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!
RyanGosling says: (84)
November 8, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Up to you really. I remain convinced that Mr McCoist will act in what he perceives as his best interests, any other considerations will come a distant 99th on his list of priorities, way below his loyalty to his bank balance….
scapaflow says:
=====================
Thanks for clearing that up.
I had read elsewhere that it could be waived.
I assume it is only if a person or group actually owns the shares and wouldn’t count if, for example someone had a proxy and controlled their vote.
As with all things Pretendygers its all been flagged up as an issue before, chuckles and Easdales beware:
From Manifest
http://blog.manifest.co.uk/2013/02/5973.html#sthash.PHJh0kWv.dpbs
Q:Why is proxy voting like a supermarket lasagne?
February 17th, 2013 | 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Loading … | Email This | Print This | |
A: Suspect ingredients, lack of traceability, bad labelling and poor retailer accountability.
What on earth has dubious food processing got to do with proxy votes I hear you ask? The FT neatly sums it up in its article “From workhorse to main course” (15th Feb 2013): “our food chain is fragmented and open to abuse”. The same is true for proxy voting. Think we are exaggerating – regular readers of this blog will recall numerous occasions when shareholders’ rights have been compromised, German AGMs being the latest in a litany of problems. So, forgive the apparent opportunism of drawing parallels with “Horsegate”, but while shareholders’ rights are under attack from the institutions that are supposed to protect them, voting against a few bank CEOs doesn’t really solve the problem of accountability. Warning, this article contains real meat.
Where’s the beef?
The pressure for cheaper and cheaper goods (lasagna) and services (proxy voting) can only mean one thing, short-cuts, not prime-cuts. In the food chain, beef is cut with what every school boy and girl has for years called “mystery meat”. It’s just the same in the securities chain – one shareholder’s holdings are cut (co-mingled) with someone-else. The net result is the same, frozen blocks of Euro-mush masquerading as prime quality product with no traceability or accountability.
Global custody – the investor expectations gap
What is deeply troubling is that our experience of the abuses in the voting chain are just the most obvious manifestation of a deeply flawed securities system which has been built to facilitate high speed trading rather than long-term investing. We hesitate to call it “safe custody” because pooled accounts just do not meet the definition of “safe”. Don’t just take our word for it, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission came to the same conclusion in its July 2012 custodial and depository services report:
“there are concerns about an expectation gap between what is legally required of custodians and what investors expect the custodian to be doing to safeguard their investment.”
Among the worrying practices/issues ASIC uncovered we find, at the top of the list “unauthorised debiting of omnibus accounts” closely followed by:
•stability and safety of IT systems
•operational risks created by manual and disparate systems
•the risks inherent in corporate actions such as share buy-backs and rights issues
.- See more at: http://blog.manifest.co.uk/2013/02/5973.html#sthash.PHJh0kWv.dpuf
spanishcelt says:
=========================
He could always abstain, it is the coward’s way out.
RyanGosling says: (84)
November 8, 2013 at 7:20 pm
‘…I presume there is a secret ballot though, and if desired Mr McCoist could either not reveal which way he voted or simply lie …’
——
A show of hands is the norm, but if the required minimum of shareholders want a poll, there’s got to be a poll.
And if people ask for independent audit of the poll results, they’ve got to get it ( subject to the necessary provisionsof the Companies Act 2006.
Thanks John. But would an independent audit not just verify the results rather than providing details? But then obviously if a show of hands is the norm then that’s pretty much null and void. Cheers for clearing that up.
How ironic would it be if Mr “name names, we deserve to know” abstained or tried to hide which side he supported.
BigGav says: (67)
November 8, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Over the last 9 years, I have watched Celtic in Barcelona, Villarreal (twice) and Lisbon, and never saw even a hint of violence, so the Amsterdam incidents are clearly an exception.
When Celtic played Villarreal in 2004, the home fans turned and applauded the Celtic fans after the match, and there has been a bond of friendship ever since, with Villarreal even having a supporters club named after Celtic.
(If you ever watch a Villarreal home match on TV, you will normally see a big Celtic banner behind one of the goals.)
When Celtic visited the town again in 2008, many Villarreal fans wore both sets of colours, and before the match both sets of fans mingled and marched to the stadium behind a brass band, under a banner “90 minutes of rivalry, a lifetime of friendship”.
Compare and contrast with fans of another Glasgow team, who sang sectarian songs and attacked the Villarreal team bus when they were there.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was hearting this post a lot until the final para. Who cares about Rangers
I am willing to be persuaded, so let me know what clubs in Scotland in addition to Celtic have had the following happen to them:
1. Threatened with complete ground closure on the basis the SFA didn’t like a flag flown at the ground.
2. The SFA twice clearing their Chief Executive of deliberately failing to register a player, with an independent hearing establishing that is exactly what indeed happened.
3. A Referee lying to their Manager, with the Head of Refereeing continuing the lie live on Radio the next day, despite already knowing it is a lie.
4. Re point 3, despite the Referee admitting the lie, no punishment is applied to the Referee by the SFA
5. Having to get a QC involved as the SFA are trying to punish their Manager outwith their own procedures
6. Having their Manager banned for four games, while three other perpetrators from the opposing club in the same game walk laughing from Hampden with virtually no punishment at all
I could write more, but the above are 6 factual events. Over to you now to tell me all the similar instances applied by the SFA to other clubs.
———————————
I doubt I will persuade you UTH, I suspect it’s in your DNA. 😉
A number of years ago Dundee Utd had a talented forward called Jason Scotland. Jason was settled in the area, with a long term girl friend, playing for his country, in every squad and had a super sub cult hero status, then an SFA committee decided Jason was not good enough for Scottish football and we were forced to release him…for free! He would later go on to change hands for multiple millions in the ELP/Championship deals. That decision cost United much needed revenue and disrupted the lads career. Now why did this happen? Fans of united (like every club) nurse a sense of persecution over this, or the season long touchline bans (not the piffling 4 game bans 😉 ) given to Jim McLean or the bizarre occurrence last week of a 16 game ban suggested for a single player following a 20 player melee.
