Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!

Posted on by

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!

 

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

4,365 thoughts on “Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!”


  1. Tif Finn says: (732)

    November 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Unless there is something illegal in it then there is nothing to stop it. As with all administrations, if the CVA is accepted, and has been properly carried out, then all the shouting in the world isn’t going to change it. I’m sure everything BDO are doing is above board, there’s not enough money in it for them to do otherwise 👿 , and as you, I and everyone else here is aware of the ‘football debt’ then it’s not exactly being carried out under board, is it? While I have no way of knowing, I’m pretty certain HMRC will have been in correspondence with BDO and made their feelings well known. If HMRC were in any way against the way the administration, and CVA, are being carried out, they’d have let BDO know, you can be sure of that, for if they haven’t, it would weaken any case they might wish to make in court.


  2. From The Scotsman

    http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/hearts-list-of-creditors-in-full-1-3024802

    The above link is to a list of Hearts creditors. It’s quite long so I haven’t copied it.

    It would appear the proposal is for the new owner to accept the “footballing debt” and to pay something like £2.5m to the major secured creditor. No-one else would get anything as I understand it.

    This means that once again we are all getting shafted, as are a plethora of smaller creditors, but football clubs will be getting their money.

    HM Revenue&Customs £1,881,065 – will not be paid

    Scottish Ambulance Service £2,464 – will not be paid

    Scottish Police Authority £18,585 – will not be paid

    Liverpool Football Club £46,625 – Will be paid

    It is simply not right.


  3. Allyjambo says:

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

    I’m not going to get into a circular argument with you.

    Football clubs should not be given a non-existent preference over the rights of secured creditors and other unsecured creditors.

    It is simply wrong.


  4. Allyjambo says: (652)
    November 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    1

    0

    Rate This

    Tif Finn says: (730)

    November 9, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Allyjambo says:

    ___________________________________

    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.
    _______________________________

    Different Scenario entirely:

    TRFC are a new entity. RFC died. Financial arrangements made between CG and CO to leapfrog a new club into an existing league over those queueing rightfully – however tawdry – are no specific concern of the creditors of deadco, except insofar as being evidence of blatant corruption of a sport by its own administrators – which should concern all right thinking persons.

    Whether the adminsitrators of RFC were guilty of gratuitous alienation/ disposing of assets at under value (clearly a case), conspiracy & or COI with parties to the transactions in the adminsitration (appearance of a case) and whether the new club is guilty of pheonixism/misrepresentation (overtly the case) ARE legitimate concerns of the creditors of deadco, but these are separate issues to the footballing debt.
    No debt was paid by deadclub as yet – it is still being liquidated.
    Some of the debt was assumed voluntarily by a new entity unrelated to deadclub, for nefarious purposes of their own (as a bung to the SFA for looking the other way while they stole the clothes of a corpse).

    HMFC conversely, survive intact. The footballing debt exists. If a 3rd party were to take on this debt, that would be one thing. But neither the adminsitrator nor the club should show preference to footballing creditors.

    Failing to make a distinction between the circumstances surrounding HMFC and RFC(IL) and the separate and new TRFC does not help.

    I think giving preference to footballing creditors in this instance serves to blur this distinction. It is not in the interest of fair play for either the sport nor the wider world.


  5. Tif Finn says: (734)

    November 9, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    I wasn’t disagreeing with you that it’s wrong, but people like us don’t create the laws, and whether we like it or not, insolvency events are carried out to meet the relevant laws. I was putting forward a hypothesis on why the CVA might succeed and what might motivate the decision makers. Their decisions won’t be made on what’s right or wrong in the sense you were seeing it, but in what is the norm in their line of business. While some sympathy might be shown towards Hearts, we all have a soft spot for football, even in Lithuania, any decisions will be based on what suits the administrators, and their eventual goal.


  6. Allyjambo

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

    If by the administrator you mean the person / people in Lithuania you are absolutely correct.

    UKIO and UBIG are owed £15.5m and £8.2m so if they vote to agree it then it will go through, as between them they are owed well over the 75% they need.

    However it would also mean them agreeing to get something like £2.5m, with specific unsecured creditors getting about £550,000.


  7. Just heard j.irvine got a red and craig whyte scored …. Strange but true !


  8. Tif Finn says: (735)
    November 9, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    HM Revenue&Customs £1,881,065 – will not be paid

    Scottish Ambulance Service £2,464 – will not be paid

    Scottish Police Authority £18,585 – will not be paid

    Liverpool Football Club £46,625 – Will be paid
    ____________________________________

    Liverpool won’t be granted preferential treatment in payment to their debt.

    The HMRC and creditors rule only exists in England.

    Selected football creditors, not ALL were paid by RIFC under the 5 way agreement with the SFA to get a license to play football.

    If Hearts achieve a CVA, their won’t be any preferential treatment given to football clubs.

    If they didn’t achieve a CVA and Hearts tried to do what RIFC/TRFC did and buy their way into a position in Scottish football, the SFA may attach a clause to the New Club to pay selected footballing debts.


  9. Smartbhoy says:

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

    I’m being told that the CVA deal is an amount to the secured creditors, something like £2.5m.

    In addition the new owners taking on the footballing debts, rather than them being wiped out like everyone else’s will be.

    If that is not an artificially created preference then I don’t know what is.

    Legally I don’t know how it could be done, but I am further being told that BDO must know what they are doing so whilst it may be morally reprehensible it must be legal.


  10. From the Scotsman article I linked to a few posts ago

    ————————–

    HEARTS administrators BDO have revealed that the club owe £28.5 million after sending a ­detailed report of the club’s debts to all 200 creditors.

    As well as the £15.5m and £8.2m due to Ukio Bankas and UBIG – Russian businessman Romanov’s collapsed companies in Lithuania – other significant creditors are also listed. This includes £1.9m due to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. This debt is due from a £1.75m tax case that the club lost last year when they agreed a repayment plan of three separate £500,000 instalments.

    A total of £1.7m is owed to Milson Capital Corp and Ensco 165 Ltd, companies thought to be controlled by Romanov. ­Milson loaned £1.2m last season to pay players’ wages.

    The report states that Hearts owe a total of £535,000 in football debt, which must be repaid in full by any new owners. Liverpool are due £47,000, while the likes of Rangers, Livingston, Ayr United and Stenhousemuir are waiting on smaller amounts.

    —————————————————-

    From a recent BBC article

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24842084

    If the proposal is accepted, the Foundation of Hearts will acquire the combined shareholding Ukio Bankas and UBIG have in Hearts, which is approximately 80%, in exchange for a £1 payment.

    The Foundation of Hearts would make a £2m payment on completion of a going concern sale of the business and assets of the club.

    A further £500,000 would be paid by the Foundation of Hearts over a 10 month period from the date of the going concern sale.

    The Foundation of Hearts would also assume responsibility for £535,000 of outstanding football debts Heart of Midlothian PLC has.

