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!
All the talk over the past day or so about the gullibility of TRFC/RIFC fans and the sheer spivery exhibited by their club/company ‘leaders’ has left me with a feeling of despair only relieved by the thought that they all clearly deserve each other.
After all this time I’ve also come to realise what WATP really stands for : it’s “We Are The Pinheads”
1. Pinhead
One who lacks the intelligence of the “normal” sector of the human population; even so cannot handle the most mundane of tasks due to the lack of common sense and intelligence.
2. Pin head
A VERY Dumb or Stupid person not capable of making educated decisions on their own or constantly making mistakes
see also :
idiot
moron
cretin
dork
imbecile
bonehead
fool
simpleton
blockhead
dumbbell
ignoramus
retard
stupid
big head
dimwit
dumbass
dunce
fathead
nincompoop
ninny
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pinhead
We should remember this next time we hear this acronym used.
Scottish Football needs a strong BDO.
FAO Resin_lab_dog: good letter from David Balfour of Caley Jags Together, containing far too much reason for the SPFL management folk.
But a wee point to note: in you quarter final match, there was no public transport option for opposition fans after that match, even discounting the extra time.
However, that doesn’t detract from the important principles raised by ICT fans for the semi.
Tif Finn @8:39pm
Sorry Tif , Canny help you with any of that. On the day in question I was in Paisley……and on the evening/ night in question I wis over the moon……….
Tif Finn says: (824)
November 13, 2013 at 10:11 pm
“I have said my piece on the matter, people can agree or disagree. I respect their right to do that.”
Agreed
[O/T for a cheap laugh.]
==================
McCoist is going to be raging !
He will be demanding to know why he wasn’t included on the judging panel – and he will be insisting that the consumers have a right to know… 🙄
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-bay-city-rollers-star-2788598
I think this article is worth reading for anybody that thinks that there hasn’t been a plan from day one. Sykes also explains why Sevco (as you and I may well call them) are masquerading as Rangers. The date is worth noting – 15/02/2012. The day after RFC were placed into administration. I want Sykes to pick Saturday’s lottery numbers for me. 😉
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-in-crisis-jailed-embezzler-blows-1116799
It’s all well and good people saying keep the faith with regards to BDO, but their focus is exclusively on individuals and wrong doing at RFC(IL). They will not get involved in the current Sevco omni shambles. That is simply speculation and wishful thinking.
Like the shares being suspended
Like changing the name back
Like freezing assets
bad capt madman says:
November 13, 2013 at 8:50 pm
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.
———
The accounts were already published in early October, and it will be those that the AGM will be asked to approve. The only thing required now is the revised agenda, to include the resolutions requested by the ‘rebels’, as ordered by the court. As far as I know, this has not yet been published, although the date of the meeting has been announced. I believe the agenda must be issued at least 21 days before the meeting.
eddie rice says: (53)
November 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
—————————————–
This is the classic case of comparing apples and pears.
First of all I do not recall any commentary at the start of the Farepak fiasco suggesting that BDO would right a great wrongdoing. That was a classic “rob peter to pay paul” routine perpetrated on unfortunate savers.
The case was complex, there was a vocal and well run action group of creditors but they were a large disparate group who for the most part were passive participants. BDO achieved a reasonable dividend of 32p which compared to the vast majority of liquidations was a not unreasonable return.
In the present case, HMRC is the creditor and it is angry. It has selected the two BDO partners deliberately as it feels they can best represent its interests and not just see what can be recovered from the wreckage but whether, assuming the cash return is small or non-existent, the full force of company law and, if appropriate, criminal law can be brought to bear on those directly responsible for the demise and liquidation of Rangers.
If the books and records of Rangers constitute a possible crime scene, then it is one that takes a very long time to examine and so patience is required. The investigations, carried on with support where appropriate from the police and legal experts, will likely last 3-4 years at a minimum.
I am comfortable that if there is any wrongdoing here, BDO will uncover it. My view, first expressed more than 18 months ago, remains that the spotlight may well eventually fall on an earlier owner and his team, rather than the more usual suspect(s).
54 months to go (at most)
Nice to see that those that previously held positions at Pravda now have jobs as mods on this site. Goodbye
Sons of Struth @SonsofStruth 25m
Sources claim Scott Gardiner has rejected Rangers CEO job. Confirm when we can.
Strewth!!!
It was worth a pound in its hay day plus the debt =£18,000,001 and £3,500,002 on day one of sevco. It was then, and is deliberately now still racking up huge operational losses to perhaps justify that low valuation WRT to any claim of gratuitous alienation. An easy get out for BDO I would imagine, nobody wants it as is.
