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

Avatar Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

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

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!

 

About the author

Avatar

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,365 Comments so far

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:23 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Keith Jackson – “THE spectre of Craig Whyte and his bulging eyeballs”

Has Keith only just noticed the bulging eyeballs? Did the eyeballs only begin to bulge at some pont after February 2012? Or is it just that by some coincidence the only images the Daily Record use of CW are of the mental eye bulging type?

Just the type of lowlife gutter stuff expected from Keith Jackson. I’m sickened that the BBC employ this guy

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on1:28 pm - Nov 13, 2013


jimlarkin says: (616)
November 13, 2013 at 1:22 pm
0 0 Rate This

Thought the wage bill was down to £7millions ?

That is manageable.

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

No it isn’t, not with ongoing expenses of over £13m and an income of £19m.

That’s without paying other staff, or allowing for things like amortisation and other depreciation.

The bottom line is they still spend far too much money in proportion to the income. That’s just for ongoing costs, never mind one off payments.

View Comment

Avatar

beanosPosted on1:37 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1020)
November 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm
—————————————————————————————————————

i believe it is because they are bleeding it to death slowly. Much more subtle and less noticeable that way.

Director salaries and bonuses, bumped up contracts for security, ticketing, retail and anything else. The revelations last night of the emails between Martin Bain and Walter Smith show exactly how the spivs have been milking it for all its worth.

View Comment

Avatar

BigGavPosted on1:40 pm - Nov 13, 2013


ecobhoy says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:11 pm

If Green didn’t sign the original forms then why did Green then sign and send director termination forms for CW and Earley to Companies House backdated the same backdated appointment date on the original director appointment forms for CW and Earlkey allegedly signed by Green.

Surely if Green had never signed the original director appointment forms he would have contacted Companies House and stated that CW and Earley weren’t Sevco 5088 Ltd directors and his signature had been forged on the forms.

Surely that would be the ‘normal’ thing to do? By actually signing director termination forms Green IMO actually legitimises the supposedly ‘dodgy’ original forms.

And – of course – there is the strange televised statement of Green that he gave back Sevco 5088 Ltd to CW when he realised he no longer needed it. Why would Green give Sevco 5088 Ltd to someone who is not a director of that company and who is also not a shareholder as Green has puyblicly stated he is the sole Sevco 5088 shareholder – although I don’t accept that.

Excellent points, ecobhoy.
These are key mistakes by Green which, if properly pursued, could provide the lever to prise open this whole can of worms.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:41 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Esteban says: (28)
November 13, 2013 at 1:06 pm
6 0 Rate This

Tif Finn says: (806)
November 13, 2013 at 12:55 pm

Surely at some point everyone will come to their senses and realise it’s not worth the hassle to keep the Sevco show on the road. The Rangers men should admit that Sevco isn’t Rangers, say they were all duped and that they are putting it right by establishing a brand new club that they hope will emulate the good things about Rangers (I know), ditch all the bad things, start from the bottom, find a place to play, seek no shortcuts or favours, and do their best to drum up support while working to a proper business model.

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

But what is a good Rangers?

It could very easily be a club that does pay it’s taxes and creditors
but it could aggressively defend it’s own interests – attacking other clubs/SPFL/SFA/UEFA and even media partners/sponsors like the BBC. Many bears would agree defending Rangers is more important than these institutions “agendas”
It could be pro unionist, loyalist – against the nation team and still rabidly anti Irish. Don’t see many Sevconians taking issue with the club defending that tradition
It could have an armed forces day every day of the week with regular friendlies against Chelsea, Linfield, Hamburg – wheeling out the military reserves at every opporchancity – pretty sure the Bears would regard that as a good thing

I doubt what any new club would look like would necessarily look like something we’d call good – but the fans might.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on1:49 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tif Finn says: (808)
November 13, 2013 at 1:28 pm
1 0 Rate This

jimlarkin says: (616)
November 13, 2013 at 1:22 pm
0 0 Rate This

Thought the wage bill was down to £7millions ?

That is manageable.

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

No it isn’t, not with ongoing expenses of over £13m and an income of £19m.

That’s without paying other staff, or allowing for things like amortisation and other depreciation.

The bottom line is they still spend far too much money in proportion to the income.
That’s just for ongoing costs, never mind one off payments.
====================================

Income of £19m
– expenses of £13m
= leftover £6m

If the spivs lose control of the parent clumpany which runs the other clumpany, then the only way the spivs will get anymore money out of it is by selling their penny shares.

The spivs obviously did not plan or see this event ever happening.

If the brogues do wrestle control away from the spivs, then a wee bit of cost cutting and prudence will see the Sevco ship on a more even keel in the short term. They maybe have a bit of debt, but that will be manageable.
The spivs won’t transfer ibrox or the minty hover pitches to the parent clumpany. Why
Because they said they wouldn’t do that, and it would be too much of a risk (to their public life)

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on2:00 pm - Nov 13, 2013


jimlarkin says: (617)
November 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Income of £19m
– expenses of £13m
= leftover £6m

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

Yes but that’s just the running costs, the actual spend is £33.m. Or at least it was in the audited accounts.

Staff costs 17,943
Other operating charges 13,317
Hire of plant and machinery 194
Depreciation of property, plant and equipment 765
Revenue grants ( 374)
Amortisation of trade marks1
Amortisation of players’ registrations 1,718
Auditor’s remuneration 105
Total operating expenses 33,668

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

You might want to find a way for Rangers to be a viable business. They simply aren’t not the way they are just now.

