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!
jockybhoy says: (258)
November 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Oh yeah, and the barmaid gave me a free shot
——
Fnarr fnarr. 🙂
vv
jockybhoy says: (258)
November 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Oh yeah, and the barmaid gave me a free shot 👿
====================
Did you score ?.
jockybhoy says:
————————————
Did you get a drink as well
Director termination forms don’t require the signature of the director being terminated. They just require the signature of an authorised Director or Administrator.
It could be the individual terminating themself, but not necessarily. The termination forms relating to Whyte and Earley are no longer on Companies house website, and I can’t remember who’s signature was on the forms
Barcabhoy says:
=========================
Best guess … Whyte and Earley are the current directors of Sevco 5088, and Earley has lodged a form to prevent the company being wound up?
Stupid hat on.
If Whyte is a director of Sevco5088 and Sevco5088 is claimed to be a subsidiary of RIFC does that not tie Whyte in to Rangers therefore nullifying the 5 way agreement.
Serious question by the way.
Remember there was a pass the parcel of head office address earlier this year. Might happen again, although with Green having been terminated its hard to see who on the RIFC could legally authorise.
Seemed a strange statement at the time by RIFC to claim 5088 was a subsidiary, unless……….no, that would be too devious even for them !
Tic 6709 says: (539)
November 14, 2013 at 3:45 pm
6 1 Rate This
vv
jockybhoy says: (258)
November 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Oh yeah, and the barmaid gave me a free shot 👿
====================
Did you score ?.
==================
Reminds me of the time I was heading down south by train, Had an hour to kill before the train left so I went into the pub across from Central Station for a couple of beers. A bit boring so I decided to go to the bookies next door and place a bet. Not wanting to lug my bag with me I asked the barmaid if I could leave it behind the bar. No problem says she. Half an hour later I came back to get my bag but the barmaid wasn’t there. I asked this other barmaid if I could get my holdall and she said “sure but can you wait until I finish my shift”
RIFC plc are denying 5088 is a subsidiary. It’s not noted in their Annual Report, and the LSE announcement distanced themselves from it. The AR, when downloadable, will probably confirm that RIFC plc hold no shares in 5088
tomtom says: (491)
November 14, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Stupid hat on.
If Whyte is a director of Sevco5088 and Sevco5088 is claimed to be a subsidiary of RIFC does that not tie Whyte in to Rangers therefore nullifying the 5 way agreement.
Serious question by the way.
==========================
I’m sure Eco will keep me right but to answer your question my understanding is no in as much as they RIFC have tried to claim that 5088 is an unused subsidiary, hell they might as well just strike it off…..what? oh.
As long as they can rely on a friendly ear down hampden way they could just about pull that off. Its not as though the MSM would think to ask why an ex owner being vilified in the press still being a director of a subsidiary would be in any way odd.
Where they RIFC/TRFC come unstuck is in the binding exclusivity agreement with D&P. That does two things. Without 5088 (and hence Whyte) there is no sevco scotland and hence no 5WA. As if that isn’t bad enough, their second problem is that the existence of Sevco 5088 makes BDO prick up their ears. It also makes the directors of D&P even more twitchy.
That’s my take anyway.
EDIT: my mistake, thanks PWF, they’re claiming (or have claimed in the past) that sevco 5088 is nowt to do with them at all. But then that just makes the second part – the exclusivity agreement all the stranger doesn’t it. That nice Mr Whyte, not only does he pay off the oldco’s debt but he then signs over the entire club/collection of assets, whatever, for no charge whatsoever. He must be a real Rangers man!
From The CVA proposal
===========================
Offer of Loan to Company
4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer
was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (Sevco) to make a loan on certain terms (explained
below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.
4.18 Having considered the offer from Sevco and compared it to other offers received for the
Company / business and assets, the Joint Administrators determined that the Sevco offer was
preferable because it:
secures the best available return to creditors of the Company; and
proposes a CVA in respect of the Company, the benefits of which are outlined in paragraph 2.10.