SFA bureaucrats cover for each other…….refs lie and cover for each other…..clubs can also be booted out of competitions for a misplaced comma, every club can give examples of how the SFA have ****ed them over at some point or other. (Perhaps not every club) Whilst some clubs are allowed to use the national stadium when their ground is under reconstruction, heaven forbid that club should suffer a loss of atmosphere or reduced revenue….like every other club had to, to comply with the Taylor report. Some clubs have the SFA falling over themselves to make sure the business end of the National Cup competition remains in their city….. or odds on the final in their ground! The bottom line is the institutional bias debate holds no water….or is 45 v 54 titles a share of baubles that should merit a public enquiry?……forgive the rest of us if we remain focused on how we compete with clubs whose resources are 10 times ours,…… a club who have enough followers to make very game a home game,…… a club whose commercial muscle make them the automatic sponsors choice, ……a club who enjoy blanket media coverage, …….a club who are all but assured cup finals and European competition,……. a club whose apparatus can and will remove referees, and SFA officers from their jobs should they upset them……and a whole host of other advantages in built with ‘super’ clubs.
I would never suggest Celtic have never had a bad experience, Neil Lennon in particular has cause for complaint, but this is not unique, not in parochial paradigm that is Scottish football, Celtic have benefitted hugely from the circumstances of the ‘old firm’ years.
arabest1 says: (401)
November 8, 2013 at 8:25 pm
…but this is not unique, not in parochial paradigm that is Scottish football, …
—————————————-
You’re right there arabest, it is a ‘Blueprint’
Zilch says: (103)
November 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm
blu says: (423)
November 8, 2013 at 1:04 pm
The banner referred to in the Guardian article of January this year was no more offensive (although less clever) than the four horsemen banners displayed at Celtic Park. One focused on real life trillionaires corrupting football world-wide through chucking massive amounts of money at playthings, the other laughing at a rival’s demise following that club’s stewardship by mere billionaires.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
I think I disagree Blu.
The Ajax banner in January shows a racist stereotype of a rich Arab Sheik. I think this is more likely to have provoked UEFA’s ire than the words below it. I could be wrong though – UEFA are weird and inconsistent on so many things.
The Ajax Banner this week was a crude dig at perceived Irish heritage at Celtic. The first word on this banner is used in a racist and derogatary sense against a section of the community here and elsewhere. Don’t really want to delve too deeply into this as we rapidly go off topic, but I think you get the picture.
The 4 horseman banners were topical and showed Neil Lennon, Hector, Death and CW as the 4 harbingers of doom. Not racist. Not sectarian.
I think there is a fundamental difference.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think there is too. Re the Arab Sheik banner – Ajax have a strong Jewish tradition within their support. Is the Star of David not worn by many of their hard core these days (it used to be in the past)? In that context their banner could be construed as being more offensive.
On the other hand, is it merely a commentary on the current game and the riches injected into it from Russia, The Middle East, China etc that have changed a previously competitive game fought out by national champions, on a more or less equal financial footing, into a money go round where the rich dominate the “poor”?
arabest1 says: (401)
November 8, 2013 at 8:25 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good post. I have no evidence to offer in respect of my Diddy teams maltreatment by the SFA because we have never been consistently good enough to challenge the established order (by that I mean the Old Firm [deceased]) on as consistent a basis as the New Firm did.
Except of course in the year we finished 2nd in the League after the passing of Rangers we lost about £500k because we agreed to the second place money being distributed in the way it should have been if fairness was to mean anything. We’re nice like that.
Don’t please get me started on bent referees or diving cheats live BFDJ.
jean7brodie says: (344)
November 8, 2013 at 8:36 pm
arabest1 says: (401)
November 8, 2013 at 8:25 pm
…but this is not unique, not in parochial paradigm that is Scottish football, …
—————————————-
You’re right there arabest, it is a ‘Blueprint’
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I accept this is the wrong question for this forum.
But if Scottish football is parochial what hope is there for the country even before or after independence?
In what way are we parochial?
GeronimosCadillac says: (47)
November 8, 2013 at 9:50 pm
It’s not for me to say if it’s the wrong question for this forum or not, but on Scotland’s parochialism, it has manifested itself in football and in football administration and, therefore, appears to me to be valid, on the face of it, for discussion here.
There was a chosen club. It died. Football’s unco guid did everything they could to acquiesce to the wishes of the chosen club while it was in the throes and before, but in so doing accelerated its demise. Then they helped a new club pretend the old club had not really died and in so doing abetted the fleecing of the fans of the dead club by sundry spivs.
In both instances, the unco guid of football clearly hoped for other outcomes, but their parochialism prevented them from seeing what was really happening, or at least dissuaded them from manning up and admitting what had gone on and making sure it wouldn’t happen again.
This next statement will not be popular, but that doesn’t make it less valid, in my view. Nowhere else in the world was Calvinism adopted by an entire country. Only in Scotland. Calvinism is inherently parochial. You’re either saved or not. You’re either in or out, and if you’re out, you’re damned and must be shunned. This was the case in Calvinist communities in France, Switzerland, the Netherlands and so on, and was the the case when people from those communities settled in the New World. But it never applied to the whole country.
The only place where that happened was Scotland, and while a high literacy rate and elements of The Enlightenment were positive outcomes, parochialism, which endures to this day, at least as far as football is concerned, was much less positive. Parochialism is a big problem.
GeronimosCadillac says: (47)
November 8, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Hi GC
Apologies. My reply should have highlighted the Blue part of Blueprint, tongue in cheek!
I don’t think your question is wrong for this forum.
I think we are not parochial but altruistic and all encompassing.
However we are all p***ed off with corruption at the hghest levels of football.
I read all the posts every day and feel like I am going round in bloody circles.
I don’t ask questions, as per the remit of this site, because I don’t have the knowledge to do so.
I just hope this despicable, iniquitous, disgraceful situation with TRFC is dealt with very soon.
GeronimosCadillac says: (47)
November 8, 2013 at 9:50 pm
2
1
Rate This
jean7brodie says: (344)
November 8, 2013 at 8:36 pm
arabest1 says: (401)
November 8, 2013 at 8:25 pm
…but this is not unique, not in parochial paradigm that is Scottish football, …
—————————————-
You’re right there arabest, it is a ‘Blueprint’
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I accept this is the wrong question for this forum.
But if Scottish football is parochial what hope is there for the country even before or after independence?
In what way are we parochial?
——————————————————-
Would you no say that might apply loosely to….
SFSM
Scottish Football governing bodies.
Club Chairmen and Boards
Political Institutions
Legal Institutions
None of the above find it possible to envisage Scottish football continuing if the club from Govan is not included, and all have colluded to ensure that they are.
Esteban says: (22)
November 8, 2013 at 10:08 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good post. I’m not going to further the debate (interesting as it is). It’s not for here. I thought parochialism meant “small minded thinking”.
When I said ‘we’ in my post I meant ‘we’ as on this site.
