg says: (197)
October 31, 2013 at 7:21 pm
————————————–
I believe there was an incident that didn’t make Mr Lunny’s notebook in a recent St johnstone game due to it not being on the BBC hIghlights.
The game was against St Mirren and an uncharitable local journalist suggested that it’s omission might have been due to a St Mirren player being on the studio panel that night.
They went on to point out that, if this were the case then, in order to be fair, Mr Lunny ought to watch the unedited highlights of every SPL game!
Quite where this would leave him in terms of any league where only the games of one particular team were covered I hesitate to speculate.
Like the pus in a supurating sore, it appears that matters sevco are coming to a head.
Barcabhoy says: (256)
October 31, 2013 at 7:31 am
“Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to make an announcement today on tax dodging, saying that a register of the true owners of shadowy shell companies will be made public as part of the fight against tax avoidance.”
Would be good if it happened. However , ” I hae ma doots “
=================================================================================
Barcabhoy, your “doots” are well founded.
When Cameron, Osborne and at least five (5!) members of the government have benefitted from offshore “sheltering of funds/assets”, it is always going to be lipservice or sound-bites!
davythelotion says: (190)
October 31, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Like the pus in a supurating sore, it appears that matters sevco are coming to a head.
_____________________________________________
Are you suggesting they might be in for a bit of a squeeze?
OK a’ll get ma fallout suit on
Rufus Otis and Hugo says: (4)
October 31, 2013 at 9:50 am
Danish Pastry says: (1611)
October 31, 2013 at 8:29 am
If that Herald report is true then we may yet see EBT Ogilvie being pursued. Wasn’t the CVA rejected in order that HMRC could pursue individuals, or words to that effect? It could just spark a minor revolution and a clear-out of the complicit. Hope is a fine thing.
———————-
Would this mean that all recipients of an EBT were personally liable for unpaid tax? I wonder what Campbell, Nacho, Ally, Walter, Souey and the rest of the RFC (IL) EBT beneficiaries are thinking? Maybe that should be I wonder what their accountants and lawyers are thinking?
Can of worms? More big laughs on the way?
=============================================================================
To quote Kipling, no JC, not Shakespeare…”….if man can dream and not let dreams be his master…”
McColl interview now running on this Sky page. His somewhat quixotic involvement in all this makes more sense after you’ve seen his speech in the youtube clip I posted above. If I understood him correctly he will ‘align himself with the interests of potential investors’. Up until now that has meant profitting on the profits of others.
Since he’s not a man who is averse to taking a calculated financial risk or two, the fact that he is not jumping in feet first means that he may want to remain at arms length, although willing to invest other people’s money for them. It oozes magnanimity.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9001233/businessman-jim-mccoll-has-vowed-to-bring-stability-back-to-troubled-rangers
Danish Pastry says: (1618)
October 31, 2013 at 8:18 pm
=======================
Do you remember the days when MBB and Mr Charles, with their hands on hearts, swore that they hadn’t taken a single penny out of RFC(IL)/Sevco ?
Shirley McColl is different to these guys ?
😛 👿 🙂 😯 😆 😈
Reilly1926 says: (160)
October 31, 2013 at 8:29 pm
5 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: (1618)
October 31, 2013 at 8:18 pm
=======================
Do you remember the days when MBB and Mr Charles, with their hands on hearts, swore that they hadn’t taken a single penny out of RFC(IL)/Sevco ?
Shirley McColl is different to these guys ?
&&&&&&&&
They never took a penny out of sevco, they rinsed TRIFC for £5m to date and continue to enjoy golden eggs from frontcos, security, merchandising, ‘loan’ repayments and share sales….Keeeeerchhhingggg!!!!!.
Reilly1926 says: (160)
October 31, 2013 at 8:29 pm
1 0 Rate This
Do you remember the days when MBB and Mr Charles, with their hands on hearts, swore that they hadn’t taken a single penny out of RFC(IL)/Sevco ?
Shirley McColl is different to these guys ?
————
It’s looking very much as though Charles of Normandy called McColl’s bluff just as the current regime continues to. The fact that he actually gave Green credit for an admin rescue sort of indicates that he needs to continue the myth. But does he really want to leave himself open to ridicule with the “he took them out of administration” stuff? And how woolly is this:
“They kept asking me why I couldn’t put my money in. But I have my own private equity firms. I have a lot of backers behind me who give me their money and trust me to focus my attention on the businesses I invest in.”
More mysterious investors. And this was the last public, on-the-record from him? Sounds as though Scotland’s 6th richest man won’t be putting a penny of his own money into Ibrox.
Apparently Ally McCoist thinks Ramsdens final should be played at Hearts instead of Easter road as Hearts need the cash.
bears are not happy – as they regard hearts as the enemy/rangers haters
of course, they regard Petrie (and hibs) as rangers haters.
Dunfermline would be a good neutral ground and they are cash strapped just now, but they are rangers haters.
in fact, where would be a suitable venue for a Raith v Sevco game at a neutral venue that is not a “rangers hating” club
Dundee – well, utd are OBVIOUSLY haters, what about Dundee – no, they took Sevco’s SPL place
Dunfermline – oh, you have to be kidding
St Johnstone? maybe – a few wee digs about financial prudence, but no real sly kicks – maybe OK
Falkirk? – no, stadium announcer
Livingston – hmmm, not sure….they are a decent club, so i’m sure they have slighted sevco somehow – just can’t think
Any other suggestions that might be a neutral, non rangers hating venue?
This Rangers/Sevco abomination has been an education for me. Before all this I thought a Nomad was someone who cut aboot the desert.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1005)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
…
Any other suggestions that might be a neutral, non rangers hating venue?
===========================
Well that just leaves Cathkin Park then… 🙄
Reilly1926 says: (161)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
This Rangers/Sevco abomination has been an education for me. Before all this I thought a Nomad was someone who cut aboot the desert.