4.19 Consequently, on 12 May 2012, the Joint Administrators agreed and signed an offer letter
with Sevco (―the Offer Letter‖) and granted Sevco exclusivity to complete a takeover of the
Company or a purchase of the Company‘s business and assets by 30 July 2012. Sevco made
a payment of £200,000 to the Company for such exclusivity.
4.20 The Offer Letter is confidential between Sevco and the Company, but the principal terms are
as follows:
4.20.1 In addition to the £200,000 referred to in Paragraph 4.19, Sevco agrees to advance
to the Company the sum of £8,300,000;
4.20.2 £8,300,000 will be available for draw down by the Company no later than 31 July
2012, but only once certain conditions (the ―Conditions‖) are satisfied;
4.20.3 The Company will repay the Loan together with interest on it on or before 31
December 2020; and
4.20.4 The loan will, subject to the laws of Scotland, be secured by standard securities and a
floating charge over the assets and undertaking of the Company.
=======================================
The original deal was with Sevco 5088, of that there is no doubt.
Thanks Tif, I’d forgotten about 4.20.4. That’s a belter.
Tomtom, make that 3 problems with whyte being secco 5088
Rangers claim (in their accounts) that the right to buy the assets from the administrator was novated to them on 14th June 2012
===========================
28. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
On 6 August 2012, Brian Stockbridge, a Director of RIFC provided a loan of £50,000 to The Rangers Football Club Ltd (RFCL). No interest accrued on this balance which was repaid on 7 August 2012.
Craig Mather received £69,150 in fees relating to consultancy services provided to the Group prior to his appointment as a director.
The following balances were novated from Sevco 5088 Limited (a company of which Charles Green was the sole shareholder and hence a related party) on 29 May 2012 to RFCL, hence the dates are before incorporation of RIFC plc:
• On 11 May 2012, Imran Ahmad, an ex-director of RFCL, provided a loan of £200,000. £178,000 was repaid on 15 August 2012 and £22,000 was converted into ordinary share capital of RFCL. Imran Ahmad also received an arrangement fee of £50,000 relating to this loan.
• On 21 May 2012, Charles Green, the ex-CEO of the Group’s Parent Company provided a loan o £25,000. No interest accrued on this balance and this was repaid on 15 August 2012.
On 14 June 2012, Sevco 5088 Limited entered into agreements for no consideration to legally reassign its beneficial interest in funding placing letters held and to novate the trade and assets purchase agreement with RFC 2012 plc (in administration), to Sevco Scotland Limited (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd)
Thank goodness there isn’t an audio recording of “sole shareholder in sevco 5088 Charles Green” (from the annual report) saying to banned director Whyte “You are Sevco, that’s what we’re saying.” Now that would be really hard to explain. Especially if behind the scenes they have already bullish!tted their way out of it with any interested parties – the instigators of the 5WA for instance. You would think said parties patience would be beginning to wear a bit thin, wouldn’t you.
Wonder if sevco5088 will have an AGM soon?
Head hunt a CEO?
On the lookout for a Head of Communications perchance?
Golly – an IPO even [with signatures]
Line up some mystery investors
Brand new tape machine
Brave new world…………………
Blimey 😉
Smugas says:
===============================
Recordings like that really would be a turn up for the books.
Or if that shareholder had admitted to duping someone.
Anyway, Eco wrote quite a long piece on the whole Sevcco 5088 situation a couple of months ago.
I’ll take the liberty of linking to it on Paul’s blog if that’s OK.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/mystery-directors-and-the-rangers-sevco-5088-switcheroo-by-ecojon/
Tomtom@4.21:
Smutty,but so so funny.
I see that some of the Children of the Damned are back.
Interesting article from Garry Macinnes on tax avoidance and the judiciary
http://garrymacinnes.com/2013/11/14/the-judiciary-dont-like-tax-avoiders/
Barcabhoy says: (274)
November 14, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Director termination forms don’t require the signature of the director being terminated. They just require the signature of an authorised Director or Administrator.
It could be the individual terminating themself, but not necessarily. The termination forms relating to Whyte and Earley are no longer on Companies house website, and I can’t remember who’s signature was on the forms.