The best deal for creditors was in taking the assets and sending them back a finger at a time with the ransom demand attached. The right to play being first payment, through to the tainted history and use of name many millions and years later. If the IPO was the most recent real money evaluation and the accounts the fantasy league figure, then it’s somewhere in between. But as I say, it’s like pulling a spark plug off an old rusty neglected rover up the car market before they drive it through. And I doubt BDO will say otherwise, or be instructed to. Nod, wink, UTTT precedent, carry on.
I’m off to find a successful unwinding due to gratuitous alienation BDO have done after letting so much water under the bridge. Hope I find one mind you.
borussiabeefburg says: (198)
November 13, 2013 at 9:59 pm
12
0
Rate This
FAO Resin_lab_dog: good letter from David Balfour of Caley Jags Together, containing far too much reason for the SPFL management folk.
But a wee point to note: in you quarter final match, there was no public transport option for opposition fans after that match, even discounting the extra time.
However, that doesn’t detract from the important principles raised by ICT fans for the semi.
____________________________
Its a fair point you make. And it is Accepted.
But the quarter finals weren’t at a ‘supposedly’ neutral venue.
If the semi final had been drawn (like the Quarters) with a 50% chance of Tulloch and a 50% chance of Tynecastle, and it had come up tails, Caley fans would have trouped down to Tynecastle in good voice. Would have grumbled a bit about the early start, and tried to get it put back, but not about the fairness and competence of the process.
But at these semis, no coin was flipped. The venue is – apparently neutral???
As for no transport links back after the quarters, it was a Tuesday night, people would have had to take a half day off to even get there. (respect to the DUFC fans that did so). So we unquestionably had a massive home advantage.
But if the coin had come down the other way, Caley fans would have been in exactly the same boat at the DUFC fans were.
So the arrangement suited neither team before the random toss of the coin. Both were entitled to grumble equally at that point. I think there would have been alot of sympathy on both sides to get a more suitable time for the fixtures for mutual convenience.
And while no public transport was avalailable for the return journey, the A9 wasn’t waist deep in snow ice and blizzards either!
Only after a fair coin was tossed (OK – some dodgy official pulled a ball out of a hat!), did one team accrue a significant home advantage, by 50/50 chance.
So its not exactly the same situation.
I’ll only add that I am delighted when travelling fans fill our away end, league or cup, I expect my chairman feels the same, and I think our club would do all in its power to ensure the needs of as many travelling fans as possible could be accommodated.
Fuller stands is in everyone’s interests.
Re:Phoenixing
One of the oddest incidents in all of this was the HMRC statement having no objection to a Rangers continuing to play at Ibrox. This seemed a green light to allow a Phoenix to emerge. It also appeared to be a political rather than an operational statement. It also came shortly after Salmond’ s statement about Rangers and its status as an essential Scottish institution. I also note that any FOI requests regarding the release of any correspondence between the two has been denied on the most bizarre and clearly spurious grounds.
iceman63 says: (303)
November 14, 2013 at 5:34 am
“A Rangers” not “Rangers” or “The Rangers”?
I interpreted HMRC’s statement as – football can continue if a team can be pulled together – but it will not be the original club.
I do not believe that HMRC are happy with the level of p!$$ taking that we are currently seeing from the spivs and the brogues. HMRC need to retain their authority.
I was interested to see following the Aberdeen Asset Management case a statement from HMRC noting that it would now be easier to resolve on-going appeals re EBTs – a clear nod to the Rangers FC case.
I thought that HMRC normally kept their own counsel? If I was a betting man – I would say that the actions post liquidation surrounding club/company have put HMRC into a we will not forgive or forget mode when it comes to all things Rangers.
RIFC appoint a new NED
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11773739
Are the spivs making it more difficult for the requisitioners to make changes to the board?
Past Directorships and other positions:
Big Bear Productions Limited
Brought in to be Broxi’s line manager
Long Time Lurker says: (665)
November 14, 2013 at 6:28 am
I was interested to see following the Aberdeen Asset Management case a statement from HMRC noting that it would now be easier to resolve on-going appeals re EBTs – a clear nod to the Rangers FC case.
===============================================
My profession is neither Accountancy or Law, but like 99.9% of people on here I was astounded that the First Tier Tribunal found in Rangers favour. The assessment by Dr Poon seemed to back up what most people had surmised was going on, i.e a tax scam – plain and simple, with the only victim being the public purse that many of us have no choice whatsover to pay into. Having said that many of us, while aching at the tax deducted element of our salary slips, also value the payment of tax in full and on time as underpinning our democratic society.