=============================
And if Craigie does indeed own the stadium, there could be hordes of angry Nomads cutting aboot Govan in the near future…
StevieBC says: (865)
October 31, 2013 at 9:21 pm
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1005)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
…
Any other suggestions that might be a neutral, non rangers hating venue?
===========================
Well that just leaves Cathkin Park then… 🙄
——————————–
a bit glasgow-centric and a history of liquidation….surely that kinda history is advantageous to one club who’d feel perfectly at home
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1005)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Sadly, over on the Hearts fan site there’s a number of people think it’s a nice gesture by a nice guy! There are those, myself included, who have put them right on that score. McCoist is merely taking an opportunity to point out that there’s another club in financial difficulty and to take a pop at the SFA etc. If the match had been given to Tynecastle he’d have been complaining because Easter Road holds about 3,000 more. In which case I’d have been more inclined to believe his complaint was genuine!
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1006)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Any other suggestions that might be a neutral, non rangers hating venue?
——————————————–
Perth Glory?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1005)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Any other suggestions that might be a neutral, non rangers hating venue?
______________________________
Its obvious innit….. Pittodrie.
No history of antipathy between sevco and the Dons whatsoever. No siree.
(Not like there was with the ‘oldco Rangers’, at any rate)
No history of anything, in fact!
Driving back home today on the M74 just as it merges with the M8, I noticed a ‘ Spivs out banner hanging from one of the overpasses, it really did make me laugh. Has anyone else seen any of these dotted around anywhere?
And another thing, i’m 100% sure the term ‘spiv’ originated from the RTC blog or the early stages of this site, now who was that blogger who coined the phrase?
Palacio67 says: (221)
October 31, 2013 at 9:45 pm
…
And another thing, i’m 100% sure the term ‘spiv’ originated from the RTC blog or the early stages of this site, now who was that blogger who coined the phrase?
===========================================
I think goosygoosy has copyright for introducing that term to TSFM.
Emilio Larsson @BhoyEddie 23m
Sons of Struth Q&A with Paul Murray http://fb.me/YaMJhY0r man should be a politician, not one straight answer
Sons of Struth · 4,250 like this
2 hours ago · ..
Here are the answers from Paul Murray on his SoS Q&A session
Do you foresee Frank Blin joining the rangers board should you gain power?
I have huge respect for Frank Blin. For various reasons he decided to withdraw from the process. I would like to think that if we achieve a stable, competent Board then we can have a further conversation with him about a role.
Who are the individuals hiding behind the corporate unknowns that are BPH and Margarita?
I don’t know who the beneficial shareholders behind Blue Pitch and Margarita are. If the Board wish to rebuild trust with the supporters then they should disclose this information asap. If they will not then you have to ask why? What do they have to hide?
What guarantees can he give the support that we will have sustainable spending & what level of income does he foresee should the requisitioners be voted in ?
First of all we have to maximise all revenue streams open to the Club. This will be the job of an experienced and capable CEO supported by the Board. We then have to balance our costs. We all want to be the most successful Club in Scotland but we must do it on a sustainable basis. It is not rocket science. During my 4 years on the Board previously we reduced the debt from £35m to £16m whilst winning 3 successive SPL championships. We did that by running the Club on a break-even basis based on domestic revenues with any European income being used as an “investment fund” to pay down debt or invest. There is no reason why that cannot be done again but we need a top class executive management team to achieve that.
What has happened to Allistair Johnston will he be back on board.
Again I have huge respect for AJ. I speak with him quite often but there are no plans to bring him back on to the Board.
Most fans will agree the current squad is far too big and the wage budget is excessive, how does he plan to address this?
It is a balance. We have to run a tight ship but we also have to invest so that we are ready for the SPL as and when we get there. I think we also have to be smarter where we spend our money eg we have allowed our scouting network to disintegrate. One of our plans is to invest to restore an effective scouting network
How many new directors and what are their business background
We have proposed 4 new non-executive directors. I have financial and investment skills. Malcolm Murray has extensive City connections. Scott Murdoch has property skills and Alex Wilson can help us rebuild the organisation structure of the Club which has been allowed to wither. More importantly we will look to appoint a top class CEO and CFO and we have candidates identified and ready to go.
Do you think the banner protests are a good way to keep pressure on the board and should we keep them up until the AGM
I think protests are fine as long as they are peaceful. We live in a democracy and it is entirely appropriate for people to express their views.
Will he make sure Stockbridge and his cohorts have no links whatsoever to rangers using other rangers linked companies i.e GARRION security and rangers retail,rangers media etc as Stockbridge is still a shareholder in these companies right now and benefits personally
We will have a policy that no Board members have financial interests in any Club contracts or other conflicts of interests.
Does he plan to introduce a self imposed wage cap in line with turnover ratio? Almost all fans will agree the current wage bill is far too high, how does he intend address this
See my previous answer on revenues and costs. I don’t think a blanket cap is necessarily the right approach but clearly you have to balance the books.
Will Paul Murray and co stop paying out bonuses to board members regards results on the park
All Board members should have their remuneration bench-marked. In line with every other business I have ever been involved with any bonuses should only be paid for performance against sensible measures.
Michael Grover Mr Murray you don’t know me but you know of me.I sit in my seat in Copland Rear every home game where as a boy and through my youth stood supporting my team. I have responded to every “Clarion Call”to assist my club and have done to the best of my ability.
As you probably realise I am not a young man and Rangers has been a big part of my life. The last 18 months has been a roller coaster event for our club and I don’t want it repeated.
I along with others have taken the decision to assist in handing out leaflets and protesting within our Stadium as part of the action group known as the Sons of Struth.
What can you say and do now to reassure me that the future of Rangers is safe and I will not, after the AGM be back to taking peaceful direct action against you and the Board?
Michael Grover: Michael, the issue in question here is re-establishing trust between the Board and the fans. The one thing that you can trust 100% with all of our group is that we will ALWAYS act in the best interests of the Club. The Club’s interests must always come first. That has not been the case in the last couple of years and that has been a fundamental issue.