========================================
I have undernoted a section of my long post on Sevco 5088 at: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/mystery-directors-and-the-rangers-sevco-5088-switcheroo-by-ecojon/
It’s quite a long post but for anyone wanting an insight into Sevco 5088 it really makes interesting reading and shows the pivotal role that Sevco 5088 holds in Spivgate.
After CW and Earley complained to Companies House about being terminated as directors there was an investigation and both men were re-installed as Sevco 5088 directors and the director termination forms signed by Green were removed from the public record at Companies House by The Registrar.
I still have copies and they can be obtained by going to other company search information companies which still have them available for download.
UNDERNOTE
‘Reaction followed swiftly only four days later on 16 April 2013 when Companies House received electronically transmitted directorship termination instructions for Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley although the instructing party wasn’t identified. Curiously, both directorships were terminated from 9 May 2012 although their directorships only became public on 12 April 2013.
‘Two director termination forms, for Earley and Whyte, arrived at Companies House next day on 17 April 2013 submitted by FFW and signed by Charles Green and FFW also submitted a change of registered office address form, again signed by Charles Green, switching it back to FFW at Vine Street.’
ok ladies and gents
this might be the stupidest question ever asked on here (tin hat & bulletproof vest on)
BUT
what about “The Rangers Group” ? (or something similar)
a name that was about at the start of this saga
is that not craigie boy ?
maybe something to do with sevco 5088 ?
AND (here comes the main question)
Could RIFC & TRFCL both be a Subsidiary of one or both of the above ? ?? (Crazy Eh ?)
As in “The Rangers Group” OR “Sevco 5088” actually are at the TOP of the chain
The owners of everything ?
With absolutely NO intention of keeping ANY sort of Books
Open the company … Fold the company Pronto … Nowt to see here ! !
Apologies in Advance
ParanoidWellFan says: (58)
November 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm
RIFC plc are denying 5088 is a subsidiary. It’s not noted in their Annual Report, and the LSE announcement distanced themselves from it. The AR, when downloadable, will probably confirm that RIFC plc hold no shares in 5088
===============================================================================
As far as I remmeber Sevco 5088 Ltd isn’t mentioned in the Deloitte accounts – maybe no one told the auditors about this enigma of a company.
But I haven’t seen any denial by RIFC Plc that Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary and back in April RIFC Plc made a statement to AIM on 24 April to refute claims that Sevco 5088 was controlled by Law Financial Limited or the Worthington Group Plc. RIFC described Sevco 5088 as an inactive subsidiary which was and is defunct and non-trading. RIFC alleged that Sevco 5088: ‘Would have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies had false claims of directorships not been filed recently at Companies House’ and added: ‘Sevco 5088 was not the acquisition vehicle which purchased the assets of Rangers Football Club.’ Both announcements to AIM were handled by CENKOS the broker and Nomad for RIFC who have now departed the scene.
The AIM statement is carefully worded and tries to avoid the man-traps that surround the removal of Sevco 5088′s legally binding exclusive right to purchase the Rangers assets and business and the transfer of these rights to Sevco Scotland by mysterious alleged Sevco 5088 ‘directors’.
The above is also taken from my longer post whose link I have given in a post above. I posted it on here as well back in early September but I don’t have the link handy.
Chic Young and Keith Jackson on with Jim Spence tonight
Radio to make your ears bleed
Good luck Jim
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1024)
November 14, 2013 at 10:40 am
16
3
Rate This
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)
_______________________________________
This payment makes far more sense if you see it for what it actually is:
A bribe solicited from and paid by a new club to be admitted to the league (a) ahead of other candidates and (b) at a higher level than would normally be permitted. Only the size of the bribe solicited by the authorities and paid by the new company has anything to do with the fate of RFC(IL).
The regulatory authorities chose to use the proceeds of this bribery to compensate those members of its own and its affiliate organisations that had lost out finacially as a result of an unrelated club’s collapse.
So you can stop trying to understand the rules around this.
Because they weren’t applied.
Simple enough?… but just in case…
What do I mean when I say the rules weren’t applied?