However, in terms of the A.A.M case making it easier for HMRC in terms of the Rangers appeal, I’m afraid I have lost any confidence whatsover that the establishment, authorities, whatever you want to call them have any desire to uphold the principle of tax payment when it comes to this case. So often have the establishment, authorites, whatever you want to call them now issued baffling judgements in favour of Rangers that even the lay person in the street can see through, I can’t see that the second tier tribunal is going to be any different. If Rangers are deemed to have cheated the taxpayer for over a decade, then ergo they have cheated on the park, despite what Lord Nimmo Smith, Sandy Bryson, or any other establishment figure has said. There could be no other conclusion and it will be a step too far for them. I hope I’m wrong but I see no evidence from the highest level of Government to the courts, that anyone wants to take them to task.
New NED for RIFC announced this morning AT 07.00hrs. A Mr Crighton. At 07.03hrs Mr Crighton released a statement that said: I am proud to be here at a company with less than 2 years of history. I have aways loved the new company loads and loads and will do my best to get their only subsidary, TRFC (ra peepil) back to the the very top, or even higher, of World football where they rightfuly belong. He was then wheeled back into the dark cupboard for some much needed rest.
Norman Crighton ????? Investment banker ????? Why does anyone (unless he is a peepil) want to be associated with this outfit?
Norman Crighton.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/norman-crighton/4/778/836?_mSplash=1
Brenda says: (703)
November 14, 2013 at 7:39 am
4 2 Rate This
Norman Crichton ????? Investment banker ????? Why does anyone (unless he is a peepil) want to be associated with this outfit?
————
Seems a bit sudden. Directorships are usually nicely paid positions for not a lot of work. Reading his CV he doesn’t sound like mere window dressing though.
Perhaps a wee bit of restructuring expertise is needed? Asset management? I’m sure some of those in the know will come with a sensible suggestion. Could be that the much-talked of transfer of assets to RIFC is in the works?
No one up yet? 🙂
I see that Laxey Partners are involved in one of the companies Crighton is with. Well, it looks that way to my untrained eye:
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11764100
The share price graph for Global Fixed looks familiar. A sort of Alpine black piste:
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GG00B1GJQ984GGGBXSSX3
Yes, links with Laxey Partners exposed already:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/248525-norman-crighton-appointed-rangers-investment-committee-director/
I think….
The Crighton and Somers appointments are a cynical attempt by the controlling Spivs to shift everyone’s focus away from the next few weeks. (Its the oldest trick in the book)
These new high level appointments (of non threatening pals) make it look like the blue club’s board are active, dynamic and forward looking.
Instead they are hanging on to an unsustainable business/club which is fast running out of the money it raised for “capital” projects. But it was always going to be thus.
8 December is their finishing line day when the penny shares crystallise and when we will see their planned financial restructuring easing into place and be finished well in advance of any Rangers AGM which is irrelevant.
Their biggest threat to them is not the risible Blue Knights with their handful of shares but whether anyone of a traditional rangers persuasion can summon up some cavalry from BDO or Chip ‘n Dale or whoever to save the day.
I see his second language is French …. So maybe his role is in handling the several recent investments made across the channel … Can’t have BDO getting their hands on them eh ! !
From the STV article about the appointment of Crighton:
“Laxey has previously indicated it would vote in line with the fans when it came to the annual general meeting appointments.”
Great, that means it’ll be voting with the fans who want the current board out.
No wait, it means it’ll be voting with the fans who see PM, MM and co. as disruptive opportunists who need to GTF?
Trying to keep up with this mess hurts my head.
Finloch says: (213)
November 14, 2013 at 9:02 am
2 0 Rate This
…. 8 December is their finishing line day when the penny shares crystallise and when we will see their planned financial restructuring easing into place and be finished well in advance of any Rangers AGM which is irrelevant.
————
@Finloch, are you referring to the transfer of those things that have actual value (over) to RIFC?
In an interview on the ‘Rangers’ web site Norman confirmed that he has always supported the mighty ‘Gers.
“I remember my first game clearly. I was just a sperm in my fathers scrotum but the atmosphere was terrific, I’ll never forget that day. Even as a foetus my mother used to hold the radio to her bump so that I could follow the action at Ibrox. Those were the days and I’m determined to turn the clock back to those days, the days when the ‘Gers were the peeple.”
And, in a tribute to his favourite player, Norman said “John Greig – he’s a leg end!”
No1 Bob says: (48)
November 14, 2013 at 9:40 am
0 0 Rate This
In an interview on the ‘Rangers’ web site Norman confirmed that he has always supported the mighty ‘Gers.
“I remember my first game clearly. I was just a sperm in my fathers scrotum but the atmosphere was terrific, I’ll never forget that day. Even as a foetus my mother used to hold the radio to her bump so that I could follow the action at Ibrox. Those were the days and I’m determined to turn the clock back to those days, the days when the ‘Gers were the peeple.”