The longer it takes for the fans to realise that the longer it will be before something realistic can be done about it. Some people think it is already too late and another club is the only real option.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on2:05 pm - Nov 13, 2013


jimlarkin says: (617)
November 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm
========================
Jim, the £13m doesn’t include either players/coaching staff wages or other staff and management costs.

View Comment

Avatar

Carl31Posted on2:10 pm - Nov 13, 2013


extra income may see them into january and a wierd coincidence could see admin on Valentines Day.

I wonder what payoffs have been taken by the exiting board members?

someone could come in with funds injection, but the operation will continue to burn through cash so long as its in its current form.

the harshest and most sudden change of business structure and strategy, but the speediest, is Admin

View Comment

Avatar

FIFAPosted on2:12 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tin Finn
Its the sting of all stings with the spivs ,they will roll the big white Trojan horse up to the gates ,leave it there ,let the share issue be under written by King ,by which the fans wont contribute much as their thought will be ,he can afford it ,so he loses on that ,then when the 50m issue is over the spivs in the horse appear out and claim the money that is owed to the parent company ,have a nice day now.

View Comment

douglas reynholm

douglas reynholmPosted on2:12 pm - Nov 13, 2013


ecobhoy says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Excellent point, think I was getting distracted by is it or insn’t it CG’s signature and whether CW will get done for fraud. If it isn’t then CG probably needs to come up with a great excuse for the follow on actions.

I know this has been discussed on here already but I can’t remember seeing a definitive answer. To Achieve a CVA, would CG have needed CW’s shares??

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:17 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Humble Pie says: (1)
November 13, 2013 at 3:24 am
———————-

Moral Equivalence is the ultimate squirrel.

“Rangers are the beneficiaries of SFA/refereeing/media favouritism, look at all this evidence”

Average Fan: “So what? Celtic are just as bad. Why should I bother which cheek benefits” *shrugs shoulders*

And so it continues…

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on2:20 pm - Nov 13, 2013


douglas reynholm says:

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

In a CVA the existing Ltd Co carries on, so anyone putting the money in would want something for it.

For example getting the shares for £1, then putting up the money to be used to fund the terms of the CVA.

If there is no CVA then the company is liquidated, so is dead and the shares are worthless.

In short, yes, if he wanted to keep the club going then the only sensible thing would be for him to take control of it (by getting the shares) and funding it’s road out of administration.

View Comment

Avatar

beanosPosted on2:22 pm - Nov 13, 2013


douglas reynholm says: (35)
November 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm
0 0 i
Rate This

ecobhoy says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Excellent point, think I was getting distracted by is it or insn’t it CG’s signature and whether CW will get done for fraud. If it isn’t then CG probably needs to come up with a great excuse for the follow on actions.

I know this has been discussed on here already but I can’t remember seeing a definitive answer. To Achieve a CVA, would CG have needed CW’s shares??

—————————————————————————————————————————————

the CVA would have meant that Oldco still existed and Craig Whyte owned 85% of it so yes he needed the shares to have control of the company. Obviously all pie in the sky anyway as everyone knew the CVA had no chance. Just a charade.

View Comment

douglas reynholm

douglas reynholmPosted on2:32 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tif Finn says: (810)
November 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm

Thanks, that makes sense. I thought it might be something like that as John Boyle remained in charge of Motherwell after the CVA was agreed.

View Comment

douglas reynholm

douglas reynholmPosted on2:34 pm - Nov 13, 2013


beanos says: (30)
November 13, 2013 at 2:22 pm

…….Charles Green in “Element Of Truth” Shocker!

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on2:35 pm - Nov 13, 2013


FIFA says:

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

Can someone clear this up for me.

As I understand it Rangers have around 65,000,000 shares issued. There are another 35,000,000 shares which they (the PLC) hold and can sell (issue).

If they want to issue the existing ones do they have to go to the shareholders or can the board just do it. How easy would it be for them to issue more than that.

If they want to issue more likewise, can they just issue them or do they have to go to the existing shareholders.

Sorry that’s convoluted, but I would appreciate it if anyone could clear it up.

View Comment

Avatar

FrankiePosted on2:41 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Carl31 says: (90)

November 13, 2013 at 11:45 am

What most people forget is that there was over £6m due to Creditors. Presuming some of this was to HMRC for VAT, PAYE & NIC, which would become due early August, and the other creditors would be due end of August at the latest,(60days if people were stupid enough to give them credit facilities), there cannot be much cash left under the bed.

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on2:41 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Re: sevco running out of money. will the SFA be stumping up front for the use of ibrox in the 2 scottish cup semis ? is this the SFA helping them see out the season, or am i jyst being synical ?

just a thought

View Comment

Avatar

Petersen LeighPosted on3:19 pm - Nov 13, 2013


aenmac75 says: (38)
November 13, 2013 at 2:41 pm

Re: sevco running out of money. will the SFA be stumping up front for the use of ibrox in the 2 scottish cup semis ? is this the SFA helping them see out the season, or am i jyst being synical ?

just a thought
_________________________________________________________________________________

Also, which entity receives this money? Club or Company?