Can we find out why the IPO cost so much and why?and who benefited from this vast overpayment also why was £5.7M written off using the IPO as an excuse?
There has basically been a lack of transparency across the board with the level of IPO costs just one example. We will undertake to examine all “excessive” payments and see whether there can be any recovery for the Club.
Do you envisage a second share issue diluting the current holdings?
The Club will need to raise more capital so there will need to be at least one further share issue. To maximise the proceeds it is critical that there is a credible Board with a credible business plan in place. On that basis iam sure that there will be an appetite from existing and new investors.
Will he ask for criminal charges to be brought if any wrongdoing with regards to money passing between green white and duff&phelps is seen to have occurred.
I think the best and most effective agencies to examine this are the Police and BDO, the liquidators of the old company.
Will he protect the good name of the club whenever it is being sullied?
I think we have to defend the Club but also take a positive role in leading Scottish football. We are a massive and critical part of the game in Scotland and we have to play our part in helping shape it.
Alan Flockhart Can u pass on the gratitude of the decent fans to Paul and the others in his group, hopefully one day his efforts are rewarded and we have a clean club again. One question I would like to ask, his thoughts on long term fan ownership? Thanks SOS
I have said publicly that there should be proper representation for supporters. We would plan to canvass the fans to understand what they want and what is workable. As regards ownership I think an effective model would be to have say a small number of high net worth individuals owning say 30%, the fans owing 10-15% with the balance held by financial institutions.
We also plan to introduce a Rangers Constitution that all directors would have to sign. This will set out our core values. As part of that exercise we intend to canvass the shareholders about putting Ibrox into a “trust” structure so that it is legally protected from any future sale.
The club have been using Jack Irvine and Media House for “PR” for a long time. Would a new board carry on employing them?
I think Jack Irvine should consider his position after we come to the end of this process.
Will Paul and the group he represents ensure complete openness & traceability in their investors etc
Transparency is key and has been sadly missing in the last couple of years. We will always ensure that we are open and transparent and that is why we are seeking full disclosure on who is behind Blue Pitch and Margarita.
What kind of wages will the directors receive will everything be transparent the way yourself has asked for
See my previous answer to this. Our group have no desire to make money from RFC. We are all custodians of the Club with the aim being to enhance it for the next generation.
Will his group look at the amount of consultants still employed at the club earning vast sums and billing the club over inflated costs!.
It will be the CEO’s job to review all third party contracts and relationships and ensure that the Club is getting the best “value for money”. As I said before we would have a policy that no directors have interests in any of the Club’s contracts.
Does he plan on working with king ? And also what’s his views on the easdales involvement and would he consider working with them ?
Iam supportive of Dave King, who I served on a Board with for 4 years. As regards the Easedales I think that they should disclose who they represent. That would go a long way to building trust with the fans on their intentions.
Would you be willing to address the issues facing our disabled supporters and in particular wheelchair users and look into the amount of able bodied carers on the committee of the rangers disabled supporters club as it seem an uneven balance against disabled on the board,
I would obviously be more than happy to address the rights and issues surrounding our disabled supporters.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1005)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Any other suggestions that might be a neutral, non rangers hating venue?
______________________________
Cliftonhill Stadium!!!! An old joke “All seater stadium – three piece suite” God love them. 😀
From the Paul Murray interview:
Q: Do you envisage a second share issue diluting the current holdings?
A: The Club will need to raise more capital so there will need to be at least one further share issue.
AT LEAST? Doesn’t sound like the most inspiring rallying call to inspire potential investors to pony up.
ean7brodie says: (331)
October 31, 2013 at 10:10 pm
4 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1005)
October 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Any other suggestions that might be a neutral, non rangers hating venue?
______________________________
Cliftonhill Stadium!!!! An old joke “All seater stadium – three piece suite” God love them. 😀
———————————————————————————————
How about Gallowgate Graveyard next to Heaven.
Tartanwulver says:
===========================
Let me get this right. The new club will actually need a share issue to raise funds.
You could knock me down with a feather, who would have predicted that.
Here’s the thing, who will actually buy those shares to bring the money in. Will it be Jim McColl, will it be Paul Murray, will it be Dave King or will it be the support.
Maybe the rank and file should think about cancelling Christmas to keep the money to save their club. You wouldn’t want multi millionaires or even billionaires throwing their money away on a bad investment. That would be madness. Not when working men and women can put their money in.
How much is Jim McColl worth? Thing is, if I personally was worth say £1 billion, and the current Rangers situation was happening, I’d resent paying fortunes to Charles Green and his cohorts for nothing but I’d buy the whole operation outright and do everything I could to make it a success. Cost me £100 million? Who cares. I’ve still got £900 million. Which is enough to, I don’t know, live reasonably well for the rest of my life. But then I’m a fan, and that’s the way I’m thinking.
To be clear on the above, I would not expect to make a penny out of Rangers. I would expect that every penny I put in would be gone. I would do it for a combination of love of my team and personal gratification. If a rich man says he wants to help Rangers but doesn’t put a penny in, I’m suspicious, because it is not what I would do. If a rich man or any other person says he wants to invest in Rangers, as in spend money to get a return, I’m suspicious because I know that that is unlikely in the extreme unless you are very crooked.
NTHM @9:16pm
We actually have a Ghost stadium suitable for Zombies at Broadwood, Clyde’s ex residence.
Fully functional Stadium, no asbestos, no history between the Ghosts of Sevco and the Spirit of the Bully wee……Would North Lanarkshire Council accommodate them? ………Or is there a Car boot sale planned for the day of the match?……….
By the way Sincere Best wishes to Fernando Ricksen.
Bill Shankly was wrong. Life is far more important.
RyanGosling says:
=====================================
Why on Earth would anyone spend £100m on buying RIFC PLC.
The current market capitalization is about £30m, that’s buying every share currently traded, at full price.