And, in a tribute to his favourite player, Norman said “John Greig – he’s a leg end!”
====================================
Apologies for slightly off topic
Reminds me of the jimmy Johnstone interview, after Jinky got his leg broken by a john Grieg ‘tackle’.
Journo – when did you realise he broke your leg
Jinky – when I saw him coming to tackle me
(Or words to that effect)
“So, what was John Greig like as a player?” “Well, he could cross a lovely winger”
Although this could apply to most full backs in the 60/70’s.
Brenda says: (703)
November 14, 2013 at 7:39 am
4 1 Rate This
Norman Crichton ????? Investment banker ????? Why does anyone (unless he is a peepil) want to be associated with this outfit?
paulsatim says: (628)
November 14, 2013 at 12:02 am
18 0 Rate This
Sons of Struth @SonsofStruth 25m
Sources claim Scott Gardiner has rejected Rangers CEO job. Confirm when we can.
————————–
Brenda
looks like not EVERYONE does want to be associated with them! Gardiner realises it’s only a short term contract on offer, Crichton is there to fulfil a role – drawing more cash from the clumpany and bringing on the property switcheroo and eternal tenancy!
woohoo – welcome Crichton!
No1 Bob says: (48)
November 14, 2013 at 9:40 am
7 0 Rate This
———-
There are some excellent humourously-written posts on here, Bob, and that one was a stoater 🙂
Danish Pastry says: (1671)
November 14, 2013 at 9:23 am
@Finloch, are you referring to the transfer of those things that have actual value to RIFC?
………………………………………………………………………………..
Yes.
And they might even struggle into January and sell some players too.
Its about cash.
I think the asset strippers have always been working between 2 scenarios as their exit outcome.
1 Where the club continues and rents (From them or whoever they sell the assets to).
2 Where the club becomes a victim and the assets get realigned.
Both will have been costed and the final moves will depend on where and from whom they can generate the most pound notes depending on how things move between now and then.
I think they are on a win / win track.
Finloch says: (214)
November 14, 2013 at 10:15 am
1 0 Rate This
———
Thanks. I can’t imagine that they could charge more than half the yearly income on rent. What’s left has to be enough to keep a team on the park that the fans will by ST’s to see — and run the club. For that rental to make sense there must be enough coming in to satisfy those running RIFC and the fans. And who will pay for the stadium repairs and maintenance? RIFC or TRFC?
Quick one
when a club is in administration (in scotland) if it owes other clubs £XM and the club achieves a CVA – do these clubs get paid in full or do they have to “take a haircut”
just thinking, if RFC (IL) had managed to get a CVA agreed for 1p in the £, would the clubs that were owed money have got paid in full or not?
If not, would the SFA then remove the license of the cleansed club for stiffing other teams?
Seems part of the conditions for Sevco getting the membership was that it paid up other clubs in full (which it didn’t) but would this condition have applied had RFC (IL) achieved a CVA? (however, unlikely that was)
So, how do you connect RIFC with Peter Pan, Neverland, The Boy David, Margaret Ogilvie(sic) and What Every Bampot Knows?
Easy! The new director, the Admirable Crichton and J M Barrie!!
OK, so took a bit of poetic licence on the last two!
NTHM, RFC post administration would have had to make up the balance to football creditors in order to continue plying their trade in the SPL.
Not fair on the main creditors (but still legal for some crazy reason) – which is the ultimate reason that HMRC tend to vote against all football CVAs.
Received this from AIM:
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for your e-mail regarding Rangers International Football Club plc (the “Company”).
As you may already know, AIM Regulation is the department within London Stock Exchange that is responsible for the regulation of AIM. AIM Regulation investigates all complaints made as regards the conduct of AIM companies and nominated advisers in respect of their compliance with the AIM Rules for Companies (“AIM Rules”) and for Nominated Advisers (“Nomad Rules”). We can assure you that where concerns arise in relation to a company or a nominated adviser’s compliance with the AIM Rules or Nomad Rules, AIM Regulation investigates any potential breaches of those rules and takes action where appropriate. For the avoidance of doubt, AIM Regulation’s remit does not extend to matters beyond the AIM Rules or Nomad Rules.
We understand you are concerned that the statement published on the website of Rangers Football Club Limited of 11 November 2013 in response to speculation as to the ownership of shares held by Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Funds Holding Trust and a possible legal challenge to the voting rights attached to those shares, contains information which should have been published on the Company’s dedicated AIM Rule 26 web pages.