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on3:20 pm - Nov 13, 2013


From the administration to the liquidation of Rangers (now deceased) to this day all investigations like FTT, LNS, in fact every investigation/accusation has been dealt with DIFFERENTLY in every aspect and IMO protected to the utter disgrace where we are now and the absurd position where they are classed as the same team.
The PM internal investigation just about sums things up perfectly.
I think that any investigation that is held in Scotland is basically internal. Just look at the amount of evidence against them in every thing from EBT,s to Charity games, transfer bans, military farces and on and on. No amount of evidence so far in this country has amounted to any real rules or punishments being handed out. Do we really think that if CW is still involved their dodgy temporary and now full licence will be removed?? It should be but hey Social Unrest off the scale!!! (KJ sort of thing)
It feels like something is going to happen but I have lost count of how many times we have felt like this in the past. I do feel that justice and truth will prevail but why the opposition to it in this country. I was glad to here from echoboy that there was a possibility that BDO may have got SFO from London to look in, if true then I believe this can change.
I am grateful to the internet bambots as I have access to information about this fiasco that I would never have known, as again the Govan club had a protective veil over them as far back as I can remember. So getting to know what goes on in brogue city without their permission is priceless.

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on3:37 pm - Nov 13, 2013


MoreCelticParanoia says: (55)
November 13, 2013 at 2:17 pm
5 1 Rate This

Humble Pie says: (1)
November 13, 2013 at 3:24 am
———————-

Moral Equivalence is the ultimate squirrel.

“Rangers are the beneficiaries of SFA/refereeing/media favouritism, look at all this evidence”

Average Fan: “So what? Celtic are just as bad. Why should I bother which cheek benefits” *shrugs shoulders*

And so it continues…

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

Off the top of my head I can think of countless instances where Celtic have suffered some atrocious refereeing decisions.
I can also think of countless games where Rangers have been given some incredible positive rulings by the officials.
I can think of NO game in which Rangers (first or second version) have lost due to an ‘honest mistake’. Roy Aitken’s throw in notwithstanding.

View Comment

Avatar

auchinstarryPosted on3:37 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Some great posts last night and today. My observations are tame in comparison. Nothing forensic or particularly investigative. Only another poke at Irvine’s mouthpiece the D.R.
Today we have front page, back page and page 6, totally covered with the latest propaganda guff. I can imagine an American tourist in Glasgow buying a local newspaper both yesterday and today, attempting to catch up with happenings here and abroad..???
WTF would probably drawl from his Yankee lips! But when he opens the inside of the back page he will be in no doubt who the Baddie is. There we have the picture of Craigie Bhoy complete with the Red Pupilled eyes! Craigie is not just a Bad Baddie, he is now the Devil himself!!!…………….. Clever Jack, real clever!!

View Comment

Avatar

seminalPosted on3:37 pm - Nov 13, 2013


BDO have no interest in Sevco. As far as they are concerned HMRC have given their blessing to a newco playing out of Ibrox.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:40 pm - Nov 13, 2013


In the absence of a ‘frivolous, billionaire, Sugar Daddy’ the Govan club – at best – is looking at a long, hard slog to grow the business to generate the required cash flows organically – in order to be able to pay transfers and pay wages at the top level.

Financially, any variation of the football club is knackered for the long term, IMO.

But as an aside, the club may still need favours along the way – which is why I think we will also be stuck with Ogilvie at the helm of the SFA for perhaps much longer than his indicated 2 years: his behaviour to date would also indicate that his personal mission is to support the Govan club’s advancement, IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on4:01 pm - Nov 13, 2013


valentinesclown says:

The SFO do not have jurisdiction in Scotland.

That is why the matter is being dealt with by Police Scotland Economic Crime Unit, their closest equivalent here.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on4:06 pm - Nov 13, 2013


seminal says:

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

Of course they do, Sevco are the business the administrators of Rangers sold the assets to prior to the club moving into liquidation.

BDO are carrying out the investigation into what happened and who was responsible. That must include the movement of those assets and by extension who the assets were sold to.

If Charles Green was involved throughout the administration process which seems to be the case, and he bought the assets at what would appear to have been significantly below their real value then there is no way BDO can fail to be interested in Sevco.

It is the vehicle which was used to get the assets and start the new club.

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on4:16 pm - Nov 13, 2013


seminal says: (3)
November 13, 2013 at 3:37 pm
1 0 Rate This

BDO have no interest in Sevco. As far as they are concerned HMRC have given their blessing to a newco playing out of Ibrox.

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

HMRC want BDO to chase down every avenue available to secure money for the Revenue. That will include taking individuals and firms/companies to court if they misappropriated funds.
BDO are extremely interested in every aspect of the whole scam, that is what this is, a scam.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on4:20 pm - Nov 13, 2013


If they want to issue the existing ones do they have to go to the shareholders or can the board just do it. How easy would it be for them to issue more than that.

If they want to issue more likewise, can they just issue them or do they have to go to the existing shareholders.’
——
As I understand things, they would have to make a rights issue, offering new shares to existing shareholders ( in proportion to their existing holdings) at less than current market price.
The shareholders can either take up the offer of new shares , or sell their rights to them to other purchasers ( who would have to pay those shareholders the ‘market price of those RIGHTS, AND pay the company the price that the new shares were being offered at on the market.as well as the price being looked for by the company .

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on4:20 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Just out of interest, this is how Charles Green was going to turn Rangers into a profitable business in 1 year.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/3201-from-loss-to-profit

CHARLES GREEN has detailed how he plans to turn Rangers from a loss-making company into a profitable one over the next year.

As per projections in the prospectus made available to potential investors late last year, the 2012/13 campaign is seeing money being lost by the Light Blues.

Green is adamant that was always going to be the case and has highlighted the retention of key staff and a huge drop in turnover as reasons.

But as his tenure as chief executive extends and Gers get stronger both on the park and off it, the 59-year-old expects a swift change on that front.