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

    Looks a lot like paying about 10p in the pound to the secured creditors, nothing to most of the the unsecured creditors, and retaining the footballing debts in their entirety.

    In fact thinking about it, the secured creditors will probably get much nearer nothing if this deal is accepted, as a lot of the payments will go to costs.


  11. Whatever happened to Collyer Bristow v Crag Whyte v Pension fund and Gary Withey and the pension fund money. It was due in court in England about now.

    Legals?


  12. Hearts on the same ‘establishment’ pedestal as RFC RIP? Seriously ? And there was me thinking the SFA changed their rules just to get at Mad Vlad. And we seemed to get the same shitty ref decisions against
    As any other team outside the OF. You learn something new every day on here.


  13. tearsofjoy says: (32)
    November 9, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    With regard to the “same decisions as any other team outside the OF” comment, I thought I would mention that one of the most heartening comments ever on RTC was when someone admitted that, the more we uncovered of the cheating and corruption that helped Rangers win titles and ward off distractions such as paying taxes, the more he realised there was no OF.


  14. Will the dignity and humility Hearts fans are showing currently during these darkest of days extend to a post-liquidation situation where they have the choice to confirm that Newco = Newclub or claim the ‘precedent’ that saw Sevco emerge wih ‘history intact’ etc, ad nauseum?

    Or will the legacy of the Rangers omnishambles have created a scenario where the only forfeit for financial doping, and its obvious competitive advantage, be a few years in the lower divisions ‘making new friends’?

    It would be easy to argue that Hearts employed players they patently couldn’t afford. It was never clear what the overall plan was but as well as enjoying it while it lasted, and that included two Scottish Cups and European football, including a 2nd place finish and UCL qualifiiers, Hearts seemed to find it difficult not to develop a supremacy complex that had similarities with a now-defunct Club.

    Full marks for the Foundation to mobilising the support, but will they accept what everyone has always said about Rangers if their efforts eventually come to nothing and the end of Heart of Midlothian 1874 cannot be avoided?


  15. Resin_lab_dog says: (222)

    November 9, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    As with everyone else, I have no inside information and can only surmise what is going on, but I doubt Hearts are paying the football creditors through choice. They, or rather BDO, will have been informed by the SFA that the football creditors must be paid if the club is to continue playing football. As administrators, BDO’s first duty is to endeavour to keep the club (in this case) as a going concern, this would not be possible, as I understand it, if they didn’t meet the SFA’s requirement to settle football debts. I didn’t suggest that the settling of Rangers football debts was directly comparable with Hearts CVA proposal, I was merely showing that it was something the SFA insisted upon, and are clearly insisting upon with Hearts. I think, because the only insolvency event most on here have ever been interested in seems to have been carried out in a less than totally honest fashion, people are suspicious of everything that might be done to save Hearts. All the posters with reason to be knowledgeable of insolvency practitioners seemed to be of the opinion BDO are just about the best in the country and would not have allowed the sham that was carried out by Duff and Phelps. I doubt even Rangers/TRFC could ever get away with that again. All administrations are carried out under the laws pertaining to insolvency. They may not seem fair to all, they probably don’t display much common sense, but Hearts will not be shown any more leniency than any other business in the same position, and there is no justification for treating them in a harsher vein either just because they are a football club and people, without any knowledge of insolvency laws and practices (including myself), are paying much more attention than they normally would do.


  16. thirdmanrunning says: (100)
    November 9, 2013 at 7:27 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    Will the dignity and humility Hearts fans are showing currently during these darkest of days extend to a post-liquidation situation where they have the choice to confirm that Newco = Newclub or claim the ‘precedent’ that saw Sevco emerge wih ‘history intact’ etc, ad nauseum?

    Or will the legacy of the Rangers omnishambles have created a scenario where the only forfeit for financial doping, and its obvious competitive advantage, be a few years in the lower divisions ‘making new friends’?

    It would be easy to argue that Hearts employed players they patently couldn’t afford. It was never clear what the overall plan was but as well as enjoying it while it lasted, and that included two Scottish Cups and European football, including a 2nd place finish and UCL qualifiiers, Hearts seemed to find it difficult not to develop a supremacy complex that had similarities with a now-defunct Club.

    Full marks for the Foundation to mobilising the support, but will they accept what everyone has always said about Rangers if their efforts eventually come to nothing and the end of Heart of Midlothian 1874 cannot be avoided?

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Is this a deliberate, provocative post?

    Is there confusion between the administration process and liquidation?

    Hearts are a long way from spivco and with fan ownership will never be there! ❓


  17. Allyjambo says: (654)
    November 9, 2013 at 7:43 pm
    1 1 Rate This

    All administrations are carried out under the laws pertaining to insolvency. They may not seem fair to all, they probably don’t display much common sense, but Hearts will not be shown any more leniency than any other business in the same position,

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

    You’re joking.

    What other type of business in administration would try to be allowed to pay one group of creditors, ahead of everyone else, including the secured creditors.

    That is not specifically aimed at Hearts, but football clubs in general. Why should they think they are entitled to be treated differently to every other struggling business. It’s that type of thinking which encourages the rampant profligacy in the “sport”.


  18. Martin C

    No, no confusion between the L word and Admin at all. “Fan ownership” or not, isn’t the issue.

    Merely raising the scenario whereby if the CVA fails then do HMFC take the Sevco line, or do they take the line everyone else appears to see, and that it, newco,equals new club.

    Sorry if this seems provocative but this blog relates to asking the questions the media won’t.


  19. thirdmanrunning says

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

    To his credit Allyjambo has already taken the line that the club and the ltd company are the same thing.

    I would expect the majority of Hearts fans to accept the same thing.


  20. Tif Finn, allyjambo and others.

    I remember a previous allyjambo post on the subject that if HMFC failed to get a CVA HMFC will be no longer alive.

    I had not seen any discussion on here and hence why i started the topic up

    I have appreciated the quality and variety of debate on the issue of the HMFC CVA.

    I think even when our views differ, it is good to share these views civilly and with explanation.

    Many Thanks All,
    Buddy

    PS: keep discussing if you wish though…


  21. If HMFC are liquidated then i believe then that would be it? The spivco success is based purely on the perceived economic might and branding of the liquidated club. Anyone wishing to start afresh with hearts would have to start with a smaller economic base and since the precedent has been set then hearts2 would have to start in the 4th tier. Chuckles did struggle, originally financially,for purchase of the assets then any one wishing to buy HMFC assets I think would struggle as well.

    I am reminded of the term abstract concept (we all know what we mean but each of us may define it slightly differently). The term club has many powerful emotions (these days) attached to it. Would hearts fans follow a team playing in maroon out of Tynecastle calling itself “midlothian hearts” in the 2nd division- – we would only know at that time? PR SPIN IS A WONDERFUL THING :mrgreen:

    back to the becks


  22. Wasn’t the World’s Greatest Football Administrator the Secretary of both RFC and HMFC?

    I’m pretty sure he was, as far as I can remember?

    Isn’t he now somewhere high up in the Echelons of The SFA?