Are you suggesting that you would need to then gift the PLC (which to be fair you would own 100% of) a further £70m. I don’t think that would be entirely compliant with the UEFA FFP rules.
No Tif Finn. It was a very broad example.
Ok I’ll explain what I mean by that.
£100 million to buy Rangers – I picked a figure out of the air purely as an example, it had no bearing on real life. In no way was I saying Rangers were worth £100 million. The figure could have been £10 or £10 billion. It was an example. And I think it was pretty clear the point I was making.
[TSFM – Yes Ryan it was very clear, and most of us knew that. A very clear illustration of the scenario given the assumption that McColl is a fan. No need for you to justify yourself. Thanks for not rising to the bait.]
Danish Pastry says: (1619)
October 31, 2013 at 8:18 pm
McColl interview now running on this Sky page. His somewhat quixotic involvement in all this makes more sense after you’ve seen his speech in the youtube clip I posted above. If I understood him correctly he will ‘align himself with the interests of potential investors’. Up until now that has meant profitting on the profits of others.
Since he’s not a man who is averse to taking a calculated financial risk or two, the fact that he is not jumping in feet first means that he may want to remain at arms length, although willing to invest other people’s money for them. It oozes magnanimity.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9001233/businessman-jim-mccoll-has-vowed-to-bring-stability-back-to-troubled-rangers
=++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If a company is losing £12M per anum and it’s predecessor company never made a profit even at the height of it’s on field cheating fueled success what return is there for any investor? What is the business model that will give investors a return on capital?
Applied for CEO, and since they will no doubt want to avoid looking gullible……at some point, I told them I already had a chateau in France.
Interview technique tips welcome .
My friend says “Brian frae Cumbernod” was on SSB again tonight – He’s one of the McColl Brigadistas and he asked what have the spivs got to gain by delaying the AGM. My friend says that is actually a good question. When is it that the share lock in is lifted?
Another caller tried to suggest that the Easdales only had proxy shares and had not yet bought Charlie’s swag yet.
“I think Jack Irvine should consider his position after we come to the end of this process.”
oh I do hope jack’s lurking ……….
Looking at some of the comments from Paul Murray and reading between the lines:
“The Club will need to raise more capital so there will need to be at least one further share issue.”
Why multiple share issues? I suspect that the thinking behind this is that the mission of Rangers as an entity is focused on one strategic goal – to be in a position to beat Celtic FC on the park.
Rangers as an entity do not have the means to get there based on their own resources, current offering and potential. They will need vast sums of other peoples money to be in a position to compete. Multiple share offerings means that those Rangers men do not want to re-build on a sustainable basis – as they recognize that a (core?) element of the fan base demands that Rangers are at the top of the tree at the earliest possible moment. They do not have the desire to take time to build progressively within a sustainable basis.
If my hypothesis is true then Rangers as an entity does not have the capacity to move on from the (S)DM business model of lets throw LOTS of other peoples money at the problem – to get to the top. It appears that Rangers going forward still do not have the corporate psyche to live within their means.
If Rangers have to go back to the markets soon to raise cash (in the next 24 months) I cannot see the city welcoming them with open arms. That leaves the fans. How much was raised from the support at the last offering? £5m will not cover their ambitions. They need other peoples money to meet a deluded ambition – how dignified.
However, if the City does welcome more investment – it may be possible to raise money from the markets based on the prospect of filling a stadium of 50,000 fans every 2 weeks or so. What if the Club does not own the stadium? That’s mission impossible on the money raising front.
In the final analysis – I hope that (S)DM gets his fair share of the credit in killing the Club. Credit being the operative word.
Re Mcoll interview
I think he said ,he looks after the interests of many investors who TRUST him to invest their money well (or words to that effect .Should JW have then asked him if any of these investors would be buying into the new share issue .
Also he said he could not sit back anymore and watch what was happening to Sevco 2012 ,yet when asked earlier if the club could go into admin ,he answered something along the lines of I don’t think so after what we put in place back in July .
What would that have been ?.,
Why would J MC put anything in place at Sevco back in July and why leave it till now to put pressure on
Anyone any ideas as to what happened back in July that may have J MC involvement .
Found it strange he felt the need to say this would be his one and only tv appearance and he made this one time appearance in front of Jim White of all peepil .Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Re P Murray .
So there will have to be another share issue ,I said at the start of this farce that the fans would be the ones expected to pony up big time for the tribute act and it seems I was not wrong .Dig deep bears their coming for your money again ,as the taxpayers ,legit investors and the banks have all been maxed out .
Oh and it sounds like THE peepil that will be asking for your cash fancy keeping hold of theirs .
RyanGosling says: (79)
£100 million to buy Rangers
————————–
You’re being very generous with other peoples’ money. How would you feel if some self-entitled bampot started to demand that you pour 10% of your total worth into some scheme or other?
The one phrase that riles me the most from Scottish football fans of all colours is, “so-and-so should put his haun in his poakit.” If you want your club to survive it needs to have a sustainable business model. Cash in > cash out. It’s that simple. Deep pockets, billionaire fans, buy ins and buy outs are dangerous distractions. Investment to build facilities – bricks and mortar – is fine but if there is any hint that a proposed investment is needed to supplement cashflow (or “strengthen the team”, or “compete in Europe”) then that should set off a massive red warning light.
So this morning the media is awash with the news that their favourite, Ally McCoist, is unhappy with the Ramsdens Cup Final venue. One can only speculate whether if they chose Tynecastle as he is suggesting, that he would then complain about Easter Road having a larger capacity. On a wider note I find it strange that a media who constantly tell us the League Cup is ‘devalued’ are making such a huge issue of a tournament for the lower league sides. Leaving aside the new club / same club arguments, Rangers and their fans are constantly reminding everyone of their claims to be Scotland’s biggest and most successful club. To make such a fuss about the Ramsdens Cup, given their full time status and wage bill, is in my view a total embarrassment, and if the same media actually had a set they would point that out to them.