Green said: “The company is currently trading at a loss and the reason for that is our income is halved from coming out of the SPL and Europe and going into the Third Division.

“Typically, Rangers would be close to a £60million turnover per year and we’re down to below £30million now.

“The normal way to deal with that would be the chief executive would take a knife and get rid of 25 to 30 per cent of the workforce.

“We would have had wholesale redundancies, closed down half of Murray Park and got rid of half the training staff.

“But that’s not the actions of a club that is moving and wants to go forward so what we did as a board and as investors was carry those losses and bear them.

“We wanted to keep the infrastructure and this company intact and how that turns around is we’re out there now looking at other income streams.

“Stadium naming rights is a contributor to that, as is taking our own retail back in house and our media rights.

“With bringing Jim Traynor on board, we’ve got some really exciting ideas around media, TV and radio which will all generate income.

“It’s not an overnight thing. All of those things will take a year or two but the losses are a one-year thing and they won’t be here next year. We’ll grow and grow thereafter.”

Another cash generator is shirt sponsorship and Green is optimistic of securing a deal there within the next 10 days.

He is also close to striking an agreement over a new kit manufacturer and is confident fans will be pleased with the final outcome.

Green added: “We’re in the very final stages now of speaking and concluding contracts with both so the decisions are made.

“Obviously it would be improper to announce who they are until we have finished the contracts completely.

“But we have a kit manufacturer and we have a kit sponsor. They will be announced very shortly and I’m sure the fans will be happy with both.”

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

Clearly he didn’t think it was going to drop as low as £19m then.

Ready to compare balance sheets yet, Chuck.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on4:27 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tif Finn says: (814)
November 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm
”’….If they want to issue the existing ones do they have to go to the shareholders ..’
——
As I understand things, theywould have to make a ‘rights’ issue. That is, they would have to offer rights to new shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings, and at discounted price from the prevailing market price.
Those shareholders can choose to take those rights, or sell the rights to the shares( not their old shares, but the rights to the new ones) to somebody else, who would pay them the calculated ‘market price’ of the ‘right AND then buy the new shares at the discounted price being called for by the issuer.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on4:38 pm - Nov 13, 2013


http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9024068/

‘And Jardine, who made 451 appearances for the League One side between 1965-1982’

Oh no he didnae

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on4:39 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tif Finn says: (813)
November 13, 2013 at 2:00 pm

5

0

Rate This

jimlarkin says: (617)
November 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Income of £19m
– expenses of £13m
= leftover £6m

____________________________________

Sales is vanity. Profit is sanity. Cash is reality.

It is the cash burn rate and access to credit that will determine solvency, as in any business. Profitability is food for a business. But cash is its breath.
It can take a long time for a non profitable business to starve to death, but a great many highly profitable businesses go to the wall because they can’t raise the cash to pay their bills.

Having syphoned off the IPO cash, the plan of the spivs will be a cash for assets swap. They can justify that the business needs the cash to trade its way back. Of course it only does this because it is haemorrhaging cash, with as much of this in the direction of the spivs and their accomplices as can be hidden. So now the spivs have the assets.

Another cash injection from the bears via an IPO or ST sales, some more syphoning. If some sugar daddy wants to threw some more millions at the asset stripped enterprise, even better. If they can get some idiot to lend them cash to syphon off (unlikely), and run up some debt, all the better.

But when the well is finally exhausted of cash, the spivs will dispose of the assets for er… more cash.

These guys are growing very fat on bears milk! (which is easiest to extract when the bear is sleepy during the long winter months!)

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on4:41 pm - Nov 13, 2013


john clarke says:

——————————–

So the current owners get first shout at the new shares.

Do you know if it is a fixed amount (the 35m) or can they issue as many as they want.

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

I take this from the Prospectus

3.2 The share capital of RFCL on incorporation was £2 divided into 2 ordinary shares of £1 each which
were both issued to Charles Green fully paid. Since the incorporation of RFCL there have been the
following changes in the issued and fully paid up share capital of RFCL:

3.2.1 pursuant to ordinary and special written resolutions of RFCL passed on 29 May 2012 the
issued and unissued ordinary shares in the capital of the Company were subdivided into
ordinary shares of £0.01 each and the Directors were authorised to allot ordinary shares up to an aggregate nominal amount equal to £100,000,000 until 29 May 2017 and to allot such
shares for cash as if section 561(1) of the 2006 Act and any pre-emption rights in the articles
of association of RFCL did not apply to any such allotment of shares.

3.2.2 on 31 October 2012 33,415,000 ordinary shares of 1p each were issued by the directors
of RFCL.

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

Hence it looks to me that up until May 2017 they can only sell up to 100,000,000 and there are 65,000,000 already sold. Therefore another 35,000,000 can be sold

Does that make sense.

View Comment

Avatar

neepheidPosted on4:59 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tif Finn says: (815)
November 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm

Hence it looks to me that up until May 2017 they can only sell up to 100,000,000 and there are 65,000,000 already sold. Therefore another 35,000,000 can be sold

Does that make sense.
================

From your prospectus extract- “the Directors were authorised to allot ordinary shares up to an aggregate nominal amount equal to £100,000,000 “. Now unless that is a typo, that is an awful lot of penny shares, in fact 10 Billion of them. Of which only 65 million have been sold. Presumably the Directors can issue them to “friends and family” for their nominal value of 1p? I’m just amazed that this is legal.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on5:06 pm - Nov 13, 2013


I never even noticed that, Me and missing nothings again.