Well, imagine it like this:
A centre half picks up the ball with his hands in his own half during play. He casually walks up to the opposition by-line, punches the goalie in the face, and then throws the ball into the back of the net. The referee awards a goal.
Its basically the same scenario as what happened with TRFC being awarded a licence and paying RFC(IL)’s footballing debts.
Hang on. You missed a step. The centre half shuffles off his mortal coil on the half way line. A sub runs on, puts on the shirt of the centre half and proceeds as previously described. The ref waves play on as nothing to see here.
Following today’s opening of a new lounge for VIPs at Glasgow Airport a spokesman confirmed that a further sPIV lounge , catering for a select few flying in from Monaco, France, South Africa & Singapore, would open on 18th December this year.
Bangordub says: (300)
November 14, 2013 at 12:29 pm
30 0 Rate This
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
==========================================
I see there is another name on the Sevco5088 list of directors/ex directors
Samuel Lloyd
Does any of you bam pots have any info – is he bona Fide or not ?
I have had a look at the letter before claim and this is what Earley and Whyte want.
http://s10.postimg.org/9rrgyv5l5/Extract_Letter_before_claim.jpg
Not a lot to ask for really
Samuel Lloyd is almost certainly a company formation agent or similar.
It is a bit late in the day really. Is this all a last throw of the dice for Whyte and Earley?
BDO report tomorrow? Did someone say that?
jockybhoy says: (258)
November 14, 2013 at 3:35 pm
56 2 Rate This
If HMRC/BDO/ScotPlod aren’t here regularly, they are misusing their resources…
_______________________________________________________________________
Do you seriously believe this?
If anybody has any hard evidence of wrong doing they should present it to the relevant authorities.
If HMRC/BDO/ScotPlod are here regularly, they are misusing their resources.
Bill1903 says: (20)
November 14, 2013 at 6:41 pm
‘..Chic Young and Keith Jackson on with Jim Spence tonight
Radio to make your ears bleed.’
——
What do you think Jackson was on about when he told Kenny Miller that , as a journalist , he had frequently been aware that it was obvious that some players wore the jersey but didn’t really commit to the Scotland team,and if he could see that as an outsider, Miller and others in the dressing room must have been aware of it as well?
It sounded as if he wanted Miller to grass up his fellow players, for no good reason other than to angle for a ‘red top’ malicious story.
I was actually quite surprised at how well and diplomatically Miller spoke throughout the programme, and in response to that question.
But my view of Jackson as a snake-in-the-grass, low-level ‘journalist’, only marginally higher up the evolutionary tree than JI, was confirmed.
A decidely nasty piece of goods in intent, but fortunately not terribly effective.
If BDO report tomorrow with any bad news for Sevco/dead club the day of the Celtic AGM then that will just be a coincidence 😯 😯
Paranoid I was never paranoid enough 😯
Question for the legal eagles.
Can you novate a right for “no consideration”? Always thought there needed to be some form of consideration changing hands for it to be valid, even if it is £1?
Tif Finn says: (834)
November 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm
IIRC Samuel George Lloyd was indeed the formation agent, and ceased to be a director in early June 2012. This makes him one of the few innocents in this whole affair!
It will soon be my birthday, looks like I am going to have a very enjoyable one!
Latest Sevco 5088 document at Companies House via Twitter @andyfisher1967
https://www.dropbox.com/s/blzz0ukjllj4v32/Sevco%205088%20appointments%20Nov%202013.pdf
Scapa, 29 March-3 May.
blu says: (434)
November 14, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Cheers Blu, i knew he wasn’t around very long, as is the way with formation agents!
So the Dundee CEO – Gardiner – has declined the CEO role at the illustrious Govan club.
Oh dear.
That was a spectacular ‘PR own goal’ !
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/248572-dundees-scot-gardiner-turns-down-chief-executive-role-at-rangers/
Tif Finn says: (834)
November 14, 2013 at 7:11 pm
‘…I have had a look at the letter before claim and this is what Earley and Whyte want.
http://s10.postimg.org/9rrgyv5l5/Extract_Letter_before_claim.jpg
Not a lot to ask for really.’