As indicated above, we can assure you that AIM Regulation investigates any potential breaches of the AIM Rules or Nomad Rules. Please note however that, for reasons of confidentiality, we are unable to update you on how a matter is subsequently dealt with, nor can we provide you with information on the outcome of any work that is undertaken pursuant to any information you provide. You will appreciate that confidentiality is essential in maintaining the integrity of our work.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Kind regards
AIM Regulation
DOH!! Just checked my emails and seen that Mr McConville beat me to it!
To be fair, am I not right in thinking that to keep the CVA pretence alive that all football debts were met albeit usually on rearranged terms (Lee Wallace, RapidV) or by forcefully retaining their prize monies and redistributing them in settlement as with DUtd? ❓
This would be the prize monies that another club won?
Show me the positive judgement backed by evidence upheld by a court against the team formerly called Rangers (by this time docked 10pts and still in 2nd) that were 100% guaranteed to go into liquidation but weren’t quite there yet that had won “another clubs prize monies” and I’ll agree with you.
And to be clear I so want to agree with you.
STV: Dundee FC’s Scot Gardiner has turned down the chief executive job at Rangers
Has Bomber been blowing in his ear?
scottc says: (363)
November 14, 2013 at 11:41 am
Smugas says: (510)
November 14, 2013 at 11:22 am
To be fair, am I not right in thinking that to keep the CVA pretence alive that all football debts were met albeit usually on rearranged terms (Lee Wallace, RapidV) or by forcefully retaining their prize monies and redistributing them in settlement as with DUtd?
This would be the prize monies that another club won?
================================
Apologies Scott reading back I think I’ve misinterpreted your point. I took it to mean that oldco finishing 2nd somehow forced a.n.other to finish third. I suspect you are actually referring to the subsequent issue of licence to the newco/club that was, I believe, conditional on oldco’s footballing debts being met but that it was inappropriate that oldco’s prize monies were used to do this. In which case, yes, very valid point. Apologies for pulling trigger too quick.
Just out in the Twittersphere
David Low
@Heavidor
My, my! Companies House document DS02 filed today withdrawing the Dissolution request for Sevco 5088 Ltd. pic.twitter.com/PsxtVZttPD
Sorry, Link: https://twitter.com/Heavidor/status/400962826140782592/photo/1
Smugas says: (512)
November 14, 2013 at 11:58 am
1
0
Rate This
Show me the positive judgement backed by evidence upheld by a court against the team formerly called Rangers (by this time docked 10pts and still in 2nd) that were 100% guaranteed to go into liquidation but weren’t quite there yet that had won “another clubs prize monies” and I’ll agree with you.
And to be clear I so want to agree with you.
=++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rangers FC, the now defunct club, were knowingly trading whilst insolvent – as evidenced by their use of HMRC’s £9m of PAYE & VAT cash to get them to the end of the season. They should therefore have ceased trading long before Feb 2012 and would have been put out of the League.
Motherwell would have finished second that season and picked up the not insubstantial prize money (probably equal to about 25% of Motherwell’s turnover).
In time I expect BDO to agree with me.
I really wanted an Aston Martin for Christmas,but this will do instead.
=======================================
v
Bangordub says: (300)
November 14, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Just out in the Twittersphere
David Low
@Heavidor
My, my! Companies House document DS02 filed today withdrawing the Dissolution request for Sevco 5088 Ltd. pic.twitter.com/PsxtVZttPD
Sorry, Link: https://twitter.com/Heavidor/status/400962826140782592/photo/1
GeronimosCadillac says: (60)
November 14, 2013 at 12:42 pm
GC – firstly see my corrective post of 12.25.
Secondly, and I’m no oldco support act, they did not cease trading on the 12th Feb 2012, rather they continued trading under creditor protection – which is why the company paying the bills and hence the club playing football (don’t start) saw out the season. BDO may well judge that insolvent trading measures should have kicked in but that has yet to be proven (at least in court) so you cannot judge them on that basis, at least not yet.
EDIT: Could I just add what a cracking book this whole episode is going to be!
upthehoops says: (646)
November 14, 2013 at 7:24 am
‘….. I’m afraid I have lost any confidence whatsover that the establishment, authorities, whatever you want to call them have any desire to uphold the principle of tax payment when it comes to this case. So often have the establishment, authorites, whatever you want to call them now issued baffling judgements in favour of Rangers that even the lay person in the street can see through, I can’t see that the second tier tribunal is going to be any different…..
————
I understand but don’t quite share your concern, upt.
Remember, everyone in the finance sector generally has as an imperative the need to look after himself and ‘his’ money. And if you and I are in our amateurish ( I speak for myself) way aware that there are crooks and fiddlers, those in the business are keenly aware that the system needs to be seen to be safe from fraud.