However it is a straight lift from the PDF version of the Prospectus.

I suppose if it’s true my question becomes meaningless anyway.

Thanks for that.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on5:06 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tif Finn says: (815)
November 13, 2013 at 4:20 pm
‘…/.Hence it looks to me that up until May 2017 they can only sell up to 100,000,000 and there are 65,000,000 already sold. Therefore another 35,000,000 can be sold’
———–
Unless an AGM/EGM authorises the Board to increase the number of shares that can be offered.

” Authorised or nominal share capital
As from 1 October 2009, authorised share capital (sometimes referred to as nominal capital) will be abolished. Directors will therefore be able to continue to issue shares without limitation, subject only to authority to allot from members where required. Companies will have to deliver to the Registrar statements of issued capital on formation and at various other points, mainly where changes are made to the amount of issued capital”

View Comment

Avatar

Tic 6709Posted on5:09 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Two years ago someone on RTC said that if Rangers(IL) are allowed to survive they would come back much worse than before.
Well whoever it was they were bang on the money.
Over the 2 years we have seen some of the most despicable behaviour from the very people who were supposed to be the leaders.Each one of these people have proven to be liars and cheats.
Some have lied to get the season ticket money in,some have lied to line their pockets,but lie they did.
They have played the sectarian card when things were not going to plan,just to get the sheep to part with more money or to back a regime change.
Still on this blog people are offering advice about what can be done so that something resembling Rangers(IL) Sevco, can survive into a new entity. This I truly don’t understand.Over the piece I have read many posters on here slowly change their minds about this tragedy for Scottish football,people have offered the olive branch,maybe not in friendship,but in peace,only to be called every name under the sun for explaining the realities of their situation.
They don’t deserve our advice or even our pity,they deserve to be extinguished.
I for one hope it’s very soon,then maybe we can get back to the game we all love,and helping those clubs who are a damn sight more deserving.
If the person who wrote those wise words 2 years ago is looking in what are you thinking today ?.
D Murray,C White, A Bain, AJohnstone, C Green ,I Khan ,Stockbridge, M Murray ,W Smith, A McCoist, Bill and Ben Easdale,P murray,and the star of the show D King. All of the above are or have been in positions of power at Ibrox,would you want Any One of those people near your club ?
Answers on the head of a pin please.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on5:14 pm - Nov 13, 2013


john clarke says:

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

Neepheid has pointed out that it’s not 100,000,000 shares, it’s actually to the value of £100,000,000 which if they are a penny is 10 billion.

I think that’s probably enough to cover them for a new share issue.

View Comment

Avatar

Galling fiverPosted on5:27 pm - Nov 13, 2013


I smell politics off BDO, taking them an awful long time to do zero already. I wouldn’t hold out much hope of them adding anything other than fees, that way you won’t be disappointed.

It’s a disgrace that we all have to pay tax and these people don’t, I would have lost my Hoose or be in the jail by now for much less. Stinking it is.

Heard a wee rumour months ago that “everything would be much clearer by second week in November” . A friend of a friend from Horses moothe. Hope it’s true.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on5:35 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Galling fiver says: (15)
November 13, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Heard a wee rumour months ago that “everything would be much clearer by second week in November” . A friend of a friend from Horses moothe. Hope it’s true.

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

From the BDO initial report on the liquidation

“Conclusions

We have attended to all statutory requirements throughout the course of the liquidation to date.

Due to the significant issues to be resolved in the liquidation, the Joint Liquidators do not expect
to be in a position to bring this case to a conclusion for some considerable time. Further reports
will be circulated to creditors within six weeks of each six month anniversary of the date of
liquidation”

You can look at the first report here.

http://static.bdo.uk.com/assets/documents/2013/05/RFC_Report_to_Creditors_22_May_2013.pdf

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on5:49 pm - Nov 13, 2013


john clarke says: (1351)
November 13, 2013 at 4:27 pm

4

0

Rate This

Tif Finn says: (814)
November 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm
”’….If they want to issue the existing ones do they have to go to the shareholders ..’
——
As I understand things, theywould have to make a ‘rights’ issue. That is, they would have to offer rights to new shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings, and at discounted price from the prevailing market price.
Those shareholders can choose to take those rights, or sell the rights to the shares( not their old shares, but the rights to the new ones) to somebody else, who would pay them the calculated ‘market price’ of the ‘right AND then buy the new shares at the discounted price being called for by the issuer.
_____________________________

You are referring to pre-emption rights:
This means that any shareholder must be offered first refusal on any new shares issued at the offer price so as not to dilute their existing holding. It is a protection against unauthorised dilution.
There are specific circumstances where a ‘waiver’ or ”disapplication’ of pre emption rights’ is allowed.
The company can disapply these with the shareholders permission, by a special resolution. The company can also hold back a reserve of unallocated shares at the time of issue, which can be sold off without pre-emption subsequently.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on5:53 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Tic 6709 says:

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

My guess is that both “sides” know exactly what they intend doing post AGM and people conjecturing on it isn’t going to change anything.

Personally I can’t see anything other than an insolvency event in one form or another.

With regard funding going forward, if that is possible it is worth having another look at the accounts.

“CAPITAL RESOURCES
The RIFC Company maintains cash to fund the daily cash requirements of its business. The Company does not have access to any further banking facilities, although it does have access to an unsecured facility of £2.5m””

So it seems access to further funds is very limited as things stand.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on6:06 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Lord Wobbly says: (966)
November 13, 2013 at 4:38 pm

20

2

Rate This

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9024068/

‘And Jardine, who made 451 appearances for the League One side between 1965-1982′

Oh no he didnae
_____________________________________

‘Stability will return.. because of the magnificent fans….’ said Jardine
as he prepares to rattle a bucket outside the turnstiles… again… sheesh I can’t watch!