    I’m pretty sure he is?

    Isn’t it funny how both clubs he was involved with have gone into Administration, one of them actually dying, and The SFA insist football debts have to be paid in full?

    I think CO is a Jinx. That’s 2 clubs now that he has been involved with that have dramatically sunk into despair.

    Ogilvie has been in cohoots with both the biggest recent high profile cheats in Scottish Football – Murray and Romanov. Ogilvie joined Hearts in 2005, the same year as good old Vladimir took over. 3 years later, Ogilvie was Managing Director of HMFC.

    Don’t tell me he isn’t compromised? Being involved with one dodgy Club might be unlucky, but two??

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!

    Something stinks with Ogilvies past. I think he has a lot of questions to answer. I don’t know why Journalists are not hounding him for these answers as well?

    The President of The SFA should be honest, above reproach, and more importantly transparent.

    The trouble with Ogilvie is that he has never been properly interrogated. That’s why I posted earlier asking if he was being protected? I think he is.

    At least Reagan sometimes gives an interview or appears on radio. Why is the President of The SFA never seen nor heard? After all, his predecessor George Peat was never out of the media!

    BTW, SR, I’m not joking about him being a jinx. He’ll slide away if the S$£t hits the fan, teflon style, leaving you in the lurch.

    Having Ogilvie inside SFA Towers is a bit like having Sir Humphrey Appleby inside 10 Downing St in “Yes Prime Minister”. SR= Jim Hacker!

    Not sure who would play the part of Bernard Woolley inside Hampden? Darryl Broadfoot?


  23. Tif Finn says: (739)
    November 9, 2013 at 8:05 pm
    What other type of business in administration would try to be allowed to pay one group of creditors, ahead of everyone else, including the secured creditors.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————
    To state the obvious any type of business that thought/knew they would get away with it!

    The “football creditor rule” has in important role in club finances though. By providing some measure of security in the transfer market it allows clubs to accept staged payments from other clubs with a less than sound creditworthiness (which probably accounts for most clubs!!).

    Without this monies would be required “up front” diluting the number of prospective purchasers and/or lowering transfer fees – less than an ideal scenario for clubs who rely on transfer income to reduce debt or balance the books.

    Not very businesslke but if most football clubs were run as businesses they would have been shut down long ago.


  24. Ran across this interesting article – was struck by the first couple of paragraphs and immediately thought “not if your a scottish football fan mate….”

    http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2013/10/20/nathaniel-rothschild-fury-as-rosan-roeslani-buys-stake-in-italian-football-club/

    “You might raise an eyebrow if someone, who last year appeared to have had something to do with taking US$173 million out of a major coal mining company in Indonesia of which he was once a senior manager, and a Director of its parent group, on what may well been a basis that lacked either proper authority or a clear business purpose, then promised to put it back “by the end of the year.
    You might then raise another eyebrow (and you only have two) if the same guy then becomes part of a just-announced consortium agreeing to buy a majority stake in an Italian football team, apparently for as much as US$400 million according to the Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport. How much of the deal will be his own stake is unknown of course, but he must certainly like football.


  25. parttimearab says: (58)
    November 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    Tif Finn says: (739)
    November 9, 2013 at 8:05 pm
    What other type of business in administration would try to be allowed to pay one group of creditors, ahead of everyone else, including the secured creditors.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————
    To state the obvious any type of business that thought/knew they would get away with it!

    The “football creditor rule” has in important role in club finances though. By providing some measure of security in the transfer market it allows clubs to accept staged payments from other clubs with a less than sound creditworthiness (which probably accounts for most clubs!!).

    Without this monies would be required “up front” diluting the number of prospective purchasers and/or lowering transfer fees – less than an ideal scenario for clubs who rely on transfer income to reduce debt or balance the books.

    Not very businesslke but if most football clubs were run as businesses hey would have been shut down long ago.
    =============================================

    So, on that basis, Liverpool must have their £47,000 back, as that must be at least a weeks wage for Suarez.

    The poor sods who are owed a few grand can, however, go and sing, despite providing a Service to a Football Club they expected payment for.

    “Sorry Kids, Santa’s not coming this year!”

    At least Suarez’s kids will have a good one!

    It is a very good question TF, if a Club is in Administration, why are Football Debts allowed to be paid in full?

    Is this not against the law? It just doesn’t seem fair to me.


  26. Just another normal week at Ibrox then…

    Many many moons ago on RTC, I posted on the likelihood of police, fraud squad, financial and insurance investigators, BDO as an example, standing in front of a huge whiteboard with Venn diagrams regarding the acquaintances, both business and personal, of Craig Whyte trying to untangle his undoubted web of deceit. Now nearly two years later, testimony to how this messy convoluted corporate shenanigan plays out, even under a new club – Craig Whyte and Charles Green business connections are the elephant in the Blue Room and beyond. Even the threat of a motion to ban the voting rights afforded to mystery investors of Blue Pitch & Margarita Holdings seems like a pointless exercise in futility. Entertaining for those not of a blue persuasion but futile, nonetheless.
    With David Somers ‘recruitment’ as acting chairman this week, the trials and tribulations for the Ibrox support look set to continue, as more questions are raised than are answered. The misgivings by his appointment sounded both by Jim McColl’s group pushing for boardroom change and TRFC supporters groups, uneasy about Somers previous business connections to Whyte and Green, are clear indications that even those in denial for so long, have woken up, smelled the coffee, way too late, and are now completely powerless to arrest the likely tip into administration. Admittedly, whoever was placed in the chairman role before an expected stormy AGM in December would or should have been aware of the monster storm they were walking into, but for a known acquaintance of the dastardly duo, is a necessary and likely financially welcome one. The simple fact that his previous dealings in any way, tenuous or otherwise to either of the vilified Green and Whyte, should have the alarm bells going off in BDO’s offices, and elsewhere – never mind a jittery Ibrox support. Let’s be clear here, even the slightest whiff of fraudulent corporate dealings which left millions out of reach in the purchase of the dead clubs assets when the Duffers contrived to sell Ibrox and Murray Park for £5.5m and exclude any other offers to the detriment of creditors, stinks big time and should have all interested investigating parties turning over every tiny detail to get to the truth. Or pursue the EBT individuals responsible for the lost tens of millions of pounds via the disgusting tax manoueverings of the old club, masterminded by SDM, which for removal of any doubt or denial, was liquidated.
    The SFA are so completely tarnished by this mess, that an independent inquiry to establish who knew and did what and when, should be simply, a starting point. The stuff under the carpets at Ibrox and Hampden now reeks to high heaven. When they lift up the turf there for the Commonwealth Games next year, they’ll maybe take the opportunity to bury some of it. However, the more they attempt to bury, the more rancid and putrid the smell becomes.It truly gets more like an episode of The Walking Dead with each week that passes, a more apt name than I could ever have imagined.
    Fortunately our game has proven there is very much a will and countless ways to survive a zombie armageddon, despite the The Rangers and concomitantly, the SFA’s risible attempts to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. At least they attempted to put the wool to some use now the lambs all eaten.