Geronimos
Small-minded thinking got us where we are today. They thought no one would call them out. They thought they could do what they liked. But we live in a world in which nothing can be hidden.
jean7brodie says: (346)
November 8, 2013 at 10:48 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When I say We. I mean the whole country. All of us together. I mean Scotland.
Esteban says: (23)
November 8, 2013 at 11:00 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not disagrein’
Not condoning violence in any shape or form …. But spent a fantastic (apart from the result) 4 days 3 nights in Amsterdam … Heard plenty of sirens but saw no trouble …. Even when joined by Michael Mols on the return flight no offensive words were heard ! ! …. Just an observation .
whisperer says: (93)
November 8, 2013 at 11:19 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Were you in the Dam Square? Any sign of Feyenoord fans there?
I demand to know how Ally McCiost votes in the AGM!!
If the AGM happens…..
Buddy
arabest1 says: (401)
November 8, 2013 at 8:25 pm
I agree with lots of what you and others say…
I live and work in areas separated from the team i support and frequently hear the statement ” the SFA/SFL/SPL discrimainated against the local club because ….” grounds/team/discipline/referees/off-side/registration
I generally hear the supporters although favoring their own club that they feel these are valid gripes.
Bizarrely I grew up up on the south side of glasgow and in my interactions with Rangers/Sevco fans hear many gripes most of which sound plausible and then turn out to be hogwash on further inspection.
I think this is the ultimate reason for the animosity towards rangers/sevco when it as uttered about “fly-kicks” and “bigotry” …..
The actions/inactions of the SFA/SPL/SFL and now SPFL in relation to Rangers/Sevco do not stack up remotely with the actions/inactions of the SFA/SPL/SFL and now SPFL in relation to ALL OTHER SCOTTTISH CLUBS.
Buddy
RyanGosling says: (85)
November 8, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Its not really weasel weasel in that situation though is it. Imagine yourself in the same situation, you’re gonna have to carry on working with people and you have to try to make the best of the situation.
I personally think that regardless of performance (cards on the table I actually definitely want him to stay in the job) given the lack of trust in the board, new board old board whatever, any party in overall charge at Ibrox would think long and hard about removing Mr McCoist from his position due to the aforementioned lack of trust and the likely fan backlash.
===========================================
Ryan, I’m not sure about your comment above “given the lack of trust in the board, new board old board whatever, any party in overall charge at Ibrox would think long and hard about removing Mr McCoist from his position due to the aforementioned lack of trust and the likely fan backlash”
I actually think the fan backlash has started, now that they know he has “Penny Shares” and that he was earning £825,000 a year after liquidation? WOW! Nice work if you can get it, eh?
Think about it, he was declared the King in Waiting in Feb 2011 by Walter. He took over the mantle from in Jul 2011.
By this time Whyte had taken over, relying on European Riches to keep the dream going (not for RFC, but for CW and his cohorts!)
What does Ally do? Get to the Champions League Final and elevate RFC into Superstardom?
No,loses the Champions League Qualifier to Malmo, and just to rub it in, loses the Uefa Cup slot to Maribor! (Yeah, who are Maribor?)
Shortly after, CW decides “best not to pay taxes or NI for a while, were a bit short now. Ally, you’ve let me down, it will take me a while to pay the debt back!”
Administration shortly follows, quickly leading to LIQUIDATION (i.e. RFC Dies!).
Thanks to to The Duffers, a quick patch up job, history intact, “Nothing to see, move on! We owe millions to the Tax Payer and a few bob to the Face painter, but there’s nothing we can do. We have no money now being liquidated, but WATP, we will be back! Charlie will sort it out”
Yeah, Ryan, they came back alright, especially employing the same Manager on £825,000 a year, and also giving him a load of “Penny” shares!
If I was a Rangers Supporter, I know what questions I would be asking!
Apart from Durrant, McDowall, Pie Sellers, Ground Staff, etc, who in any responsible Ibrox Position in Feb 2011 is still around?
Oh, that will be Ally, struggling on half his £825,000 now in 2013, having given up the other half as a good will gesture.
Ryan, your right, any board of Sevco, TRFC or whatever would have to think long and hard about removing Mr McCoist from his position. Personally, I think he thinks he has them over a barrel!
Also, personally I think rangers supporters are beginning to see through him, particularly the gullible one’s who bought into Charlies IPO.
Apart from his £825,000 Salary, what must they think of Ally, just weeks away from him making what would be to the Ordinary Bear a lottery Winning moment when he cashes in his “Penny” shares?
To be fair Ryan, he’s a “Cheekie Chappie”, I suppose he deserves it?
jean7brodie says: (346)
November 8, 2013 at 10:21 pm
‘..However we are all p***ed off with corruption at the hghest levels of football.’
———-
Exactly.
The detailed analyses of the goings on in an illegitimate club’s boardroom have their own interest and fascination,but are ‘only’ of secondary importance, and even then, only in so far as the unholy mess might call forth yet another disgraceful act of corruption on the part of the Football Authorities.
There are really only three questions, J7B:
-how did it happen that SDM was allowed to get away with his non-disclosure of the EBT contracts , to the certain disadvantage of the rest of the SPL, when CO knew about them personally
-how did it happen that rules were broken by a secret deal ( arranged perhaps over ‘good night out’ EBT dinners) to accommodate a brand new club, in some kind of a staged parody of a ‘legal’ agreement
to appear to lend it a spurious legitimacy
-how does it come about that BBC Radio Scotland in particular, and the MSM generally ,did not ask those questions, but deliberately fudged the truth when not telling outright lies, and served merely as cheerleaders for some of the most unscrupulous persons ever to have been involved in football.
All the tit-for-tattery and ‘whataboutery’ in the world cannot make those questions go away. Any more than the truth of the cold-blooded murder, of a wounded enemy can be made to go away.
The boil of collusive corruption swelled a little bit more in almost every significant phase of the death of RFC and the short life to date of the new club.
It will eventually burst.
And the individuals who caused , supported and defended that corruption will be drowned in the pus.
Jean7brodie going round in circles
John Clarke the boil will burst
I sometimes think that in a strange way the LNS amazing no competitive advantage pronouncement was the biggest insult the beknighted D. Murray could get. Here is this guy . He borrows hundreds of millions he can’t repay to try to win the big trophy. In the process he beggars (not a typo) the incorporated club he owns. Then along comes this legal wizard to tell him that he beggared said club for no competitive advantage! That must be the unkindest cut of all.
john clarke says: (1337)
November 8, 2013 at 11:56 pm
Exactly.