Well, us ICT fans may not be as magnificent as your lot Sandy, but we are neither stupid, nor blind, nor arrogant, our board aren’t a bunch of crooks, our club are solvent… and we are currently second top in the league.
So I’m not sure that ‘magnificent’ (as you would define it) is all that its cracked up to tbh.

View Comment

Avatar

Tic 6709Posted on6:08 pm - Nov 13, 2013


v
Tif Finn says: (819)

November 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm
===================
Tif,I’m in agreement with you regarding insolvency.I’ve seen all the calculations on here and I think some are a wee bit optimistic.
I still think an early Christmas present.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on6:16 pm - Nov 13, 2013


From the above link to SKY and S Jardine.

Speaking on Sky Sports News, Sandy Jardine said: “There is no might about it, stability will return. The supporters have been nothing but magnificent and they will continue to be that because it is their club.

“I don’t know if it will be three months or six months but the club will settle down.

“The strength of our club is not who owns it or the custodian, it is the supporters and you would have seen after the last two years it has been fantastic. There is no worries about our club.”
——————————————————————————————
Next load of spivs rubbing their hands with glee.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on6:23 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Like some people here I read the ‘On Fields Of Green’ article yesterday.

The catalogue of lies piled upon lies to hide earlier lies are laid out for all to see.

At one point in the article the author writes ‘This thing will erupt’ and the ‘will’ was in italics.
This got me thinking and wondering whether moves are still afoot, somewhere in the media, to break this story. The author seemed to imply this in the article.

There has been various rumours over the last year of momentous, or nuclear, information tantalising beyond the reach of the public. Phil Mac and Alex Thompson have hinted at various times of more information yet to be disclosed and indeed this story regarding ‘the signature’ was hinted on here almost a year ago.
Yet recently all seems to have gone quiet.

Does anyone have any information regarding any on going attempts to break stories on this shambles?
Has all of the information been buried or is the volcano still threatening to erupt?

View Comment

Avatar

taxman comethPosted on6:25 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Resin_lab_dog says: (234)
November 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm
0 0 Rate This

john clarke says: (1351)
November 13, 2013 at 4:27 pm

4

0

Rate This

Tif Finn says: (814)
November 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm
”’….If they want to issue the existing ones do they have to go to the shareholders ..’
——
As I understand things, theywould have to make a ‘rights’ issue. That is, they would have to offer rights to new shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings, and at discounted price from the prevailing market price.
Those shareholders can choose to take those rights, or sell the rights to the shares( not their old shares, but the rights to the new ones) to somebody else, who would pay them the calculated ‘market price’ of the ‘right AND then buy the new shares at the discounted price being called for by the issuer.
_____________________________

You are referring to pre-emption rights:
This means that any shareholder must be offered first refusal on any new shares issued at the offer price so as not to dilute their existing holding. It is a protection against unauthorised dilution.
There are specific circumstances where a ‘waiver’ or ”disapplication’ of pre emption rights’ is allowed.
The company can disapply these with the shareholders permission, by a special resolution. The company can also hold back a reserve of unallocated shares at the time of issue, which can be sold off without pre-emption subsequently.

=======

Sevco 5088 already did – RIFC? maybe the filing is late or it’s been missed

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/why-did-sevco-5088-ltd-pass-a-resolution-disapplying-pre-emption-rights/

View Comment

Avatar

smartie1947Posted on6:27 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Re BDO actions ( or inactions) to date as mentioned above.
As HMRC appointees, would it not make more sense for them to beaver away in the background until the UTT hearing scheduled for possibly March/April 2014. Then if HMRC win their case and get legal authority to seek to recoup any tax lost from the recipients of the EBT loans and the principals behind the scheme, then the full force of any possible prosecutions can be brought to bear aided by any documentation BDO have uncovered in the interim.

View Comment

Avatar

pilgrim1888Posted on7:07 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Rangers Int. Football Club PLC AIM Rule 17 update

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11773576

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on7:09 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Lord Wobbly says: (966)
November 13, 2013 at 4:38 pm

‘And Jardine, who made 451 appearances for the League One side between 1965-1982′

Oh no he didnae
——————————————
LW, you’re old enough to know better. Oh yes he did. some of the time anyway. Rangers were a League Division One side between 1962 and 1974/75.

Fair enough they were Scottish Premier Division club from 1975 onward but credit, however inadvertent, where it’s due.

PS For those berating BDO, be patient. This liquidation will take several years as the potential corporate and criminal wrongdoing is investigated. Be sure HMRC have given them a very strong brief to turn over every stone in an attempt to find a way to recover some tax or make those responsible pay in another way.

The Court of Session judgement in the Aberdeen Asset Management case in October is a clear sign that the judges are determined to root out shams wherever they see them and reading between the lines, the Upper Tier Tribunal will follow suit when that case is heard next Spring.