  27. fergussingstheblues says:
    November 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm
    Is this not against the law? It just doesn’t seem fair to me.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Fergus, its certainly not fair but anyone giving a credit facility to a loss making business should be aware of the risks.


  29. Hate to be a broken record about this BUT, if this case below has been closed, dropped or otherwise delayed Rangers assets (property) are with Craig Whyte/Ticketus FOR SURE.

    There could be no other reason that one of the cases of the year as billed by the lawyer mag would have been dropped.
    ===========================================================================
    Cohen & Stephen (The Liquidators of Rangers FC) & Ors v Collyer Bristow

    Late 2013, 5-10 days, Chancery Division

    For the claimant Cohen & Stephen (The Liquidators of Rangers FC):

    South Square’s Mark Philips QC leading South Square’s Stephen Robins previously instructed by Taylor Wessing partner Nick Moser, taken forward by Stephenson Harwood partner Stuart Frith

    For claimants the Trustees of the Jerome Group plc Pension Fund:

    Outer Temple Chambers’ David E Grant, instructed by trustees David Simpson, who is also a qualified barrister

    For the claimants HMRC:

    South Square’s Lucy Frazer

    For the claimants Merchant Turnaround:

    Maitland Chambers’ James Clifford and Matthew Smith of the same set, instructed by Macrae & Co’s Julian Turnbull

    For the respondent Collyer Bristow:

    3 Verulam Buildings’ Cyril Kinsky QC leading Matthew Hardwick of the same set, instructed by Clyde & Co partner Richard Harrison

    .
    The financial collapse of Rangers FC put in the public eye the club’s relationship with its professional advisers, including Collyer Bristow and former partner Gary Withey.

    Withey quit the firm in March after he became embroiled in the Glasgow club’s administration because he had advised businessman Craig Whyte on his takeover of the club in 2011.

    Duff & Phelps were appointed as the original administrators of the club and, in March last year, announced it would take action against the firm.

    When liquidators Cohen & Stephen took over the wind-down of the club it pledged to carry on the case. The firm has lodged a Part 20 claim against private equity firm Merchant Turnaround.

    Collyer Bristow stands accused of “deliberate deception” over Whyte’s doomed bid for the club.

    The court heard at a pre-trial hearing in April that Collyer Bristow is alleged to have been involved in conspiracy, breach of undertaking, negligence and breach of trust, with Withey – who acted as the club’s company secretary – complicit in the allegations.

    It was revealed that when Whyte agreed a majority stake takeover offer in May 2011 he also pledged to pay off the club’s £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group and invest £9.5m of “new money” in the club. This included £5m for players, £2.8m to HMRC and £1.7m for capital expenditure.

    That offer persuaded then director Paul Murray and the board not to launch an alternative £25m share issue to generate the money needed to stabilise the club. Instead, the court was told, they agreed to Whyte’s takeover, with Collyer Bristow acting for Whyte.

    Administrators were called in February 2012 and various parties – including HMRC, private equity firm Merchant Turnaround and Jerome Pension Fund trustees – lobbied to reclaim their stakes in Rangers.

    The firm says it will vigorously defend the claims. Withey had originally applied to intervene in the case, but has now withdrawn his application.

    This battle will be closely followed by firms and fans alike as it promises to lay bare the firm’s relationship with Whyte and the club.


  30. With all this chat of Hearts and Spivco comparisons Gary Locke must be looking forward to his next McCoistesque pay check!


  31. parttimearab says: (60)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    fergussingstheblues says:
    November 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm
    Is this not against the law? It just doesn’t seem fair to me.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Fergus, its certainly not fair but anyone giving a credit facility to a loss making business should be aware of the risks.

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

    Thanks parttimearab,

    Good point, I never thought about it that way.

    I wonder how many Contractors to Scottish Football are now going to ask for payment up front?

    Knowing what I know now, I certainly would!


  32. fergussingstheblues says:

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

    I await the response of the other creditors with interest.

    It doesn’t even make any sense to me if I’m honest.

    If there are secured creditors with a debt higher than the amount of money available then why are they even having a CVA. Secured creditors come first (after expenses are paid). If there isn’t enough money for them then the only way forward is liquidation.

    However the secured creditors may accept what they are offered. That is a matter for them. If that happens it should not form part of the CVA, that should be a further separate issue.

    Why would HMRC (you and me) be given nothing when they are owed the best part of £1.9m. Whilst “football creditors” who are owed £535,000 have their debt taken on by the new owner, to be paid in full.

    It really is a nonsensical situation. We will wipe out the debt to HMRC, The Police, The Ambulance Service and lots of small businesses, that will be gone. However we will carry forward the debt to Liverpool Football Club.

    How can anyone argue that is anything other than wrong.


  33. parttimearab says:

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

    Exactly what I was thinking.

    Who will lend Hearts (whether they survive or form a new club) money, and on what terms.

    Here’s another thing, if they survive as the same club how much of a security will HMRC be looking for if they are shafted for about £1.9m.


  34. fergussingstheblues says: (85)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:39 pm
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    parttimearab says: (60)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    fergussingstheblues says:
    November 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm
    Is this not against the law? It just doesn’t seem fair to me.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Fergus, its certainly not fair but anyone giving a credit facility to a loss making business should be aware of the risks.

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

    Thanks parttimearab,

    Good point, I never thought about it that way.

    I wonder how many Contractors to Scottish Football are now going to ask for payment up front?

    Knowing what I know now, I certainly would!
    =================================================================================
    BTW I hope I’m not coming over all cold and heartless here. I sympathise with small businesses who are caugt between a rock and a hard place in these difficult financial times where the need for income will often outweigh financial prudence.
    You might also think that the football authorities should include organisations such as St John’s Ambulance in their “football creditors rule.

    A further point I’d like to make is that HMRC now loose out regularly after HM Government removed their status as secured creditors – this is not just a football problem.


  35. parttimearab says:

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

    As far as I am aware the so called “football creditors rule” is a purely English thing.

    What we are talking about with Hearts is not the debt being paid, it is the new owners taking it on going forward and still owing that money.

    It has the same net effect but is not the same thing.


  36. ianagain says: (18)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Hi

    That looks interesting. Can you provide some links?


  37. Tif Finn says: (742)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:31 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    This is the current Rangers board

    http://s10.postimg.org/squuxwu7t/Rangers_Board.jpg

    How happy would you be if that is the group who were running your club.

    __________________________________________________________

    Not entirely sure of your intention. A list of names would have sufficed if you were questioning their business credentials. You have chosen to post a picture instead. It seems to me that we are invited to be amused by the way they look.

    A bit tabloid press in my opinion. Doesn’t show this site in a very good light.