The detailed analyses of the goings on in an illegitimate club’s boardroom have their own interest and fascination,but are ‘only’ of secondary importance, and even then, only in so far as the unholy mess might call forth yet another disgraceful act of corruption on the part of the Football Authorities.
There are really only three questions, J7B:
-how did it happen that SDM was allowed to get away with his non-disclosure of the EBT contracts , to the certain disadvantage of the rest of the SPL, when CO knew about them personally
-how did it happen that rules were broken by a secret deal ( arranged perhaps over ‘good night out’ EBT dinners) to accommodate a brand new club, in some kind of a staged parody of a ‘legal’ agreement
to appear to lend it a spurious legitimacy
-how does it come about that BBC Radio Scotland in particular, and the MSM generally ,did not ask those questions, but deliberately fudged the truth when not telling outright lies, and served merely as cheerleaders for some of the most unscrupulous persons ever to have been involved in football.
All the tit-for-tattery and ‘whataboutery’ in the world cannot make those questions go away. Any more than the truth of the cold-blooded murder, of a wounded enemy can be made to go away.
The boil of collusive corruption swelled a little bit more in almost every significant phase of the death of RFC and the short life to date of the new club.
It will eventually burst.
And the individuals who caused , supported and defended that corruption will be drowned in the pus.
================================
Completely agree JC.
Murray and Ogivie have a lot to answer for.
Murray has apparently fled to France, so I believe.
Ogilvie is still in Scotland. Apparently he is President of The SFA, but so far, on 9th Nov 2013 as we speak, no one in the MSM has managed to get this mythical figure on a public interview for a very long time.
Ogilvie is either very protected or a very shy boy!
Surely he can’t be a shy boy if he is “President” of the SFA. That can only mean……………………….?
JC is right, we need proper answers from the “President” of “OUR” National Football Association.
Personally, I don’t feel right about a compromised, anonymous and probably overpaid individual being “President” of my SFA! It’s not Reagan’s SFA, nor Ogilvies. It’s not their Toy!
IT’S OURS!
Do us a favour Ogilvie, resign! You ARE compromised!
MSM, please follow up if you have any conscience.
willmacufree says: (224)
November 9, 2013 at 12:13 am
‘… That must be the unkindest cut of all.’
——-
Brilliant! ( And see that speech? Who wouldn’t wish to be capable of crafting that?)
Failing honourably has at least the consolation that one has behaved decently.
Failing because one’s cheating has failed……
Puts him more or less in the same category of ‘failed cheats’ as our great South African hero.
The old adage that was imprinted on the minds of us normal people when we were kids, to the effect that ‘ cheats never win’, is actually true.
SDM and the said South African Castlemilk-born hero are proof positive of that truth.
From President Ogilvie we just need to know if either he or Chic lied.
Esteban says: (23)
November 8, 2013 at 10:08 pm
————————
“..Nowhere else in the world was Calvinism adopted by an entire country. Only in Scotland. Calvinism is inherently parochial. You’re either saved or not. You’re either in or out, and if you’re out, you’re damned and must be shunned. This was the case in Calvinist communities in France, Switzerland, the Netherlands and so on, and was the the case when people from those communities settled in the New World. But it never applied to the whole country.”
—————————————–
Jings crivens etc…Estaban you seriously expect everyone to accept this as a valid contribution to the discussion of football .I know of some people who would fit the parochial bill you outline and they are a mix of socialist/tory/catholic/muslim…hey! just pick your funadamentalism and roll with it.To imply that Calvinism ‘adopted by an entire country’ is somehow relevant to society today is to damn all of us in Scotland and I won’t have it! This forum alone gives lie to the calumny.Estaban, your description is too scattergun…I have many disillusioned friends from another path whose pain bears testimony to that.
GeronimosCadillac says: (52)
November 9, 2013 at 12:45 am
From President Ogilvie we just need to know if either he or Chic lied.
=========================================
Maybe both were just a wee bit “uneconomical” with the truth, so to speak?
Slightly off-topic (what exactly is the current topic?), but a great story in The Scotsman which I don’t think has been highlighted.
“Nairn CAB manager Gill MacLean said: “We all know that payday lenders have sponsored football clubs in the higher reaches of the game, but Nairn County have shown that clubs lower down the ladder are all about helping their communities, just like their local CAB …”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/nairn-county-fc-lead-anti-payday-lender-campaign-1-3180173
http://news.stv.tv/north/247770-carly-fallon-was-axed-by-the-press-and-journal-over-plagiarism/
Wife of st.johnstone player accused of plagiarism
Hmmmmm, is this any worse than being TOLD what to write by David Murray, Craig whyte, jack Irvine, gym traynor?
Come on, at least Carly’s articles are not full of lies and myths to prevent ‘social unrest’
, fergussingstheblues says: (82)
November 8, 2013 at 11:52 pm
that will be Ally, struggling on half his £825,000 now in 2013, having given up the other half as a good will gesture.
Was there not some speculation that his pay cut wasn’t quite the “nearer 50%” that he claimed.
Also, is £400,000p.a. to occasionally outplay some butchers, bakers and candlestick makers not still ripping the pish anyway?
McColl Bemused. He’s not the only one.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/jim-mccoll-group-bemused-david-2711949
Geronimo
I was in Damm square when i first arrived … Full of Tic fans … Seemed good banter … Music … Keepie-Up …. Plenty of cops but i have always found them extremely tolerant … Alot of booze though and potential for rowdieness … Couldn’t say if Feyernord fans were around … Spent most of Wednesday just of the square at The Grasshopper !
Joethebookie says: (23)
November 9, 2013 at 7:43 am
—————————————-
£825,000 is about £16,000 per week and for a week last month and a week this month, Ally will have been doing nothing as vital matches against Dunfermline and Forfar have had to be postponed due to Sevco’s players’ international commitments.
So he’s trousered £32K – a decent annual wage for some – for absolutely no work, though some would say he trousers £825K for nothing anyway.
£64K would pay for most of the cost of an AGM – wait a minute, Ibrox will be free next weekend for the AGM, unless of course the SFA have hired it out for a Scotland international.
£64K to 0
This will be a game changer in 2015 if it comes to pass – maybe freeing up Skysport 2 to feature the Ramsdens Cup in high definition?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/champions-league/10436566/BT-Sport-to-show-Champions-League-and-Europa-League-football-from-2015.html
£64,000,000,000 to 0
More of the onslaught from the daily retard to try and convince ‘us’ that the ‘old-firm’ is still alive and well in our sentiment!?