There is no way that HMRC and the legal establishment ,and AIM, and the big Stock Market, and the Bank of England, and the Chancellor and, ultimately, Parliament, could ever ‘unite in collusion’ for the sake even of International Freemasonry, let alone for a failing relatively insignificant football club.
Money, and the reliable and secure functioning of the market, are far, far more important than any ideology or any other principle.
The wrong-doing of a football club in so far as it may involve trying to kid the market with forgeries or bogus prospectuses will be dealt with out of the ‘self-interested need to keep trust in the financial system at the highest level.
Some low-life, low- level scamsters , no matter of what colour of affiliation they be , or which little network they may belong to, will be dealt with to minimise the risk that their scams will cause problems for other plc companies, or investment companies and finance houses generally, trying to attract investors.
There was a scam described on radio this morning, one of the big bond houses is going bananas at the damage the scam is doing both to it, and to investor confidence. They and the Fraud office will try nail the scamsters , no matter who they may be, because their business will suffer ( and not necessarily out of concern for joe public!
But, as I keep saying, our enemies as football supporters are the Football authorities. It is their readiness to try to con and cheat us out of a having a sport of integrity that is of primary importance. Whether the directors , past or present, of a dead club or of a barely surviving new club ever get done for financial irregularities is really a separate issue for us as tax-payers as opposed to football supporters.
Time to educate me folks.
Who would have authority to lodge this DS02 document?.
RIFC,who claim Sevco5088 as a subsidiary,
Charles Green
Whyte & Earley
Worthington maybe?.
Would say the Crown Office,SFO,BDO etc have the power to do this?.
Every day’s a school day 😉
Just had a quick review of the RIFC plc Annual Report, and can’t see where they claim 5088 as a subsidiary?
The signature on the document looks a bit like Earley??
Oh, and this was their take on the PM report, have you ever read such a carefully worded, yet totally inconclusive statement??
On 15 April 2013, the Board of RIFC plc announced that it was commissioning an independent examination and report relating to allegations made by
Craig Whyte, the previous owner of Rangers Football Club plc, concerning RIFC’s Chief Executive and Commercial Director.
A letter before claim was received by the Company from legal advisers to Craig Whyte and Aiden Early. The Company engaged the services of Allen &
Overy LLP to defend against this possible claim. In addition, the non-executive directors of the Company (the “Investigation Committee”) engaged the
law firm Pinsent Masons LLP to investigate the connections between Craig Whyte and former and current personnel of the Company and its subsidiaries
(the “Investigation”).
The Investigation was overseen by Roy Martin QC.
On 30 May 2013, the Company announced that the Investigation had been concluded on 17 May 2013 and Pinsent Masons and Roy Martin QC have
reported to the Investigation Committee. The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent
limitations of a private inquiry.
Based on the assessment of the available evidence, the Company considers that the Investigation found no evidence that Craig Whyte had any involvement
with Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited), the company which ultimately acquired the business and assets of The
Rangers Football Club plc from its administrators; nor which would suggest that Craig Whyte invested in The Rangers Football Club Limited or Rangers
International Football Club plc, either directly or indirectly through any third party companies or vehicles.
Just bought the DS02.
Signature on the form is not clear to me.
Needs to be a director, though.
http://i.imgur.com/fPtRTVp.png
John, what you say regarding justice and market integrity needing to be seen to be upheld is a valid point, but somehow, just somehow, this one institution is big and bad enough to escape all sanction.
Lord Nimmo Smith
Lord Carloway
Lord Hodge
Lord Carlisle
Ken Mure QC
Scott Rae
Sandy Bryson
Roy Martin QC
Alex Salmond
Was it worth bringing your professions into disrepute just to avoid dishing out justice on one football club? Shame on yourselves.
Fairways says: (5)
November 14, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Just bought the DS02.
Signature on the form is not clear to me.
Needs to be a director, though.
http://i.imgur.com/fPtRTVp.png
_____________________________
Looks like “Billy” to me !
Or maybe A Earley
Current Appointments Report for:
SEVCO 5088 LIMITED
08011390
Created: 14/11/2013 13:32:25
Companies House is a registry of corporate information. We carry out basic checks to make sure that documents have been fully completed and signed, but we do not have the statutory power or capability to verify the accuracy of the information that corporate entities send to us. We accept all information that such entities deliver to us in good faith and place it on the public record. The fact that the information has been placed on the public record should not be taken to indicate that Companies House has verified or validated it in any way.