  38. Tif Finn says:
    November 9, 2013 at 10:57 pm
    parttimearab says:
    ==============================

    As far as I am aware the so called “football creditors rule” is a purely English thing.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————–
    You’re quite right Tif. 😳


  39. parttimearab says: (61)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:52 pm

    fergussingstheblues says: (85)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    parttimearab says: (60)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    fergussingstheblues says:
    November 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm
    Is this not against the law? It just doesn’t seem fair to me.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Fergus, its certainly not fair but anyone giving a credit facility to a loss making business should be aware of the risks.

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

    Thanks parttimearab,

    Good point, I never thought about it that way.

    I wonder how many Contractors to Scottish Football are now going to ask for payment up front?

    Knowing what I know now, I certainly would!
    =================================================================================
    BTW I hope I’m not coming over all cold and heartless here. I sympathise with small businesses who are caugt between a rock and a hard place in these difficult financial times where the need for income will often outweigh financial prudence.
    You might also think that the football authorities should include organisations such as St John’s Ambulance in their “football creditors rule.

    A further point I’d like to make is that HMRC now loose out regularly after HM Government removed their status as secured creditors – this is not just a football problem.

    ===================================================
    parttimearab ,

    Thanks. Does that mean that any Business can dodge Tax Liabilities, and NOT have HMRC as a secured creditor?


  40. Tif Finn says: (742)

    November 9, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    This discussion started after Buddy Holly asked a question regarding the likelihood of the CVA being successful. I didn’t think there was any point in answering it from an ethical viewpoint as it’s purely a matter that will be decided by the creditors, in this case the administrators Ukio Bankas and UBIG, and I put forward a possible reason why the administrators of Ukio just might accept what appeared to be an undervaluation of the club’s assets. Hearts fate will be decided by these people and by the insolvency laws of Scotland, regardless of what anyone looking at it from an ethical point of view might think. The law will take full cognisance of the ‘football creditors’ payment and it will be blown out of the water if the law so decrees. I don’t know if any other situation might exist where a ‘saved’ company might have to pay a creditor(s), perhaps a supplier who refuses to continue to supply goods vital for the continued trading of the insolvent company, I truly don’t know. If it is actually wrong, legally, then an aggressive creditor, like HMRC, will undoubtedly challenge it should the CVA be successful, as it’s only in the event of a successful CVA that it will make the slightest bit of difference. Administrations are never going to be ethical, just, at best, legal, with possibly the only ethical consideration being the saving of jobs.

    On the face of it, though, the football authorities insistence that football creditors be paid does seem very unfair, though in the Hearts case, at least, it is questionable whether the money would be coming from the creditors pot or money set aside as working capital. This may well be the SFA/every other football body’s argument, that the money doesn’t come out of the creditors pot but from future earnings/working capital. From a purely selfish point of view, I wish Hearts didn’t have to pay this money, but that would be even less ethical than the need to pay it appears to be.


  41. fergussingstheblues says:

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

    I think you are probably talking about preferential status.

    HMRC are not a preferred creditor, they used to have that status but the Government decided to take it away.

    It was some Act from round about 2003* or something like that :irony:

    *http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins1123.htm


  42. fergussingstheblues says: (86)
    November 9, 2013 at 11:11 pm
    ——————————————
    parttimearab ,

    Thanks. Does that mean that any Business can dodge Tax Liabilities, and NOT have HMRC as a secured creditor?
    =================================================================================
    Fergus, yes, or at least thats my understanding of the situation.
    The other key thng is to ensure that Hectors not the majority creditor (can’t remember the necessary percentage off hand) and is subsequently unable to block the CVA.
    If i remember correctly it was the now famous floating charge that got Craig Whyte off the hook although I think that that little loophole is now closed?

    Not really my stong suit but perhaps one of the more knowledgeable contibutors here might be able to confirm/enlighten us???


  43. Can we just sort this out in a simple way.

    HMRC are neither a secured or preferential creditor in any administration.


  44. Allyjambo says:

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

    There is no reason why a CVA cannot include “future earnings/working capital”.

    That’s kind of an non argument.

    If you look at the CVA as proposed it is £2m up-front plus £500,000 over the next year or so. It already includes future earnings. So to suggest that payment of “football debt” is coming from “future earnings” really doesn’t work.


  46. parttimearab says: (63)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:52 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    fergussingstheblues says: (85)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:39 pm
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    parttimearab says: (60)
    November 9, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    fergussingstheblues says:
    November 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm
    Is this not against the law? It just doesn’t seem fair to me.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Fergus, its certainly not fair but anyone giving a credit facility to a loss making business should be aware of the risks.

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

    Thanks parttimearab,

    Good point, I never thought about it that way.

    I wonder how many Contractors to Scottish Football are now going to ask for payment up front?

    Knowing what I know now, I certainly would!
    =================================================================================
    BTW I hope I’m not coming over all cold and heartless here. I sympathise with small businesses who are caugt between a rock and a hard place in these difficult financial times where the need for income will often outweigh financial prudence.
    You might also think that the football authorities should include organisations such as St John’s Ambulance in their “football creditors rule.

    A further point I’d like to make is that HMRC now loose out regularly after HM Government removed their status as secured creditors – this is not just a football problem.
    ============================

    Alas, the risk in business that services will be delivered and an invoice generated, but before payment the company who has received the services is unable to pay, as a genuine risk.

    Lately (in 1994) this risk has been traded (in chunks of £10 million or so) as a Credit Default Swap . And is absolutely key to the whole banking crash of 2008 which is still ongoing trough the global economic recession.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

    One of the bizarre parts of a credit default swap is very quickly large credits drop from being AAA rated i.e. almost guaranteed to be paid, (about 99.99%) to almost guaranteed not to be paid (about 0.01%) those holding the securities are now in a liquidity crisis. I.e they have lots of bad debts to pay.

    Sorry for the wander off topic, but that is what caused the financial crisis which turned off the MONEY at HBOS which ultimately stopped Rangers spending OTHER PEOPLEs MONEY and as the RFC support demanded “better” led to Craig Whyte and then LIQUIDATION. (Note the story ends here!)

    For any large or small business following the credit worthiness of your major customers/suppliers is a full time job.

    Buddy


  47. I hope the cva can be agreed for the hearts fans but if the worst happens the name for the new club must surely be “the heart of Midlothian”a precedent has been set for all future new clubs . I trust the hearts fans will already have secured the name before any hibbie picks it up.


  48. youcantbuyhistory – one precedent that has been set has been that if a club goes bust owing money to the taxpayer, the club and their fans must be abused for denying the rest of us schools and hospitals.


  49. Coming very late to the discussion about the rights/wrongs of ‘football’ debts having to take priority over the debts owed to other creditors, and hating myself for even appearing to be on the side of the SFA , I have to say that there is nothing in the Law that says that ‘football’ debts have to have priority.

    BDO can legally tell the SFA TGTF.

    But practically, it’s another matter.

    If BDO want ( or are obliged) to try to keep HMFC as a going concern ( which couldn’t happen if the SFA decided that they would be kicked out if they did not pay their debt) then BDO might be obliged to pay the footballing debts in order to keep the club as members of the SFA, ahead of any other creditors who are not in a position to shut the club out of Scottish football!