FFS…
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic–rangers-players-unite-2711974?
Thinking about a point in the future where we can actually move on, what have the SFA done to protect our game? More specifically, the non-disclosure of payments to players. What deterrent have they put in place to prevent this form of cheating and potential match-fixing threat? Going completely from memory and accepting this is approximate – £250,000 fine for 10 years, 40 games a season and, say, five players per match gives a fine of £125 per player appearance. I can imagine some ‘Far East betting syndicates’ being interested in this set up. At least we dont have any connections there, eh? Oh, and you get to keep any prize money and honours, too. And what happens to any fine received by this organisation?
Shocking Football Administrators.
Realise hearts have issued CVA from the foundation of Hearts.
Not seen a copy of it.
Would I be corrrect in saying the CVA proposes giving £3m to UBIG as they have securities over tynecastle.
Nothing to any other creditor, except £535,0000 for “football debts” .
£1 to UBIG and £1 to ukio bankas for their shareholdings, all other shareholder gets nothing.
I assume there is some HMRC debt for PAY/NIC/VAT outstanding.
So, my questions are:
1. Will HMRC not baulk at this as other non secured creditors (i.e. football debts ) are gettng paid and HMRC are not.
2. HMRC and the rest of the other creditors have no ability to stop the CVA as only UBIG (50%)and UKIO BANKAS (30%) have more than the 25% required to block the CVA. All the other creditors together only have 20% of the debt.
3. Surely £3m for tynecastle is “under-value” and selling tynecastle fixtures, fittings and land would be worth way more than £3m ?
I am not asking if we would iike the hearts CVA to be accepted.
I am asking , does TSFM think the hearts CVA will be accepted?
Any errors/ommisions gratefully accepted.
Buddy
I see Jack gave the DR the full bhoona on the acting chair (when is a a chair not a chair?) And his links to CW, CG etc. A risky strategy. In the old days (pre RTC, TSFM), this ‘all in’ approach would have pre-empted any further discussion or research. Now it highlights that, if this is what Jack is ready to tell everyone, what’s REALLY going on? Jack should do an up to date PR course!
buddy_holly says:
===========================
On what possible basis could they offer money to some unsecured creditors and not offer the same to others.
On the valuation, remember it is the administrators job to try to keep the ltd company (not the business) going if he thinks it can be a sustainable business. Getting as much as possible for the creditors is actually a secondary issue.
If the CVA fails then maximum return for the creditors becomes the only issue, in a proper administration.
Tif Finn says: (723)
November 9, 2013 at 10:46 am
0 0 Rate This
buddy_holly says:
===========================
On what possible basis could they offer money to some unsecured creditors and not offer the same to others.
=============================
Again this point is what intrigued me a lot.
I have not seen a proposed copy of the CVA to see how they managed to word that part…. a lot of the reason why i was asking.
I accept fully the two other points, however the UBIG/UKIO BANKAS administrator/liquidator (or the correct Lithuanian equivalent) is acting in the best interests of /UBIG/UKIO BANKAS as a going concern (if that exists in Lithuania ) or in th interests of the UBIG/UKIO BANKAS creditors.
Again happy to be corrected…
Still asking , does TSFM think the hearts CVA will be accepted?
Buddy
buddy_holly says:
=========================
Absolutely, and as secured creditors they are perfectly entitled to the full value of the items which their debt is secured against.
That’s the thing, as you are saying, why would they accept any amount if they think selling those assets would generate a higher amount. I have been saying that all along.
Unless of course that matter has been looked into and there simply isn’t another market. The ground remaining as a football stadium does actually achieve the highest return for the secured creditor.
buddy_holly says: (27)
November 9, 2013 at 11:02 am
Still asking , does TSFM think the hearts CVA will be accepted?
============================
Tin hat time maybe, but Hearts are the Edinburgh Establishment club. I don’t think there is any doubt the CVA will be accepted, just like Rangers would have been had HMRC not been stiffed to the extent they had been.
upthehoops says:
==============================
Do you really think that Lithuanian banks will be influenced by this.
upthehoops says: (630)
November 9, 2013 at 11:09 am
0 0 Rate This
buddy_holly says: (27)
November 9, 2013 at 11:02 am
Still asking , does TSFM think the hearts CVA will be accepted?
============================
Tin hat time maybe, but Hearts are the Edinburgh Establishment club. I don’t think there is any doubt the CVA will be accepted, just like Rangers would have been had HMRC not been stiffed to the extent they had been.
=============================
A valid opinion, not one i agree with though.
Also as pointed out by Tif Finn at 11:12 am, it is the LITHUANIAN ESTABLISHMENT who would need to protect hearts.
I can accept that those in charge of UBIG/UKIO BANKAS may want money now (possibly to help the process there!), but would opine that even a distressed sale of tynecastle with its fixtures and fittings and without planning permission for the inevitable housing development is worth more than £3m.
Buddy
EDIT: COPY and PASTE WHOOPSIE!
It seems that Rowan Vine has been “cited” by the SFA over his comments on twitter to Neil Lennon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24870112
Vine said: “I hardly touched the boy and there were no ‘reckless’ tackles in the game.
“Might get me mate Alan Shearer to send him another size 9 Umbro Speciali in the dish if he don’t pipe down.”
Vine went on to admit that he had never met the former England captain, nor Lennon, personally despite his reference to an incident during a Newcastle-Leicester match in 1998.
==============================
This would appear to be the incident he was referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPp0teYYi70
On the 1st October the following statement appeared on RIFC plc’s website. A similar announcement appeared on AIM.”
Rangers International Football Club plc (“Rangers”, the “Company” or “Club”)
Holding in the Company
Rangers announces that it was notified on 30 September 2013 that following a disposal of ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the Company on 10 September 2013 by Charles Green, he no longer has a notifiable interest in the Company’s issued share capital.”
Prior to this announcement Media House was briefing the press and several ‘stories’ like this one started to appear
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/237857-sandy-easdale-announces-rangers-share-deal-with-charles-green/
Yet today, despite making a formal announcement to the stock exchange almost 6 weeks ago and nearly 8 weeks after he sold his shares the RIFC plc website is still stating the Chuckles owns 5,071,629 shares equivalent to 7.79% of the company.
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information
So, did he actually sell his shares or has RIFC plc told porkies to AIM?