Just read 2 brilliant posts this morning. Loamfeet and Long Time Lurker, thankyou.
ps, some other good ones too, but these 2 stand out with the simple, but effective summing up of events/facts.
Why are sevco so reluctant to use their own facilities? Postponing the Forfar game makes sense as Ally’s mighty squad will be severely depleted by call ups. Why haven’t they arranged a ‘glamour’ friendly to bring in some much needed moolah and to allow the ‘colts’ ( remember them!© chuck) a run out in front of a packed ground, after all, they’re already having to shell out wages for facilities staff etc.
Over on RM there’s much grumbling about yet another cancellation. Surely this would be a way of pouring oil on troubled waters?
Jack has effectively silenced debate on RM.
Whyte,Green,King,McColl etc,etc
Greyskull replacing club anthem Simply The Best, with-If I were A Rich Man by Topol. Altogether now, Ayava davadavadavadavada.
I’ve had a look at the Daily Record on line. Since they made a pigs ear of the Dave King story the other day they haven’t mentioned anything about the goings on at Ibrox. Has Irvine taken out an injunction ? Keef Jackson was on Sportsound last night and again no mention of anything Sevco despite McColl’s appearance on Sky 2 hours earlier.
First paragraph of Richard Wilsons piece on Peter Lawell. It starts…… ‘In the absence of Rangers, while the Ibrox club recovers in the lower leagues, and with participation in the qualification stages of the Champions League all but guaranteed for at least three consecutive seasons, he recognises the
opportunity to establish the club’s status on the European stage. That has consequences, though, that allow the Celtic chief executive to widen the horizons’
So the business trip to China is a direct result of the demise of the team from Govan.
CL. Football fdor Celtic will not be guaranteed after 3 years as presumabley Sevco will have risen to the top of the SPFL by then and will take the 1 CL spot available after that.
loamfeet says: (55)
November 1, 2013 at 7:07 am
RyanGosling says: (79)
£100 million to buy Rangers
————————–
You’re being very generous with other peoples’ money
___________________________________________________________
I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but that wasn’t he point that Ryan was making. He was making the point that if McColl was the fan he purports to be, that he would invest some money. The £100m was just an extreme example of what he could relatively afford for shares, given McColl’s reported wealth.
McColl’s point may be that investing a wedge for shares would lead to the expectation that he would gift the team more cash on an on-going basis. That is Dermott Desmond’s perfectly reasonable view of his investment in Celtic. Above all else, the business model must be sustainable. I think the fan’s expectations are what are making him hesitate.
I do not know McColl, but I have acquaintances in common with him. For as long as I can remember being aware of him, their view has been that he is absolutely NOT a risk taker. The only risk that the waiting game is exposing is the risk to TRFC itself. McColl will want to pick up a controlling interest when the shares get to around 20p. Be seen as the guy who avoided liquidation. He shares Ryan Gosling’s dream of self aggrandisement – as being the man who saved Rangers. Just not at any significant cost.
Morning all,
WRT Ibrox.Football clubs are are used to arranging replays etc,attended by thousands of fans,at a few days notice.Claiming that an AGM couldn’t be held at Ibrox because of the fixture list is just a smokescreen.
There’s a cup game on there tonight.If TRFC had to arrange another game for next Tuesday it could be done.
Surely it would also be cheaper to hold the AGM at Ibrox than rent another venue.If McColl and co wish to help with costs,why don’t they rent Ibrox then the club would benefit from much needed funds?.
The only thing I can think of is this.
Now the ST money is in,the only real income is walk-up fans.Allowinc for VAT(assuming its being paid),concessions etc,even with say 8k fans,the net income may not be enough to cover the match costs.
If the ST cash has gone already,then home matches may be reducing the bank balance even further.
If this was the case,and I don’t know,then an insolvency event may be closer than we think.
Everything happening right now,CEO ads,postponed matches etc is a delaying tactic.there is nothing to stop RIFC from announcing the AGM date today,even if it’s the 30th December.
Will they last ’til then?.
Reilly1926 says: (162)
November 1, 2013 at 8:27 am
9 0 Rate This
… Keef Jackson was on Sportsound last night and again no mention of anything Sevco despite McColl’s appearance on Sky 2 hours earlier.
——
Jackson was a bit of a contrast across from Roddy Forsyth. Seems out of his depth. An odd choice of BBC pundit really. It’s tabloid meets broadsheet.
Guidi on SSB caught my attention with some revolutionary talk about 6’30 into the the podcast.
“It’ll be their first cup final … well, certainly their first cup final under Ally McCoist, he’s never made it to a cup final before … their first piece of silverware … under the new regime.”
I might just have heard too much in it, but a slight change of course, perhaps. Are people shying away from the 140-year, same-club stuff? Well, not Mr McColl apparently, who quite likes Green’s line of them them being taken out of administration. If he is engineering a cut-price purchase at the critical time in April it could be helpful to have the myth perpetuated. Getting involved in the Ibrox drama seems an unusual risk @BigPink. Not so much financially, but reputation wise for McColl. You can only think that his plan would be a turnaround and profitable sale on behalf of his investors. Get out by selling on a leaner, streamlined, break-even operation to others — before any serious SPL campaign begins, and fans’ expectations demand top spot.
Duplicate post. Sorry folks.
Whilst as a Celtic supporter I enjoy the prospect of the very strong possibility of 3 years access to CL qualifying at least, as a supporter of the game in Scotland as a whole I am a bit surprised that no one at a higher level has examined the role that the pursuit of CL wealth has played in Rangers downfall.
I was a bit alarmed to see in the notes of the Paul Murray interview his support for re engaging in the very process that brought about his club’s demise where in spite of their SFA aided skullduggery the twin footballing gods of Malmo and Maribor intervened to halt a flawed process.
Murray was falling for the myth that he played his part in creating that Rangers were on a sustainable path because debt was being reduced. As I have said before it depends where you start counting. At its height in 2009(?) it stood at £31m so three years of CL money later it had been reduced to £18m.