    It’s not that the Law of the land requires it, because the SFA has no special legal status or rights to be considered as any kind of preferred creditor.

    But they do have the power under their Articles to eject, expel, or otherwise banjo any member of the Association, if that member displeases them under ‘the rules’

    And they are twisted enough to do it to HMFC without compunction WHEREAS they deceitfully brokered the 5-way deal to avoid having to refuse the new TRFC admission into SFA membership.

    In the perverted view of our perverted Football Administrators, HMFC are not really an absolutely vital ‘part of the fabric of society’.

    They do not, for example, have Her Majesty’s Armed Forces cavorting about on their pitch singing sectarian songs with the blessing of General Officer Commanding Scotland.

    And they most assuredly do not have the love and devotion of the succulent lamb brigade, whose vitriolic attacks on the club were a disgrace.

    HMFC can expect nothing but the shoddiest ,most contemptuous treatment from the parcel of rogues who are in charge of our ‘sport’. And no sympathy from the running dog lackeys of the MSM.

    That’s what they get for being an honourable, decent, football club supported by honourable decent people prepared to work hard to make the club their own rather than hand it over to scheming spivs.


  50. RyanGosling says: (86)
    November 10, 2013 at 12:58 am

    2

    11

    Rate This

    youcantbuyhistory – one precedent that has been set has been that if a club goes bust owing money to the taxpayer, the club and their fans must be abused for denying the rest of us schools and hospitals.

    ___________________________________

    the club Ryan? Erm…Sorry… if ts RFC you refer to that no longer exists!
    Have absolutely no problem with the fans transfering their allegiances to the new one. Why shouldn’t they? (Honour the dead, support the living… highly apt at this time of year!)
    But when you start trying to deny historical facts, you insult our intelligence, and also lose any sympathy and empathy we might have shared for you as fellow fans.

    Hearts is different at present. Because they have not been liquidated – as of yet.
    The distinction is pretty important and self evident to all but the seriously deluded.
    If it wasn’t, all clubs would be overspending with impunity and re-inventing themselves week in and week out without a by your leave, and there would be 11 Gareth Bales pulling ICT tops of a Saturday for me to cheer on at the Tulloch as they delighted me with their twinkle toed exploits, us all secure in the knowledge that any unaffordable debts could simply be left in a shell company while the ‘club’ that had run them up persisted unencumbered.

    …Or are we all just expected to believe and accept that some clubs are more equal than others in this regard?

    And if so… please tell me why???
    I am all ears!

    A CVA is NOT a pain free option. It is amputation over death. Ask any Hearts fan.

    So here is a simple analogy for you:
    Both clubs smoked. Hearts was 20 a day. Rangers was 80 fags and a fry up.
    Both got cancer.
    Your club died.
    Hearts is undergoing Chemo.
    We wish Hearts well.
    And we will lay flowers on Rangers’ grave.
    But we told them both to lay off the fags!


  52. RyanGosling says: (86)
    November 10, 2013 at 12:58 am

    2

    11

    Rate This

    youcantbuyhistory – one precedent that has been set has been that if a club goes bust owing money to the taxpayer, the club and their fans must be abused for denying the rest of us schools and hospitals. …….. Hmmm, personally I don’t recall abusing the old club and their fans of which I have many friends who supported them and now follow follow the new asset owners and their illusion .what cannot be allowed to happen is the facts and circumstances around their demise be forgotten.i think scottish football has moved on and the new club is lucky to be where it is in the game but we cannot pander to ” what scottish football clubs and their fans have done to rangers and the game nonsense”.we have to continually say it as it is and was , no more no less. If we don’t then the likes of chick young and journalist of the year keith jackson ( fans with laptops)will continually rule our air waves and dominate the print.we must continually not challenge ,but correct them at every opportunity.


  53. Carfins Finest on November 10, 2013 at 6:13 am
    0 0 Rate This

    The SFA werre well aware of the issues RFC (IL) had re European football qualification.

    From Charlotte

    http://i.imgur.com/FI1l8kD.jpg

    //////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Nice of the SFA to mention “dispute” as a get out clause from your liabilities. I would see that letter as very encouraging and the route to take if I was of the incline to run a clumpany on the shite side of moral.


  54. Carfins Finest says: @ November 10, 2013 at 6:13 am Mentioned Charlotte and gave a link to an image.

    Where can Charlotte be found now?


  55. The idea that football debts are somehow more important than others, including social taxes is morally repugnant. These taxes are, after all, what pays for hospitals, schools etc. (Thanks for the reminder.)

    As AJ and JC have pretty clearly said, the responsibility for the concept of preferential payment of foootball debts comes from the SFA (though not in the rulebook?) and was spawned (I think?) during the mad scramble to secure a professional football position for Sevco FC. If I have got that right, then all those that signed up to the 5 way agreement were effectively complicit – and the cancer spreads a bit further.

    Having got away with it last time, is it any surprise that the SFA appear to be demanding this price again in the case of Hearts? Surely it is for a stiffed creditor with the wherewithall (eg HMRC) to challenge this and remind the SFA that they hold a position of public trust?

    In both the Sevco and Hearts cases, the preferential payment of footballing debts only benefits them by satisfying SFA demands – so no particular blame attaches to either organisation on that particular account.

    As for other equivalencies in the two cases, from what I can see Hearts have had a previous owner who was ruinous in his spending in an attempt to buy footballing success with OPM – so there is some similarity there.

    Did they get the same SMSM support? – nope.
    Did they get the same SFA support ? – nope.
    Are they an equivalent Establishment club? – nope, there could only ever be one.

    Will they be abused about their non-payment of social taxes in the same way that Sevco are abused? Hearts take a pounding over the way that Romanov engaged in financial doping and I expect they will hear plenty about it if they don’t pay their tax bill.

    Of course, they owe HMRC a tiny fraction of what RFC (IL) owe. At £1.9 million, I reckon they owe something close to a hospital ward. RFC (IL) owe more like the whole hospital, possibly two. If the sin is the same, the difference in magnitude is enormous.

    However, the big difference between the cases, is that Hearts are trying to get their house in order financially and have accepted responsibility for mistakes of the past, without drumming up sectarian hatred etc etc .

    I don’t have any difficulty in wishing them well for a resolution to their current difficulties and good luck in their future. I can’t say the same about Sevco.


  56. john clarke says: (1340)

    November 10, 2013 at 1:23 am

    Thanks for putting my thoughts in a much better form than I have managed in my muddled fashion, part of the problem of being too close to the issue and why, as I stated yesterday, I’ve tried to steer clear of posting re the Hearts troubles.