View Comment

Avatar

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on7:10 pm - Nov 13, 2013


IMO all Sevco have been doing since CG arrived is paying back money lost to some faceless peepil when Sally crashed out of Europe .
What if these faceless peepil put their man in place to get the money they expected to get from the fans STs .
Could this explain why WS , A Mc and MM stepped in at crucial points in the charade to keep the fans spending .
When the rebels won the chance to force an AGM ,why did they not do so immediately ,MM said it was to save the club money (what a crock of horse muck) He then says in hindsight it was a mistake because in not doing so has cost the club more and surprise ,surprise THAT delay has allowed the AGM to be delayed long enough to get the spivs past their lock ins .
Why go to such lengths to win the court verdict and tell everyone the current board were delaying the AGM for their own agenda and demanded to know why .To then just to sit back and allow the current board to do just that .
Like everything else involved in this farce something stinks .
As for Scotpol or any other investigating body in this saga ,don’t hold your breath for any adverse evidence appearing regards the dead club or Sevco 2012 ,unless of course the investigators hail from outside this country .

View Comment

Avatar

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on7:14 pm - Nov 13, 2013


So looks like another false dawn today regarding all the twitter rumours from last night 🙄
or have I missed something 😯 😆

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on7:14 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Resin_lab_dog says: (234)
November 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm
‘….You are referring to pre-emption rights:.’
———–
I’ll take your word for it, Resin! I had difficulty following the plot of “the Million Pound Note” (starring Gregory Peck, 1954), and my knowledge of how the capitalist world functions hasn’t much increased. 😀

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on7:23 pm - Nov 13, 2013


The share offer thing may well turn out to be a poisson rouge anyway.

Yes the club needs an injection of cash moving forward, whoever is on the board.

However just because you need money doesn’t mean people are willing to give you it. Clearly they are having difficulty getting any sort of credit facilities, the same could be the case for any sort of further investment.

View Comment

Avatar

Angus1983Posted on7:31 pm - Nov 13, 2013


slimshady61 says: (297)
November 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm

LW, you’re old enough to know better. Oh yes he did. some of the time anyway. Rangers were a League Division One side between 1962 and 1974/75.
——

Slim – I think Wobbly’s point was that Mr Jardine has never actually played for the current League One club called The Rangers at all … they’re not quite that desperate yet … 😉

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:39 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Angus1983 says: (1228)
November 13, 2013 at 7:31 pm

1

0

Rate This

slimshady61 says: (297)
November 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm

LW, you’re old enough to know better. Oh yes he did. some of the time anyway. Rangers were a League Division One side between 1962 and 1974/75.
——

Slim – I think Wobbly’s point was that Mr Jardine has never actually played for the current League One club called The Rangers at all … they’re not quite that desperate yet … 😉

___________________________

Oh… they are about desperate enough now 😆 . Its whether they can afford to sign him? 😳

View Comment

Avatar

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on7:56 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Angus1983
You are of course correct .Cryonics FC to my knowledge has not emerged yet ,despite every MSM puppet constantly referring to Sevco getting Ragers back to the top ,where they belong .
I think the Cryogenic boffins will at least try to get just one person back from the dead before they chance their arm at a whole football club .
Run before you can walk and all that 😀

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:02 pm - Nov 13, 2013


This letter is brilliant.
With due respect to Hearts fans (who are in no way to blame for being favoured by the fixture selection – for the second succesive year), I would love to hear the SPFLs answer to this.

To my mind, the 12.15 KO is a MUCH bigger issue than the choice of venue, since this impacts on accessibility (no public transport) and safety (Driving on a Dark Frozen A9 in early Feb)

http://ictsupporterstrust.co.uk/news/trust-news/272-letter-to-iain-blair-of-the-spfl

View Comment

Avatar

Madbhoy24941Posted on8:07 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Lord Wobbly says: (966)
November 13, 2013 at 4:38 pm
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9024068/

‘And Jardine, who made 451 appearances for the League One side between 1965-1982′

Oh no he didnae
———————————-

The Rangers of today are much like Alex’s medal, no matter how much it looks and feels the same, it’s not the same one he used to be so proud of…..

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:18 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Resin_lab_dog says: (236)
November 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
=================================
Good luck to Ian Balfour the ICT fan who sent the letter to Iain Blair re kick off schedules. Some years ago the SPL announced the post split fixtures, and every one of Celtic’s were on a Sunday, with Rangers having every one on a Saturday. Naturally I felt this was a real inconvenience to Celtic fans and wondered why there couldn’t have been more alternating between Saturday and Sunday for the two clubs. I then felt outraged when I saw Blair on TV saying it had been a real headache for himself and Campbell Ogilvie (yes, him!), to sort out the fixtures. So I felt compelled to write and ask the reasoning why the ‘headache’ had resulted in Rangers getting five Saturday fixtures while Celtic got five on a Sunday. I got a response acknowledging five Sunday fixtures were not ideal for Celtic fans but no explanation why it had happened. Before anyone jumps down my throat, every other club got some Saturday fixtures.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on8:25 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Resin_lab_dog says: (236)
November 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm

That is a great letter.
Do you think he’ll even get a notification of receipt never mind an answer?
If they’re anything like the SFA the letter will either end up in the shredder or the spam folder!!

View Comment

Avatar

Tic 6709Posted on8:35 pm - Nov 13, 2013


vRhebelRhebel ‏@RhebelRhebel 6h
Could Tom Stocker end the careers of @StewartMRegan & @DarrylBroadfoot at the @ScottishFA http://www.pinsentmasons.com/en/people/partnersconsultants/tom-stocker/http://imgur.com/vUYqZOK
===============
Hope this shows.

Just re-read,was this posted before ?
If so,apologies.

Hide photo

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on8:39 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Re Alex MacDonald

The one called Auchinstarry may be able to confirm this, depending on how old he is, as I believe Alex MacDonald was living in Kilyth at the time.