However if you start at 2006 when Rangers debt was £6M then you can see that not only was it 3 times that in 2012 but more important it could only be managed if CL entry was guaranteed.
Now frankly that really bothers me because when it became clear how much Rangers relied on CL money decisions on and off the field of play in their favour noticebly rose.
That rise which saw one season described as the one of “Honest Mistakes” had an extremely detrimental effect on our game and how supporters perceived it.
I have no wish to return to that era again, but it would seem that RIFC, more like the Black Knight of Monty Python fame than any Blue Knight, wish to re-enter battle armless and legless whilst still currently headless and still fancy their chances. Well if you read what Paul Murray and Dave King say that is the inevitable conclusion.
Does Scottish football really want to see another fight to the death as took place from 2009 or is there anyone with any sense going to stand up and say.
“Stop. The distribution and pursuit of CL money is killing us”?
Are we to continue to hurtle down the same path of make do and mend and foreverv stay on it or are we going to think about the path the game is on and change it?
Can we change our thinking or are we doomed by Einstein’s observation that you cannot fix a problem using the minds who created it?
Perhaps changing some of the personnel who were in at the start of Rangers downfall and remain in a position of influence at the SFA and seem keen on restoring the failed model would be a good start….
Following on from Loamfeet & Ryan G’s comments, many Bears fail to grasp that in order to shift the spivs out of their club, someone is going to have to pay them off. They may well have all but departed from executive positions, most with incredible pay offs for less than a year’s work, and through some of the more opaque investors will be looking forward to the lock in period expiring.
What hasn’t changed is the unsustainable business model, that if I understand Paul Murray correctly, will be funded through a series of share issues. WTF?
When will someone down Ibrox way realise that with FPP rules, and expect those clubs out with the top 5 leagues across Europe, to be given a closer examination of their financial position, the Euro cash bonus is further away than ever?
A cash in >= cash out biz model is now essential for Euro participation. Others given my soubriquet can no longer write cheques to chase dreams. Sure the accountants will work hard to find ways around it, stadium naming rights is a good example, but a greater degree of financial jurisprudence is upon European football.
Whilst many on here, in the MSM and in stadiums up and down the land speculate, vilify, fear or hope for a Rangers moneybags saviour, the answer to all Rangers problems, whatever the version, is in the Income and Expenditure Statement.
If they do hire a serious, experienced CEO that’s the only place such an individual is going to start, assuming the business can get or has got enough cash to survive long enough for him/her to turn it around.
So to Ryan and his fellow Gers fans I say this. Put down the moonbeams, let go of the hover pitches, shun the 5 star casinos and embrace what every other club in the land does & only spend the money you bring in.
It’s going to be a culture shock, many won’t like it but that is the test of being a fan.
If not there is always administration and another death by liquidation.
Your choice, the clock’s already ticking.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) November 1, 2013 at 9:24 am
I think in fairness to the NewGers (!), they have to give x number of weeks’ notice to shareholders of the date & agenda for an AGM – after all if shareholders are expected to vote, they need to know what they will be voting for & when…
I believe I’ve read on here that if TRFC go into administration RIFC will be the main creditors. Is that a fact?
I agree with Auldheid regarding the model OldGers ran and it bothers me that lessons weren’t learnt from its failure – heck even the prospectus was all about “the return (sic) of Champions’ League football”. This is why IMO they will fail financially as a club again – they have a cost base of a CL team but persistently fell at the early hurdles denying them such revenue.
As an aside, I see from Newsnow one of the papers picked up on Peter Lawwell’s preference for Champs’ League last 16 over a “money-spinning run” by dropping down into UEFA – didn’t OldGers actually make a loss when they got to, and partially dismantled, Manchester for the Europa final? Being in the elite last 16 of Europe is more prestigious, more lucrative and higher profile that even a run to the final of the Europa – sure we’d all like to go to another final, but I’m happy being at the top table for as long as we can (BTW this is a generic point, when I saw our draw I said I’d be happy enough if we made 3rd…).
On reducing the debt.
I recall a period when my friendly supportive bank was returning every cheque I wrote whilst gladly accepting any monies directly paid in in reduction of my debt. I do not look back on that period with any fondness, I do not refer to it as a period when I was “reducing my debt” rather I was having my debt reduced for me. The point of the story? It was MY debt. I spent it. I had to repay it with my funds. Did it. Didn’t like it. Didn’t do it again!
Later in life, in a twist of irony I found myself in a summer job IN A BANK! (funnily enough, not the friendly supportive one mentioned earlier). There I learned the golden lesson. If you are making losses then you have to turn the ship around, not once, not twice but three times. Once to stop doing whatever it was you were doing to make the loss in the first place (or in sevco’s case, Strike One!) Twice, to repay the loss – to create the funds to fill the hole that financed the loss in the first place (Sevco had every opportunity to avoid this stage but ignored it) and again a third time, to get ahead – to create what Paul Murray refers to as an investment fund albeit I doubt he would recognise one at Ibrox if it came up and gave him a funny handshake.
Auldheid – I would suggest the business plan down Govan way is even more simple than your suggestion. On field domination is great but its expensive. On field participation – to do whatever, to be in whatever, to take on whatever those pesky hoops do would suit them just fine just now. Why? It keeps the core attendance, generational continuence and mentality floating along just nicely.
The trouble is no-one is prepared to pay for it.
jockybhoy says: (239)
November 1, 2013 at 9:47 am
1
0
Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) November 1, 2013 at 9:24 am
I think in fairness to the NewGers (!), they have to give x number of weeks’ notice to shareholders of the date & agenda for an AGM – after all if shareholders are expected to vote, they need to know what they will be voting for & when…
=======================================
I agree wholeheartedly.
They don’t though.have to wait until the last minute to announce this.They already know the agenda.The AGM could be 7 weeks away.There is nothing to stop them announcing this now.
They may,of course,wish to announce the new CEO at the AGM..