    Thanks, too, to those who pointed out my previous stated stance should Hearts go into liquidation. The club I support will be no longer! Any replacement, for me, will then have to earn my support. I’d find it perfectly acceptable, though, if the replacement club stated in their constitution and/or programmes that they were a replacement for HMFC (worded better than that, I’m sure) whose honours were…

    That would clearly draw a line on the original club’s history while creating, for the supporters, some form of continuation. This is what I wish TRFC had done. It would have been honest and accurate while showing the link to the past that all supporters, of all clubs, need. Besides, honours should be stated/claimed in an honourable way.

    For the record, when I joined FoH I wrote to them to state my position and that, should Ukio’s administrators find their CVA proposal unacceptable as they value Tyncastle much higher, that I’d hope they would change their approach to one of buying the club, players etc, without the stadium, but should the club be liquidated then I would cancel my membership and payments to the foundation. I received, as expected, no reply as I doubt it would be sensible for FoH to reveal their plans either way to anyone.

    I cannot speak for other Hearts supporters as it is entirely up to the individual how they view it, and I don’t think it is for others to demand their, or Rangers fans, acceptance of the fact. It is up to the club’s officials to show, even discretely, within their constitution and official publications, that they, at least, respect the reality. Living in England I have no knowledge of how supporters ‘on the ground’ are viewing it but can confirm that a number writing on jamboskickback have concurred with my position.

    Tif Finn,
    I’ve enjoyed our debate but feel we’ve flogged it to death, and JC has summed up my thoughts on the matter extremely well. Best we leave it for now or we’ll be deflecting the blog as successfully as any troll, or :slamb: 😀


  57. Resin_lab_dog says: (223)
    November 10, 2013 at 2:10 am
    A CVA is NOT a pain free option. It is amputation over death. Ask any Hearts fan.

    So here is a simple analogy for you:
    Both clubs smoked. Hearts was 20 a day. Rangers was 80 fags and a fry up.
    Both got cancer.
    Your club died.
    Hearts is undergoing Chemo.
    We wish Hearts well.
    And we will lay flowers on Rangers’ grave.
    But we told them both to lay off the fags!
    —————————————————————————————————
    Good analogy… and he kensitas! 😀 Sorry, couldnae resist. Let the Rikki Fulton jokes commence, haha.


  58. The people who think they are can relax, again. Wee Ally has had a cuppa with the new man at the helm and he thinks that he is going to be good for them. I’m sure that everyone will breathe a sigh of relief over in Govan, it’s not as if Ally has ever come out in support of anyone before, has he?


  59. Zilch says: (104)

    November 10, 2013 at 9:24 am

    Another good summation of the situation and I’m pleased you have pointed out that the ‘football creditors’ payment is down to the SFA’s insistence alone and helps Hearts, or Rangers, not one little bit. In fact, in Hearts case, it could eventually lead to the death of the club as the half million involved might otherwise have been used to up the amount of the CVA proposal to a more acceptable sum. You know, strangely, the thought that, should Hearts survive, they’ve done it despite the SFA, rather than with the help of that disgraced mob, makes me feel a little better about it all – but no more hopeful 😐


  60. Carfins Finest says: (40)
    November 10, 2013 at 6:13 am

    The SFA werre well aware of the issues RFC (IL) had re European football qualification.

    From Charlotte

    http://i.imgur.com/FI1l8kD.jpg

    CF, that letter relates to qualification last year (just ahead of the administration starting in February. The question marks relate to their qualification the previous year, 2011. It does prove, though, that the SFA know the rules (now at least).


  61. Scottc 10.23

    Correct. The letter of 1st Feb 2012, 13 days before Rangers entered administration, is the same as the type of letter that went out the previous year except that at that time the genesis and reasons for the wee tax bill, of which the first part CO knew for sure and the second part we can only wonder at why he and Andrew Dickson could not have known, having been part of Rangers administration when HMRC started asking for side letters in 2005, were not in the public sphere of awareness.

    There is the suspicion that the accounts themselves were delayed until 1st of April to get by the 31st March key date and then the not crystalised argument was put out to deflect attention.

    That then changed to it not being an overdue payable because by Dec 2011 the argument became the bill was in dispute and subject to ongoing discussions.

    On going discussions are not a reason to allow a bill to escape being an overdue payable but the greater myth is that the bill was in dispute.

    Rangers accepted liability on 21st March 2011after QC advice earlier that month to do so.
    The £2.8m included interest to 31st May and the bill (determination) arrived on 20 May 2011.

    It was not paid and the ongoing discussions were about non payment and getting paid by HMRC and if and how to put forward an appeal by Rangers to avoid payment. The advice they got was HMRC would consider it vexatious.

    The SFA argument when asked, focussed on the granting of the licence at 31st March 2011, which they might technically get by with, but the focus is now on the monitoring process at 30th June.
    By this point it had crystalised for sure and with the amount being dependent on payment at 31st May and a report by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain that SOs served a notice on 2 June, then by 30 June 2011 it was overdue and payable, which is why SOs called to collect in early August.

    However the submission by SFA/Rangers under monitoring Article 66 seems to have persuaded UEFA that it was either not overdue or an overdue payable. Indeed it was so persuasive Rangers were released from the need to provide future financial information regularly to UEFA at the very time HMRC were asking Rangers for financial forecasts.

    There is a big reddy for somebody in there.

    The connection to the 2012 process is simple. At what point did the SFA decide before issuing the 1st Feb 2012 letter that the wee tax bill was overdue and how and when and who reached that decision in 2012 but not when monitoring in June 2011?

    In their President Campbell Ogilvie after 7th June 2011 and Licensing Committee member Andrew Dickson, the SFA had the very chaps with experience of administration at Rangers who would have been able to advise – or did they absent themselves and if they did, should they have done so?


  62. Oddly enough, in spite of having been on here before, the site decided to completely forget my details nor be able to send me retrieval emails, perhaps due to having logged on to WordPress via twitter linkage in the past. As such, I’ve newco-ed and been able to amend my name back to my usual moniker.

    Probably doesn’t remind anyone of anything doing that!

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been having a discourse with the SPFL regarding their media offering. Originally, this began by putting up a blog post regarding their youtube site that was picked up by them and they contacted me to get my views on what the SPFL can do on youtube, etc. I duly submitted a brief overview of where the SPFL stand now and what can be offered and duly waited for a response and feedback on this that has, so far, not been forthcoming. It’s had positive feedback from some within the profession and sets out a valid direction for the SPFL to go down in terms of the breadth of their media offering. Will the SPFL go down that route, time will tell.

    In terms of their more lucrative media offering (TV rights), one would be interested to see what amount MP & Silva got for the SPFL rights in China. It will certainly be much more than what the SPFL have gotten. What with BT gaining the Champions League, I’ve had an in depth look on how that may actually affect the SPFL at http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/66557234822/game-changers.

    The potential for rights inflation now the TV war has gone bitter is immense and it is one the SPFL should be putting time and effort into exploring.

    As for the EPL, it would be hard to imagine that, upon hearing the news that BT had gazumped Sky, he did anything other than have an instantaneous hard on at the money the EPL are about to make as Sky can ill afford to lose much more EPL coverage than they have already.