Or, he has sold shares but the name of the purchaser is being withheld as part of the fight between the Spivs and the Brogues?
buddy_holly says: (28)
November 9, 2013 at 11:19 am
A valid opinion, not one i agree with though.
Also as pointed out by Tif Finn at 11:12 am, it is the LITHUANIAN ESTABLISHMENT who would need to protect hearts.
========================
Fair point, and one I should have considered before posting. Having said that the Scottish Establishment in my opinion do look after their own. I’m going to reach for an even tougher tin hat and suggest clubs like Celtic and Hibs simply have to keep their own house in order as they do not have, and never have had, the ‘protection’ the Scottish Establishment provide to some clubs. I also think it is fair comment to suggest the Scottish Establishment stonghold is in Edinburgh, not Glasgow. David Murray, The Bank of Scotland, Lord Nimmo Smith to name but three, as well as the Court of Session who have not been immune to the odd head scratching decision since February 2012.
upthehoops says: (631)
November 9, 2013 at 11:44 am
2 0 Rate This
buddy_holly says: (28)
November 9, 2013 at 11:19 am
A valid opinion, not one i agree with though.
Also as pointed out by Tif Finn at 11:12 am, it is the LITHUANIAN ESTABLISHMENT who would need to protect hearts.
========================
Fair point, and one I should have considered before posting. Having said that the Scottish Establishment in my opinion do look after their own. I’m going to reach for an even tougher tin hat and suggest clubs like Celtic and Hibs simply have to keep their own house in order as they do not have, and never have had, the ‘protection’ the Scottish Establishment provide to some clubs. I also think it is fair comment to suggest the Scottish Establishment stonghold is in Edinburgh, not Glasgow. David Murray, The Bank of Scotland, Lord Nimmo Smith to name but three, as well as the Court of Session who have not been immune to the odd head scratching decision since February 2012.
=================================
I would accept there is a scottish establishment and celtic and hibs will never be in it, neither will inverness, motherwell, ross county, aberdeen, dundee united, the rest of the members of the SFA, except RFC and HMFC.
A thought that has intrigued me since may 2012 is should Dermot Desmond just stepped in and put up the money bought the assets off of Rangers (IL) through a foreign company to hide the owners and built flats as a pure investment?
Apply the same thought to hearts for Tom Farmer?
Or should I /you / TSFM have done it as a pure investment?
Side effect of it being a sea change in the attitudes of RFC/HMFC supporters would have occurred? This sea change may have allowed the “baggage” and “badly-behaved minority” being left behind along with Ibrox/Tynecastle?
Just thinking out loud……
Buddy
buddy_holly says: (27)
November 9, 2013 at 10:03 am
Buddy, like you I cannot understand why the Ukio administrators might accept a settlement under a CVA for an amount less than the true value of the assets, but it does seem to happen frequently in administrations. I can only think, in this case, that if they do, it’s to clear one problem from a myriad of others they face. There’s probably many more that are much more complex (for them) that they’d rather be getting on with (perhaps including criminal elements) and getting rid of a, relatively, low priority debtor from another country, might be seen as having more value than holding out for more. I don’t know, but it might make some sense from their point of view.
There’s no doubt that the other creditors will get nothing, regardless, and, unless some have grievances with the club, might not bother voting. How HMRC see it depends on how they feel the club dealt with their tax liability prior to administration. They undoubtedly knew the club was in a bad way when they agreed with Hearts a payment schedule, which, I believe, was being honoured up to administration, so the insolvency event can’t have come as much of a surprise to them. Unlike RFC there was no WTC, no BTC and no withholding of NIC or income tax, though there had been disputes which were well documented, to p*ss HMRC off so they will be judging the CVA with that in mind. Again they may decide not to vote.
Again the UBIG administrators, once ratified, will be aware that no monies will be forthcoming from Hearts, and as I suggested might be the case with Ukio, might just be glad to get them out of the way.
If I am in any way correct with my ramblings the success of the FoH CVA proposal might just come down to expediency and the desire of the two main players, the Lithuanian based administrators, to get rid of at least one foreign based problem.
The ‘football creditor’ payments probably don’t form part of the CVA itself, being a requirement of the club’s continued participation in football rather than an attempt to get the football creditors onside as their vote, too, is meaningless. I suspect it is a stipulation BDO made to all the prospective buyers that they meet this football requirement and is between BDO and FoH whereby the buyer had to show their ability to meet this before being named preferred creditor. I’m sure BDO know what they are doing and it is all above board, in a legal, if not moral, sense.
As far as I am aware the Ukio administrators have not said they will accept the proposal, only that they are prepared to consider it; but if they do, I think the success only comes down to whether or not there is an element of bad will within UBIG as, again, they have nothing to gain by voting against.
To try to answer your question; does TSFM think the CVA proposal will be successful? I’d say TSFM has as much idea as those on Jambos Kickback – just guesswork, well thought out, and maybe some with knowledge, as we know the MSM know b*gger all and can’t be relied upon for accurate reporting, but it’s all up in the air, until, as they say, the fat lady sings!
To be clear, I’ve tried to write this as dispassionately as possible, it being a subject I’ve avoided discussing, even on the aforementioned supporters’ website, as I have no inside knowledge at all. I’ve actually tried to push the subject to the back of my mind, as, like so many, there’s nothing I can do, apart from contributing my small amount to FoH, to influence matters, and await developments.
No1 Bob says:
=============================
Has it not been announced that he had agreed to sell some or all of his shares to the Easdales.
From August
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23899263
Businessman Sandy Easdale has bought Charles Green’s stake in Rangers, ending the former chief executive’s connection with the club.
Easdale, whose brother James is a non-executive director, said there had been “continued speculation and constant enquiries” about Green’s shares.
“Between my family holdings and through other supporting investors I now have the largest shareholding,” he said.
BBC Scotland believes the family holds around 10% of shares in circulation.
Greenock-based Easdale, who runs McGill’s Bus Service with his brother, said Green had given him the “first option” to buy the shares.
==============================
Is the most likely scenario not that the Rangers website has not been updated to reflect the true position.