———
How pleasant it would be if the Courts acceded to that request, and the Liquidators followed up by getting the Courts to nullify the Administration , and then grabbing EVERYTHING back for the benefit of the creditors, leaving the money-men greeting for their losses, and some people possibly facing time in the Bar-L (if it is still called that).
jimlarkin says: (620)
November 14, 2013 at 7:08 pm
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
==========================================
I see there is another name on the Sevco5088 list of directors/ex directors
Samuel Lloyd
Does any of you bam pots have any info – is he bona Fide or not ?
============================================================
Samuel Lloyd was the formation agent for Sevco 5088 Ltd. He became a director of Sevco 5088 Ltd on 29 March 2012 when the company was incorporated and a £1 subscriber share was issued to 7Side Secretarial Ltd which, from memory, is an associated company to the formation company that Lloyd is involved with. The firm was probably hired by Field Fisher Waterhouse who were doing legal work on Sevco 5088.
On 3 May 2012 the lloyd stood down and was replaced by Charles Green but there is no indication in Companies House public records that the £1 subscriber share changed hands from 7Side Secretarial Ltd. This seems at odds with RIFC’s AIM claim that Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary company when Companies House records show the shareholding held by another company. This is also at odds with the Rangers AIM Prospectus which claims Charles Green was sole shareholder in Sevco 5088.
I really am beginning to wonder if the documents listed today will actually be released to the public if there is an active police investigation underway. Companies House doesn’t check the info supplied by companies and just posts it on the site and I have never actually seen Companies House post the message – Highlighted documents are not yet available for inspection – previously.
It seems likely that CW or Earley has requested the dissolution request be withdrawn although it’s possible that Green might have done it although highly unlikely IMO.
Because just a week after the RIFC December 2012 flotation Charles Green, listed on Companies House at that time as sole director of Sevco 5088, signed a form on 27 December 2012 instructing Companies House to strike-off Sevco 5088 using the solicitors Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW), Vine Street, London. Companies House listed the proposal on January 7 2013 and the London Gazette carried it a week later.
Tif Finn says: (834)
November 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
________________________
Good find Tif. As many on here have pointed out before, novation can only have occurred with the tri-lateral agreement of Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland, and Duph & Phelps. The novation agreement is the key to entire shambles.
If our good friend Charlotte can come up with the novation agreement, I’d say her work was done and it would be up to the bampot community at large to press home the issue with the SFA.
The SFA – naturally- will not want to see anything that links Whyte to newco (either one).
They will try the excuse that Whyte was involved with Sevco 5088, but not with Sevco Scotland. Therefore, it would be wrong to punish Sevco Scotland now.
Corsica tweeting:
rangerscharitytheft @corsica1968 Protected account 57m
1/2 I’ve spoken today to FFW partner who reaffirms CG was not instructing FFW nor was “anyone publicly associated with newco”. Hmmm…
2/2 Told the question to ask is: are the insurers on stand-by?
john clarke says:
=======================
John, there have been some opinions released into the wild about this. I extract from one of those. The “we” referred to is
Richard Beresford
Consultant
Merchant Legal LLP
==============================================
We and Counsel (John Jarvis QC and James Evans) have had the opportunity to review
electronic copies of documentary and audio evidence in support of certain of the claims.
That review (including some 330 pages of documents) has strengthened the views of
both Counsel and ourselves as to the existence of a prima facie case in relation to the
Asset Claims and to the Miscellaneous Claims against Ahmad and Green. We have
not been provided with any evidence in relation to the remaining claims or title to assets
or rights and accordingly, in respect thereof, we have assumed that evidence and
documents of title are available to support such claims and title.
…
It would appear, therefore, that the disposal of the Club Assets or the benefit of the
CVA Agreement (as the case may be) was made illegally and that Sevco Scotland
(through its directors) had sufficient knowledge of the illegality to make it a
constructive trustee of the relevant assets. Sevco 5088 should in those circumstances be
able to obtain a declaration from the Court that it is the rightful owner of the Club
Assets in addition to orders for damages for losses caused to Sevco 5088 and/or
damages for the tort of conversion. Alternatively, an administrator or liquidator of
Sevco 5088 could make an application to the court for the return of the Club Assets or
an application could be made pursuant to s190 of the Companies Act for their return.