Have the spivs got their own man lined up?.
Danish Pastry says: (1621)
November 1, 2013 at 9:50 am
I believe I’ve read on here that if TRFC go into administration RIFC will be the main creditors. Is that a fact?
++++++++++++++++++++++
It is clear from the accounts that the football losses of £15m per annum are being covered by loans from RIFC. From memory, TRFC owed RIFC over £16m at 30th June. So the major creditor must be RIFC, who can put TRFC into administration any time they feel like it.
neepheid says: (882)
November 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
So the major creditor must be RIFC, who can put TRFC into administration any time they feel like it.
===========================================
Good morning Mr newCEO.
If you hang your coat over there. Here’s your desk sir. Milk and one is it? Yes that’s the marble staircase, its lovely isn’t it. Carpet’s a bit lumpy? Never mind that just now. Now then, item 1. If you’d just like to sign this administration document here and here, and then this mortgage document here and here. Thank you. Lovely to have met you! Have a nice life, if you can, the press are waiting for you through that door.
neepheid says: (882)
November 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
2 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: (1621)
November 1, 2013 at 9:50 am
I believe I’ve read on here that if TRFC go into administration RIFC will be the main creditors. Is that a fact?
++++++++++++++++++++++
It is clear from the accounts that the football losses of £15m per annum are being covered by loans from RIFC. From memory, TRFC owed RIFC over £16m at 30th June. So the major creditor must be RIFC, who can put TRFC into administration any time they feel like it.
================================================
So who would actually make that decision
How much say would the ‘investors’ in RIFC Plc
(who thought they were investing into ‘the club’, but we’re not, they were investing in the company which owned the assets of the company which operated the club)
Have?
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) November 1, 2013 at 10:00 am
Oh, I agree TJB – something definitely stinks in this, and it’s not just all the pairs of discarded brogues…- just putting a procedural point across!
Smugas says: (479)
November 1, 2013 at 10:12 am
0 0 Rate This
neepheid says: (882)
November 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
So the major creditor must be RIFC, who can put TRFC into administration any time they feel like it.
===========================================
Good morning Mr newCEO.
If you hang your coat over there. Here’s your desk sir. Milk and one is it? Yes that’s the marble staircase, its lovely isn’t it. Carpet’s a bit lumpy? Never mind that just now. Now then, item 1. If you’d just like to sign this administration document here and here, and then this mortgage document here and here. Thank you. Lovely to have met you! Have a nice life, if you can, the press are waiting for you through that door.
=======================================================================
. . . The press, waiting for me, errmm, what for?
To get a statement from you!
. . .a statement? Why?
‘Coz they want to be able to tell the Sevconians what they are entitled to know.
Don’t worry though, they never ask any difficult questions, like – have you been convicted of criminal activity in the last 5 years? or, is there a difference between Administration and Liquidation?, or have you met, or had financial dealings with Craig whyte, Zeus, Allenby capital or merchant house, or octopus?
neepheid says: (882)
November 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
Danish Pastry says: (1621)
November 1, 2013 at 9:50 am
I believe I’ve read on here that if TRFC go into administration RIFC will be the main creditors. Is that a fact?
++++++++++++++++++++++
It is clear from the accounts that the football losses of £15m per annum are being covered by loans from RIFC. From memory, TRFC owed RIFC over £16m at 30th June. So the major creditor must be RIFC, who can put TRFC into administration any time they feel like it.
========================
..and hence the interest in where the property assets ownership now lies.
Do TRFC still own them or have they been switched to the parent RIFC or some other related company?
Has a transfer taken place with a portion of the debt to RIFC written off in exchange?
If so that leaves TRFC ripe for administration (or threat of) and available to ‘real Rangers men’ for a bargain £1.
Hallowed stadium rental to be paid for ever and ever of course….
Scottish Football needs some way of putting all these peepil and their club into a box and have it shipped off to Englandshire or anywhere else that will foolishly have them. Scottish Football is totally scunnered with the lot of them.
jimlarkin says: (588)
November 1, 2013 at 10:20 am
4
0
Rate This
neepheid says: (882)
November 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
So the major creditor must be RIFC, who can put TRFC into administration any time they feel like it.
================================================
So who would actually make that decision
=============
That is a decision for the Directors of RIFC. If they take the view that it is in the interests of their shareholders to ditch the money pit known as TRFC, that is entirely within their powers, in fact it could be convincingly argued that the directors are failing in their duty to the shareholders of RIFC by continuing to pump money into a complete basket case.
Tif Finn says: (646)
November 1, 2013 at 10:02 am
=================
The £22m share issue was used for running costs for an unsustainable business plan (OK some of it was syphoned off by spivs) so another share issue without slashing costs is not the answer. The answer is that if TRFC have £17m coming in then their outgoings must not be more than this. If that means the average player at Ibrox is on £2k per week then so be it. They will still be the 2nd biggest spenders in Scotland even at this level.
Walter Smith’s recent comment on overspending at Ibrox, “It’s what Rangers do”, is why the RFC(IL) died and the Newco are in their current state. The days of spending other peoples money, through dodgy tax schemes and equally dodgy Masterton loans, are long gone.
neepheid says: (883)
November 1, 2013 at 10:49 am
2 0 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (588)
November 1, 2013 at 10:20 am
4
0
Rate This
neepheid says: (882)
November 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
So the major creditor must be RIFC, who can put TRFC into administration any time they feel like it.
================================================
So who would actually make that decision
=============
That is a decision for the Directors of RIFC. If they take the view that it is in the interests of their shareholders to ditch the money pit known as TRFC, that is entirely within their powers, in fact it could be convincingly argued that the directors are failing in their duty to the shareholders of RIFC by continuing to pump money into a complete basket case.
=================================
Maybe Stockbridge would do such a transfer of the assets, but why would the easdale’s agree to that
(Their bus windaes wouldn’t last very long if they did that)
So there’ s no way they would do that…is there?