    As for Charlotte, they appear to have been suspended again. Clearly twitter can’t ban IPs otherwise this dance of Schrodinger’s Charlotte would come to an end!


  63. john clarke says:

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

    I hear what you say, but I come at it from the other direction.

    What right do Hearts / BDO have to create this artificial preference. I can perfectly understand why they need to do it in order to carry on playing football. I just can’t understand how they can do it and still be seen to treat the unsecured creditors equally, which goes to the heart of the situation.

    It’s no different than Craig Whyte saying I had to choose between remitting the taxes I collected or paying the bills. He seemed to be suggesting that keeping a football club going justified stealing tax he had collected.

    This is basically the same, we have to pay the football bills to keep operating, so everyone else will just have to be shafted. Including UK taxpayers. In spite of the fact that we have already collected that money and spent it.


  64. I see Ally McCoist is doing his bit to get the Rangers fans back onside … again

    http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5545-an-encouraging-start

    ALLY McCOIST says he is ‘very encouraged’ by initial talks with new acting chairman David Somers after the pair met for the first time today.

    The manager sat down with Somers, whose appointment as a non-executive director was announced on Thursday morning, before the 2-0 home win over Airdrieonians.

    That came after they had also had discussions by phone yesterday as they look to move the club forward.

    Somers will oversee the recruitment of a new chief executive over the next few weeks and also hopes to bring further non-executive directors to Ibrox.

    And having spoken with him at lunchtime, McCoist is optimistic about what the 65-year-old could achieve.

    He said: “Our meeting very well. I spoke to David last night on the phone after missing him on Thursday, when I left him a message then he left one for me.

    “We talked and had a good chat and organised a meeting for early this afternoon in the hours before the game.

    “We had a good cup of tea and a great initial chat. I’m very encouraged and I’m hopefully looking forward to a good working relationship.”

    McCoist and Somers met just ahead of a short wreath-laying ceremony at the John Greig statue prior to Remembrance Day tomorrow.

    Over 43,000 fans later fell quiet ahead of kick-off as they impeccably observed a minute’s silence in memory of members of the Armed Forces.

    Fans dug deep before the game to donate to a can collection for Poppyscotland as well and McCoist has great admiration for the respect people showed.

    He added: “It was fantastic. I am incredibly proud of the way the club handles that situation and we value the relationship we have with the Forces.

    “We really genuinely do appreciate the work all the guys and girls do. ‘Unsung heroes’ is definitely the right term for them.”


  65. Would it be possible to remind McCost that Remembrance Day is NOT a competition to see who can appreciate the work of the armed forces the mostest…
    OR to big up the devotion to the country of any particular club/company etc…
    It is an opportunity to remember those like the grandfather I never met, who have given up the most precious gift of all in order that we can remain a free people (sic)…
    Remembering in a quiet,dignified manner was how it used to be as I recall…
    The hijacking of this special day, at least it was to me before it was tarnished by jingoism, makes me sick to my stomach…

    Not football, I know, but symptomatic of a particular mindset…


  66. WRT McCoist and his cohorts and Remembrance Day I am reminded of Samuel Johnson’s quote :

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

    Scottish Football needs rid of the lot of them.


  67. Tif Finn says: (748)

    November 10, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    “We really genuinely do appreciate the work all the guys and girls do. ‘Unsung heroes’ is definitely the right term for them.”

    The Super One clearly understands what Remembrance Sunday is all about! Not!

    In case Mr McCoist is looking in: Remembrance Sunday is a day to Remember those who fell in the service of their country, many countries, also those who fell serving our country despite having no affinity with it. They are, sadly, not around to receive your appreciation, nor are they able to ‘do’ anything. Turning it into an occasion to create a feel good factor for TRFC is definitely not a way to show appreciation for their sacrifice and definitely shows no respect.

    Not related to Remembrance Sunday, but Ally brought it up:

    “He added: “It was fantastic. I am incredibly proud of the way the club handles that situation and we value the relationship we have with the Forces.”

    Other than dancing around Ibrox displaying a total disrespect for those soldiers not aligned to Rangersness, what is this ‘relationship’ you have with the armed forces? I really would be interested in the answer.


  68. The irony of his club having evaded and failed to pay taxes to support our Armed Forces seems to elude Mr McCoist.

    Was he himself one of the EBT beneficiaries? Will he be encouraging all EBT beneficiaries to repay their loans/pay tax rightly due?

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  69. I was actually referring to him effectively “endorsing” Mr Somers however you do make good points with regard the hijacking of Remembrance Day.


  70. McCoist and Somers met just ahead of a short wreath-laying ceremony at the John Greig statue prior to Remembrance Day tomorrow. WTF? I never even knew John Greig was a sodjer!


  71. Tif Finn says: (749)

    November 10, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Sorry, Tif, I got that bit and totally agree with your point. It was just that the article itself seemed to be devoted to creating a The Rangers feel good factor and what you said totally summed up the tea party bit. Both points sum up the slimy opportunist though.


  72. Allyjambo says: (659)
    November 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    ===================================
    I too wonder what defines the ‘relationship’ Rangers often speak of with the Armed Forces. I actually worry about what they define to be ‘British’ and the clear inference that if you’re not with them you’re against them. My late father, who was a Catholic Celtic fan, was proud to serve in the Royal Navy for ten years and he kept that pride till his dying days. He was very strong in his observance of Remembrance Sunday and I wonder how he, and others like him, fit in with the Rangers model of Britishness and what they perceive the Armed Forces to represent. I have noticed much outrage on the web today from Rangers fans that not every game in Scotland yesterday held a minutes silence, and that not every team wore poppies on their shirts. To demand that everyone else conforms to their views is reminiscent of fascism. The people who lost their lives in WW2 did so to preserve freedom of choice and repel fascism from taking over the world. How sad that so many seem to forget that.


  73. My late father was a Commando during the war.He rarely discussed it.Every Remembrance Sunday he marched and prayed for all who made the ultimate sacrifice.He did not flaunt his patriotism.He had no need to.To use Remembrance and poppies as some kind of badge is an insult to all of the fallen.


  74. helpmaboab says: (230)
    November 10, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    To use Remembrance and poppies as some kind of badge is an insult to all of the fallen.
    =============================================
    The ‘badge’ aspect is on the increase. Even to the extent German football players are having to wear poppies when working as pundits on UK TV. To wear a poppy or not is a personal choice, surely? I am amazed TV companies appear able to force people to wear one.


  75. Allyjambo
    UPT
    HelmaBoab

    Agree totally with all your sentiments. There has been an attempt to hijack Remembrance day and make it a day for Triumphalism by Peepil who, if they have any respect should know better.
    This should not be about Service personnel waving flags, singing sectarian songs and being treated like celebrities. It is about showing respect to people who gave their lives for a cause they believed in. What these morons have done on previous Remembrance Sundays amounts to Disrespect.
    On a lighter note I see the “Supa” one had his first meeting with the new Chairman……………It’s Deja Vu aw ower again…….

Comments are closed.