Company Register Information
Company Number: 08011390 Date of Incorporation:29/03/2012
Company Name: SEVCO 5088 LIMITED
Registered Office: 48 SKYLINES VILLAGE
LIMEHARBOUR
LONDON
E14 9TS
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Status: Active
Nature Of Business (SIC): 93120 – Activities of sport clubs
Number of Charges: ( 0 outstanding / 0 part satisfied / 0 satisfied)
Previous Names
No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years.
Key Filing Dates
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 29/12/2013
Last Return Made Up To: 29/03/2013
Next Return Due: 26/04/2014
Last members list: 29/03/2013
Last Bulk Shareholders List: Not available
Current Appointments
Number of current appointments: 2
DIRECTOR: EARLEY, AIDAN CHAN EDMUND MR
Appointed: 09/05/2012 Date of Birth: 24/01/1967
Nationality: BRITISH
No. of Appointments: 50
Address: MITCHLEY TRAPS LANE
NEW MALDEN
SURREY
ENGLAND
KT3 4RU
Country/State of Residence: ENGLAND
DIRECTOR: WHYTE, CRAIG THOMAS MR
Appointed: 09/05/2012 Date of Birth: 18/01/1971
Nationality: BRITISH
No. of Appointments: 17
Address: CASTLE GRANT GRANTOWN-ON-SPEY
MORAYSHIRE
SCOTLAND
PH26 3PS
Country/State of Residence: SCOTLAND
This Report excludes resignations
Recent Filing History
Documents filed since 14/06/2012
DATE FORM DESCRIPTION
14/11/2013 AR01 29/03/13 FULL LIST
14/11/2013 LATEST SOC 14/11/13 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL;GBP 10000001
14/11/2013 TM01 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR CHARLES GREEN
14/11/2013 TM01 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR CHARLES GREEN
14/11/2013 AD01 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 14/11/2013 FROM35 VINE STREETLONDONEC3N 2AA
12/11/2013 DS02 DISS REQUEST WITHDRAWN
08/08/2013 SOAS(A) VOLUNTARY STRIKE OFF SUSPENDED
03/05/2013 SOAS(A) VOLUNTARY STRIKE OFF SUSPENDED
19/04/2013 AD01 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 19/04/2013 FROM, 35 VINE STREET, LONDON, EC3N 2AA, ENGLAND
17/04/2013 AD01 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 17/04/2013 FROM, 48 SKYLINES VILLAGE, SKYLINES VILLAGE LIMEHARBOUR, LONDON, E14 9TS, ENGLAND
12/04/2013 AD01 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 12/04/2013 FROM, 35 VINE STREET, LONDON, EC3N 2AA, UNITED KINGDOM
12/04/2013 AP01 DIRECTOR APPOINTED AIDAN CHAS EARLEY
12/04/2013 AP01 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE
15/01/2013 GAZ1(A) FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE FOR VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF
07/01/2013 DS01 APPLICATION FOR STRIKING-OFF
14/06/2012 RES11 DISAPPLICATION OF PRE-EMPTION RIGHTS
This Report excludes 88(2) Share Allotment documents
——————————————————————————————————
Plenty activity last day or 2
Interesting.
People don’t consider a business being put out of existence to be a sanction now.
HMRC refused a CVA and as a direct result the business is being liquidated.
The death penalty is not a sanction.
Fascinating viewpoint.
If you compare that signature to this one, then I’d say we have a match.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Earley-pays-%C2%A35k-of-%C2%A3115k.jpg
Is the road between 48 Skylines Village and 35 Vine street a particularly busy one then?
Just asking 😈
From Twitter (I know, I know)
“Oooh, more excitement, annual return has just been filed (which will show directors & shareholders) but not yet downloadable.”
Confirmed.
Sevco 5088 Annual Return has been accepted (but not checked) by Companies House.
Usually means it will be published in a day or two.
Billy Boyce says:
===============================
I can just see you sitting there trembling like a wee lassie as you posted that.
Looks like Whyte/Earley claim Sevco 5088 have capital of £10m ❓
Are they sending out a message to RIFC that they’ve got the cash for a court battle?.
Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1 1m
Worth reminding ourselves of this regulatory announcement on Sevco 5088. Especially in light of recent developments
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11560222 …
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1116)
November 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm
1 0 Rate This
Looks like Whyte/Earley claim Sevco 5088 have capital of £10m ❓
Are they sending out a message to RIFC that they’ve got the cash for a court battle?.
—————————-
maybe they’ve just got the cash and they can now settle with ticketus and the Spivs are free to do as they please with Sevco….Whyte might now be happily off the scene with loot in his pocket
The really interesting thingf about latest movements on Sevco 5088 Ltd is that Green directorship of the company is shown as terminated as at today;s date. Would be interesting to see who signed the director termination form for that.
But we now have a supposed RIFC Plc subsidiary with only two directors viz CW and Earley.