Reilly1926 says: (163)
November 1, 2013 at 10:54 am
3 0 i
Rate This
Tif Finn says: (646)
November 1, 2013 at 10:02 am
=================
The £22m share issue was used for running costs for an unsustainable business plan (OK some of it was syphoned off by spivs) so another share issue without slashing costs is not the answer.
===================================
That really depends what the objective is.
You are correct if that is to continue operating a football club. However if you are more interested in short term gain, then a repeat of what was done before would be ideal. A few people appear to have made a reasonable amount of money out of it.
Just trying to catch up and have not seen the McColl interview.
Did anyone ask the obvious questions? Those being
Mr McColl if you are a Rangers Fan, with huge personal wealth as well as being recognised as someone who soundly manages other peoples money and has connections to many investors to whom you believe Rangers would be an attractive investment opportunity – why didn’t you just blow Charles Green’s offer out of the water when you had the chance?
Dave King at least had an excuse with his cash being unavailable due to his SARS difficulties.
You on the other hand, and you had plenty of notice from D&P on how to get your foot in the door, could have trumped Green by offering around £6-7m even £10m at a push, either on your own or helping out your new best friend Paul Murray. With control of the assets of the oldco you could have launched your own IPO with Malcolm Murray and others on board thus avoiding unknown and secretive investors gaining a hold on ‘the club’.
Being you didn’t head up the marble staircase when you have the chance why should fans believe you can be the saviour now?
What was it that stopped you doing the ‘right thing’ for your beloved Rangers 18 months ago when everyone and their uncle, including Brian Kennedy (who similarly could have ponied up), saw the Spivs for what they were?
Jim McColl’s first class education and subsequent expertise in turning round companies will direct him to:
– work out an achievable strategy
– employ sensible and hard working management
– manage costs and keep focused on the numbers.
How this squares with Walter’s recent “economics and Rangers don’t go” statement is still up for debate. I am sure that Rangers would benefit in the long run from a dose of Mr McColl’s managerial expertise, however the last few decades have turned Rangers into a win at all costs bunch , egged on by their supporters in the MSM who are even more frantically requiring Rangers supporters to purchase their newspapers.
Could McCall stick to his principles under the severe pressure of an under-achieving team, crazy reporters calling for investment, fans being fed by the MSM to believe that they should be top dog, under that sort of pressure it is very easy for top football teams to slide –
You’d be crazy to predict the end–game with this, however, there does appear to be some magic dust at Ibrox which prevents them in the modern era running their business properly , so it’s 50/50.
The difficulty McColl will have is expectations cannot be controlled and also to translate a sensible business strategy into a football strategy will require the removal of the current incumbents managing the football teams and to change tack, as well driving a coach and horses through the Ibrox cost base. The only hope for Rangers is to have it managed by non-Rangers men , rather than the current ethos in taking stupid risks to stop Celtic winning.
Gut feel , McColl is doing this to say at least he tried and will back away, there is no end-game planned for this , it is just being buffeted by events, anything can and will happen.
Tif Finn says: (647)
November 1, 2013 at 11:08 am
Reilly1926 says: (163)
November 1, 2013 at 10:54 am
Tif Finn says: (646)
November 1, 2013 at 10:02 am
=================
The £22m share issue was used for running costs for an unsustainable business plan (OK some of it was syphoned off by spivs) so another share issue without slashing costs is not the answer.
===================================
That really depends what the objective is.
You are correct if that is to continue operating a football club. However if you are more interested in short term gain, then a repeat of what was done before would be ideal. A few people appear to have made a reasonable amount of money out of it.
===================
“Reasonable amounts”. That’s an understatement if ever I’ve heard one !
McColl said an interesting thing last night that got me reaching for a calculator. He reckoned that any share issue that he had been involved in in the past had admin costs of no more than 5%. He took issue with the 25% cost it took Sevco to raise £22m. The difference between these 2 figures is £4.4m.
Over and above what was done with the £16.5m that was left over from the £22m after admin costs the new regime at Sevco just might want to follow where the £5.5m set up costs went to. I’ve got a fair idea.
Can any of the legal eagles on here check the following wiki page and possibly correct the (honest) mistakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_Rangers_F.C.
One thing i cannot get my head round since this saga began …. How can a man who >>> WITHHELD <<< … Millions of PAYE NIC VAT … Still be walking the streets ? ? ? I never ever experienced such leniency in my days in business !
StevieBC says: (867)
October 31, 2013 at 7:29 pm
From Sky interview
=================
“…When asked to respond, a Rangers spokesman told Sky Sports News: “I find it odd (McColl) didn’t mention the two chief rebel protagonists Malcolm Murray and Paul Murray.
“Everybody in the city knows McColl’s team don’t have the necessary institutional backing for the AGM and this looked like a last desperate throw of the dice.
“Interesting too that Mr McColl cannot commit any more media time as well as repeatedly failing to commit any investment in the club he professes to love. Strange behaviour for an alleged billionaire.”
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9001233/businessman-jim-mccoll-has-vowed-to-bring-stability-back-to-troubled-rangers
============================================
Would the ‘Rangers spokesman’ be Irvine – or even Traynor ?
Or is Traynor out of the picture now, as previously suggested here by others ?
——————————————————————————
When relaying this verbally on Sky, Jim White was absolutely clear and unequivocal that Jack Irvine was the source of the club response.
Galling fiver says: (3)
October 31, 2013 at 7:23 pm
He won’t be doing anymore TV interviews because he was uncomfortable with Jim Whyte doing a Vic reeves rubbing his hands up and doon his thighs and slevering about Jim’s wad.
——————————————-
Lost a mouthful of tea down the shirt reading that one. Fantastic! Well worth looking like an eejit for
whisperer says:
===========================
Failure to remit is not a criminal offence, it is a civil matter.
In order to commit a fraud there has to be a deception, so as long as any returns were accurate, even if they weren’t paid, then the only option is a civil penalty.