I can’t think of any other club in Scotland, or anywhere else for that matter where a former player and icon would be prepared to enrich himself to the same extent as Mr McCoist, to the obvious detriment of the supporters who adored him. John Robertson is to me the footballing equivalent of McCoist to Hearts supporters, but in my opinion on a different planet as far as morals go. I am 100% certain that he would have absolutely nothing to do with a similar scheme at Tynecastle to that being played out at Ibrox. Firstly he has too much respect the Hearts supporters, secondly he would know no-one would buy into it and his legendary status would count for nothing overnight, and thirdly he would actually give a sh.t about that.! I may be wrong but, from an outside observers point of view, given the amount of information in the public domain (let alone any information Mr McCoist is privy to) he must be aware know the club he is endorsing as Rangers can’t afford a £400k managers salary let alone a £825k one and he must at least be aware on some (even subconscious) level that many of the thousands people are being asked to spend money to keep this sham in business can probably ill afford it. If it was any other club except one whose supporters had displayed obscene arrogance for many years to everyone else in the environment in which they are sustained (like a parasite, they rely on the other Scottish teams for their own existence, but they just don’t see that) I would have sympathy for them, but the Ibrox support and McCoist really do deserve each other.
One other thing regarding share holding.
The RIFC plc Annual Accounts state that as at 30 June 2013 he held 5,000,200 shares. This does not match the figures that are published on the web site which state that he owns 5,071,629 shares.
There has been no announcements to AIM stating the has acquired or been given an additional 71,429 shares which, as he owns more than 3% of the company, is a statutory requirement.
So, did Deloitte’s sign off on incorrect accounts or is this yet another one of those pesky rules which don’t seem to apply to The Peeeple!
Glen Gibbons’ second piece in the Scotsman today [Fergie revelation sums up Rangers’ decline and fall] finishes with this paragraph:
“….. Referring to the time in 1991 when Walter Smith, having succeeded Graeme Souness, lured Archie Knox from Old Trafford to Ibrox as his assistant, Ferguson writes, “I couldn’t get Martin (Edwards, the United chairman) to match Rangers’ offer”. From outbidding United for a first-team coach to being unable to settle a debt of just over £500 to the local newsagent is a jolting reminder of the financial devastation wrought by what Shakespeare would have called David Murray’s “vaulting ambition”.”
Gibbons’ main piece is worth a read to, on the hoo-hah about the choice of Celtic Park as the venue for this season’s Scottish Cup final.
john clarke says: (1339)
November 9, 2013 at 12:05 pm
===========================
I remember at the time the puppets in the Scottish media (or should that be muppets) took the Archie Knox move from Man Utd to Rangers as ‘proof’ Rangers were the bigger club. Based on what Ferguson now tells us, it is proof that Man Utd’s owner believed the club should be run in an efficient manner. It is also further evidence of the shameful situation where the Bank of Scotland were willing to finance Rangers to any level they wanted. I still believe there should be a completely separate public inquiry into the relationship between that Bank and Rangers. I for one, will still not even use an Autobank bearing that Bank’s name, given their attempts to remove Celtic from football altogether, while at the same time propping up Rangers at a level way beyond what a business of that size was entitled to expect.
Allyjambo says:
==============================
Specifically with regard HMRC, am I not right in saying that they applied for something like 4 winding up orders over a 6 month period.
That aside, I can assure you that if the administrator tries to create a false preference for “football creditors” HMRC will not be at all happy about it. They would do everything they could to prevent a CVA going through, though in practical terms that is quite possibly nothing at all.
Tif Finn says: (727)
November 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm
By not updating the web site to reflect the sale of ‘ shares RIFC Plc are in breech of AIM Regulations, particularly Rule 26.
These rules exist to protect the integrity of the stock exchange and to protect investors money. ‘Rangers’ may not be run like other companies but they still have a statutory duty to provide up-to-date and accurate information to it’s shareholders. This includes details of any shareholder who holds in excess of 3% of the company.
So, who has bought shares, why has their name not been released, who benefits from this secrecy and who doesn’t?
buddy_holly says: (29)
November 9, 2013 at 12:00 pm
==========================
I must admit I’ve never witnessed HMFC fans having the same sense of entitlement as RFC fans. I’ve noticed a humility about them that has been noticeably missing from the fans at Ibrox. Having said that I remember being at a game at Celtic Park when George Burley was the Hearts Manager and they were riding high. I was amazed that Romanov had been able to con the Hearts fans (around 3,000 that day) to the extent they loudly chanted his name.
No1 Bob says:
=============================
I appreciate what you are saying, but remember they don’t appear to care very much about the rules, and AIM don’t seem to be doing much about it. Mayhap explaining the hand picked NOMAD (third in a very short period).
Am I not right in saying that they have made “announcements” that should have appeared on AIM first either as statements on the webpage or even in the tabloid press.
It seems to me that they just do what they want and the authorities, whether it be the footballing ones or the market regulators, just let them for the most part.
From the official website as of today’s date.
=====================================
Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital
Charles Green 5,071,629 7.79%
Hargreave Hale Limited 5,022,000 7.71%
Artemis Investment Management LLP 4,286,000 6.58%
Laxey Partners Ltd 4,250,000 6.53%
Blue Pitch Holding* 4,000,000 6.14%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 4.61%
Alexander Easdale* 2,842,957 4.37%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.99%
Cazenove Capital Management Limited 2,450,000 3.76%
Richard Hughes 2,200,000 3.38%
Legal & General Investment Management Limited 2,000,000 3.07%
===================================
That would mean if the Easdales really do have Green’s shares then they own 12.16%.
Add to that the 19.42% they have proxies for then they have voting rights of 31.58%.
The Easdales will have a huge say in the future of Rangers, whether they retain control of the PLC board or not. That’s ignoring anyone who actually backs them but haven’t gone as far as giving them their proxy.
I do not think the Easdale’s are in this on their own, there is in my opinion someone behind them exerting a major influence.
Wow, just discovered that the club I support is part of the ‘Establishment’. That must explain why every attempt to build a new stadium, or redevelop the old main stand, has been refused planning permission, for decades.
If Hearts are indeed a part of the establishment then it must mean the SFA etc isn’t, as they’ve done sod all to help this establishment club, unless changing the rules to fine the owner/club, for things he’s said, retrospectively, can be seen as an act by the establishment to favour the club. Oh, wait a minute, in it’s hour of need it’s being handed a prestigious cup final to help pay the bills, isn’t it? The ‘establishment’ referees have been particularly kind to Hearts in recent years, doling out record numbers of red and yellow cards, resulting in ever increasing fines, to help their fellow member of the establishment.
Of course, the First Minister is a Hearts supporter, and has made an attempt, as he should do for any Scottish interest, to ask his counterparts in Lithuania to try to have a court case, affecting Hearts, dealt with quicker than was happening. His request seems to have fallen on deaf, Lithuanian Establishment, ears. As far as I am aware he has made no attempt to influence the outcome of the case, nor to influence the administrators. Though he did do for the one club that is seen as, and revels in, being part of the establishment.