And yet no AIM announcement about Sevco 5088 Ltd no longer being a RIFC Plc subsidiary although there was the earlier AIM announcement by Rangers basically stating the CW and Earley directorship applications were bogus.
Strikes me as rather strange that RIFC Plc might be happy to let Sevco 5088 slide away as that is where many of the dark secrets in this whole tale emanate from.
The biggest one of course is the Annual Return which should have been filed in April this year with all the shareholder details since incorporation in 2012. Don’t forget that the Sevco 5088 successor in terms of purchasing the Rangers assets vix Sevco Scotland which became TRFCL filed its Annual Return late in September this year.
But the return was incomplete and none of the shareholder dealing since incorporation for this company was revealed as is legally required. Companies House are saying nothing about this and it remains to be seen whether any criminal prosecution will follow.
One can only wonder what is so dangerous about all the shareholder dealings in Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland pre-flotation of RIFC Plc which seems to be kept tightly under wraps. And yet an AGM is scheduled when there is a real problem with the two Sevco companies in terms of Companies House paperwork not being supplied and even whether Sevco 5088 now has any links to RIFC Plc.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1024)
November 14, 2013 at 2:36 pm
1
0
Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1116)
November 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm
1 0 Rate This
Looks like Whyte/Earley claim Sevco 5088 have capital of £10m ❓
Are they sending out a message to RIFC that they’ve got the cash for a court battle?.
—————————-
maybe they’ve just got the cash and they can now settle with ticketus and the Spivs are free to do as they please with Sevco….Whyte might now be happily off the scene with loot in his pocket
=================================================
You could be right but where did the cash come from?.
If RIFC paid it,then why?.
They claim Sevco5088 is a subsidiary.Why would they pay Whyte/Earley?.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1116)
November 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm
0 0 Rate This
Looks like Whyte/Earley claim Sevco 5088 have capital of £10m ❓
Are they sending out a message to RIFC that they’ve got the cash for a court battle?.
==============
The figure of £10m is simply the authorised share capital. In other words the company can issue up to £10m in shares. There are probably only £100 of shares or less in issue, so that £10m really tells us nothing about how much money Whyte has to fight a court battle. Even if he had £10m, he certainly wouldn’t be keeping it in Sevco 5088.
However I’m guessing that some of the “no win, no fee” brigade might fancy their chances on this one. If TRFC’s only defence is that someone forged Green’s signature, then it’s looking good for Whyte, in my opinion.
Didn’t notice that the AR and SOC has also been filed for Sevco 5088 and will check later to see if they are available for downloading – things are on the move it would seem.
And makes me even more convinced that Scotpol aren’t looking at the CW and Earley director appointment forms for Sevco 5088 but possibly at the director termination forms for both men back in April this year,
ecobhoy says: (2037)
November 14, 2013 at 2:46 pm
1 0 Rate This
…. And makes me even more convinced that Scotpol aren’t looking at the CW and Earley director appointment forms for Sevco 5088 but possibly at the director termination forms for both men back in April this year,
———–
You mean the possibility that those were forged? Now who would do a thing like that?
How is the weather in France?
I’ve got an idea for a new TV programme.
Novation, Novation, Novation.
No point in bringing a company`s filings up to date, unless the company is about to partake in commercial activity………….or about to tell a court that they are seeking the righting of a wrong inflicted upon them 😀
if it was me then i’d be somewhere further afield than France.
Its amazing that in an age where it takes a couple of passwords and a code that changes by the minute to access your bank account online that crucial documents can be submitted to companies house with only a scrawled signature as evidence of identification. its huge holes in systems like this that allow corruption to go on.
Slightly in my cups as I have been killing time in Zurich before flying home (Nelson pub in Zurich. Newcastle Brown on tap, free wifi, NFL on Eurosport and it’s Baltic outside) but this was something I have been meaning to post for a while. Applies to RTC as well as TSFM:
Crowd sourcing, the use of many many investors, each chipping in relatively small amounts, is seen as a good way to fund start-ups. Equally using millions of “non active” computers’ processing power to help SETI (is that still happening?) is being used to devote more processing power than the biggest supercomputers could muster, to help crunch data single entities would keel over at the sight of. I see this site and its predecessor as crowd sourcing – everyone can make a point or comment, even laymen such as myself have questions to pose that perhaps crystallises issues or positons amongst the “pros”, but the fact there are so many smart people (and angus 😆 ) devoting time and brain power to this site means no stone is left unturned. If HMRC/BDO/ScotPlod aren’t here regularly, they are misusing their resources…
Well done everybody 💡
Oh yeah, and the barmaid gave me a free shot 👿