As people will know Mr McDonald’s Hearts team came within a very short time of winning the top league. Such was the confidence they were going to achieve their target that a surprise party had been arranged in his house for that evening. All decorated, catering in, everything done whilst he was at the final game of the season.

It seems there was a rush job to get all of it moved before he came home.

I don’t believe they were so presumptuous when playing Aberdeen in the Cup Final.

View Comment

Avatar

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on8:43 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Twitter seemingly ablaze with rumours that TRFC are going to have to change their name back to Sevco Scotland. Not sure source, assume it is linked to incoming BDO report.

Work is really getting in the way of my bampottery,

View Comment

Avatar

Galling fiverPosted on8:49 pm - Nov 13, 2013


We seen the administration that bears no resemblance to any other. We seen murray park, ibrox, albion, the crest, the strip, the use of the name, the claim to its history etc , they even tried to blag millions of pounds worth of transfer fees all for the paltry sum(in comparison) of £3.5M. So as it stands, if I do the same thing with my business tomorrow, I’ll be back in business in the same place with the same everything and only have to pay less than 2% of my debts, and it will be years before I get any grief over it if ever at all?

Someone tell me I can demand the same treatment in court, or by the FM, HMRC, BDO or who ever or whatever combination of, that has granted this corrupt courtesy that the spivs are currently ripping the hole out of as we speak.

I demand to be allowed the same courtesy and praise of me as superior after I do so, bye the way.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on8:50 pm - Nov 13, 2013


The name change story was put up by the spoof Spiers account and has taken off

Also lots of talk about a SSB caller who mentioned deeds of novation

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on8:50 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Just a wee question about the RIFC AGM for those corporate guys & gals.

Should the board be circulating AGM papers including copies of the accounts prior to the meeting? If so what is usual? a week? two weeks? if it is the case, then this is a deadline we should be looking out for. If the end game requires an escape before the accounts are made available then it will likely happen around the time shareholders would be expecting the big envelope with exciting information dropping through their letterboxes.

View Comment

Avatar

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on8:59 pm - Nov 13, 2013


AM QC
I have wondered how they have been allowed to get away with the name and claiming of history ,in advertising ,badge (with stars ) prospectus, brow beating other clubs ,fans ,certain MSM . DS stating 141 years of history on his arrival .
Add to the mix ,DK,MM,PM and phoenixing comes to mind

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on9:29 pm - Nov 13, 2013


eddie rice says:
November 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Rate This

Anyone ever heard of Farepak? That company was liquidated by BDO and during the liquidation process many creditors and commentators speculated that BDO were preparing a damning report that would have far reaching consequences for those involved in the demise of that company.
Unfortunately that wasn’t the case, no ex directors were held to account, no assets were regained from those that misappropriated the assets and what we learned was that bankruptcies and liquidation are feeding frenzies for professionals, principally because of the legal processes. The lawyers complicate matters and all the parties involved in the process ride that horse to riches at the expense of the creditors and small shareholders.
=================================================================================
Eddie

In fairness to BDO their principle remit would have been to get the best return possible for creditors and cannot be held resonsible for press speculation regarding possible legal action against company office bearers/directors.
They did however manage a 32p in the pound settlement which, while it may not seem much, is a great deal more than many CVAs never mind liquidations (link to article below)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebd7c4be-caab-11e1-89be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2kYwyKDP4

Their aim in the oldco liquidation will be identical i.e. maximum return for creditors.
If legal/ciminal actions against individuals will achieve this they will doubtless pursue. If they come across anything worthy of report to regulatory authorities or the old bill they will do so.

View Comment

Avatar

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on9:30 pm - Nov 13, 2013


If there was any suggestion of gratuitous alienation (remember that?) by BDO, then it would fit with the name change theory.

Only just in from work so missed all the deed of novation chat. Clyde SSB seems to have taken a turn for the intellectual by the sound of it. Luckily they have Keevins on hand, with his keen mind.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on9:33 pm - Nov 13, 2013


http://news.stv.tv/west-central/248428-alex-macdonald-receives-repleacment-cup-winners-cup-medal/

I was wondering what the earlier posters were ‘on about’ regarding the new medal being the same one as the old medal and the fact that Alex McDonald has never played for Sevco, but obviously mr McDonald did play for Rangers – but Rangers went bust / into liquidation in 2012.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Liquidation
n
1. (Business / Commerce)
a. the process of terminating the affairs of a business firm, etc., by realizing its assets to discharge its liabilities
b. the state of a business firm, etc., having its affairs so terminated (esp in the phrase to go into liquidation)
2. destruction; elimination

Also

To put an end to; abolish.
To put to death; kill.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on9:34 pm - Nov 13, 2013


eddie rice says:

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

I have absolutely no issue with you expressing your opinion, however to refer to other posters who happen to be expressing their own in perfectly reasonable terms like this

“Well sorry, stop taking the drugs, sober up and get back to reality.”

Is to me out of order.

I really don’t care how many thumbs up your masonic / orange conspiracy theory got. Referring to others in such derogatory terms is unacceptable.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:38 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Just thinking about some of the comments posted here and on Twitter about BDO and whether or not they may come to the rescue.

I appreciate the past history of BDO and the Farepak outcome.

However – HMRC in their infinite wisdom chose BDO to manage the liquidation. I do not get the sense that HMRC want to let spis and crooks f@ck them and the tax payer over.

Keep the faith.

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on9:45 pm - Nov 13, 2013


Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years.

View Comment

Comments are closed.