It would be interesting to read of any examples of the Scottish, or British if you like, establishment showing favour to Hearts where similar has been refused to other clubs, or businesses. It would be interesting, too, to know of any occasions where Hearts have acted as part of the establishment, where other, non-establishment, clubs have acted differently.
Oh, despite his failings, was Vladimir Romanov being part of the establishment when he was the first, and still only, prominent member of a football club to speak out against the mafia and monkeys that have been such a target for this blog? As owner of Hearts, he has done more to debunk the football ‘establishment’, at least, than anyone from any of the clubs you would name as not being a part of the establishment.
Hearts are no more an establishment club than any other. Oh, if only they were, things might be a bit different now.
BT Sport doing some swift cutting of volume levels at Dingwall there. As much as I don’t really get the need for Celtic and Sevco fans to sing some of the songs they do, particularly at away games. I’m not really that into wasting loads of resources to curtail it.
In fact it’s a good reminder to the rest of us what we’re dealing with.
I don’t think howking the token youth out of the crowd is working for those that are trying to curtail it. Perhaps they should look at significant and repeated points deductions.
But like I say. My personal preference is for it all to be out in the open.
Allyjambo says: (647)
November 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm
1 2 Rate This
buddy_holly says: (27)
November 9, 2013 at 10:03 am
========
Thanks for that a fair and honest summation from you on your own club.
I think you are correct no-one knows what will happen November 22, when hearts CVA is voted on.
I would foresee as you say the lithuanian administrators/liquidators (or equivalent) may take the £3m GBP and use it to run the rest of the lithuanian administration/liquidation process, as the lithuanian administrators/liquidators do not work free either, just think of DUFF & DUFFERS fees!!
Also I guess you are correct the FOH payments to football creditors is probably outside the CVA but part of the proposed agreement.
Thank you again for your fine post.
Buddy
Tif Finn says: (730)
November 9, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Allyjambo says:
==============================
Specifically with regard HMRC, am I not right in saying that they applied for something like 4 winding up orders over a 6 month period.
______________________
That was what I was referring to when I said ‘though there had been disputes which were well documented,’. I suspect that this falls into ‘another day at the office’ for Hector as Hearts didn’t try to hide anything and merely put their case, which was dismissed in the normal course of such things. In my post I wasn’t suggesting that this was how HMRC should, or would, view the situation, merely, as I thought I made clear, my suggestion on how they might view it as I thought Buddy was looking for reasons why the CVA might be successful.
———————————————
That aside, I can assure you that if the administrator tries to create a false preference for “football creditors” HMRC will not be at all happy about it. They would do everything they could to prevent a CVA going through, though in practical terms that is quite possibly nothing at all.
—————————————————————————-
We’ve already seen that TRFC have been forced, by the football authorities, to meet, or make an arrangement, to pay ‘footballing’ debts. This was to allow them to participate in football. It didn’t form part of the attempted CVA, as far as I know, and doesn’t matter as the CVA failed. I doubt the ‘football’ debts form part of the CVA and is only (I know, ‘only’ is hardly a suitable word here) a requirement to continue playing, should the CVA be successful, and will come from monies not forming part of the CVA. Should that be wrong, then it’s probably the SFA who should be criticised, not the club. Besides, do you really think BDO would be involved in such an arrangement if it wasn’t above board? As far as I can make out this administration is being carried out strictly within the law as it pertains to insolvency. Whether or not that law is ethical isn’t the fault of Hearts, BDO, or any other business in a similar situation.
I’m not trying to excuse Hearts, nor make a case for the acceptance of the CVA, merely articulating my thoughts as to the possible reason, and motivation, for it’s acceptance, should it be successful.
Allyjambo says: (648)
November 9, 2013 at 1:07 pm
===========
When I think calmly (i.e. not while posting!) I rescind any association that HMFC are an establishment club.
I particularly think of the way ROMANOV was vilified in the SMSM. And ROMANOV/HMFC were brought to task for less than what others can say/do.
Sorry for any anger caused.
Buddy
buddy_holly says: (30)
November 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm
0 0 Rate This
Also I guess you are correct the FOH payments to football creditors is probably outside the CVA but part of the proposed agreement.
=========================
I don’t really see how it can be outwith the Company Voluntary Agreements, but be part of the proposed agreement.
If they agree to pay some of the debts, in addition to paying an amount of money to the administrator, then that is part of the CVA and is creating a false preference.
Never mind HMRC, I don’t think the secured creditors would be very happy with that. “We’re just giving you £3m of what you are owed, and the buyer is settling another load of unsecured debts separately”
buddy_holly says: (30)
November 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Cheers Buddy, I appreciate that. I’ve avoided discussing the matter here, partly because it’s too close to my heart, but mostly because I know no more about what’s happening than anyone else. Still, it’s been good to have the opportunity to examine what little is known.
Allyjambo says:
==========================
If I remember correctly the SFA held money back which was owed to the dead club and used that to pay football creditors directly.
That would not be the same as the administrator doing it. Even if it is by making an arrangement where part of the deal is to pay money to them and part is to settle certain specific debts separately.
How in any way shape or form is that fair on either a, the secured creditors who are being paid less than they are owed or b, the other unsecured creditors who will be getting nothing.
It is simply wrong.
buddy_holly says: (31)
November 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Again, Buddy, appreciate that, and absolutely no anger was caused. I know, amongst some, Hearts are seen as Rangers’ ‘cousins’, but you only have to go onto the thread relating to RFC/TRFC on jamboskickback to see they aren’t even of the standing unwelcome guests in our parlour. I welcome the opportunity to try to debunk such notions 🙂
Tif Finn says: (732)
November 9, 2013 at 1:37 pm
2 0 Rate This
buddy_holly says: (30)
November 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm
0 0 Rate This
Also I guess you are correct the FOH payments to football creditors is probably outside the CVA but part of the proposed agreement.
=========================
I don’t really see how it can be outwith the Company Voluntary Agreements, but be part of the proposed agreement.
If they agree to pay some of the debts, in addition to paying an amount of money to the administrator, then that is part of the CVA and is creating a false preference.
Never mind HMRC, I don’t think the secured creditors would be very happy with that. “We’re just giving you £3m of what you are owed, and the buyer is settling another load of unsecured debts separately”
================================
This is again why i was wondering what is ACTUALLY in the CVA.
I thought the actual CVA to be voted upon would be in the public domain by now.
Or is the CVA confidential to the creditors??
Buddy