Despite the fact that the Assets consist of real property and chattels situated in Scotland,
senior counsel (John Jarvis QC) is of the preliminary opinion that an action could be commenced by Sevco 5088 in the English courts although ultimately proceedings might
be required in Scotland to enforce the judgment of the English courts.
It is important to note that Green has never provided a proper and accurate explanation
of the transaction between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland. He should be asked to
provide that explanation and provide a copy of the relevant agreements, which belong
to Sevco 5088.
…
Green would also appear to have entered into a contract with Craig Whyte to establish
and run Sevco 5088 and ensure that it acquired the Club Assets and thereafter to
transfer control of Sevco 5088 to him. Similarly, Imran Ahmad entered into a contract
with Craig Whyte to raise funds for the acquisition by Sevco 5088. It is clear that there
is a prima facie case that both Green and Ahmad are in breach of contract and have
committed the torts of conspiracy and deceit and potentially dishonest assistance and, in
Scotland, delict. There is possibly also an action against one or both of them for breach
of trust.
StevieBC says: (882)
November 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm
From the STV piece:
“He (Craig Mather) took up the post, initially on an interim basis, after Charles Green left the company amid links to former Rangers oldco owner Craig Whyte in relation to the Sevco consortium’s purchase of the club’s assets from administrators Duff and Phelps.”
——
Shurely “amid accusations of …” or “suggestions of …”?
Spivs repeat their MO
Not because they don`t know any better but because it works
So
Does anybody remember 2012? Angry Bears clamouring for CW to hold the 2010 – 2011 AGM in Dec 2012?
As I recall a date was set then it was postponed to the New Year then RFC went into Administration and the AGM was never held
The 2010 2011 accounts covered the takeover period and were needed for discussion at the AGM
These accounts were never published.Some people with suspicious minds might conclude that burying the 2010 2011 accounts was agreed during the takever deal
Perhaps they posed too many difficult questions for the RFC Auditors Grant Thornton
Well now
Roll the clock on to 2013
.We have a similar situation where the Bears are clamouring for an AGM at which the RIFC 2012-2013 accounts would be discussed
The Spivs have been difficult about holding the AGM. Our insightful MSM declare its because they are afraid to be thrown out and a new Board elected
Not a chance
The real reason the AGM is not going to happen is because the 2012-2013 accounts are unapproved and need to be buried
The so called accounts which allege a £14m loss are provisional. They do not have the seal of approval from Deloittes as of today
Will they ever be published?
Will the AGM happen?
Nope
Its not rocket science
Its the Spiv MO
StevieBC says: (882)
November 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm
So the Dundee CEO – Gardiner – has declined the CEO role at the illustrious Govan club.
Oh dear.
That was a spectacular ‘PR own goal’ !
===========================================
He is a Rangers man through and through therefore the role would have been declined in a very dignified and honourable manner.
Noticed all the rags and so called ‘better’ papers today were happy to carry the quotes from Sandy Jardine about ‘certain people getting the boot right into Rangers’. Would it really be beyond them to ask him for clarification of what he actually means, and why he actually thinks no action should have been taken? It’s embarrassing for Sandy that he actually thinks that way, but for newspapers to let him say it unchallenged is indefensible.
did you know hearts aren’t really hearts?
they have died before – http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20070416/1904-1914_2241543_1011739
at least the “newco” hearts – the one we know today, paid the old club debts. So i don’t begrudge them claiming to be the same club
HIbs went bust too in 1891 – they forgot to attend the formation meeting of the SFL and without a league to play in went bust – they started a new club a year later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hibernian_F.C.#Reformation_.281892.E2.80.931945.29
upthehoops says: (648)
November 14, 2013 at 9:14 pm
I’m afraid Mr Jardine’s reputation/legacy will never recover from his petulant antics. Very sad and totally self-inflicted, absolutely no sympathy for him
StevieBC says: (882)
November 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm
So the Dundee CEO – Gardiner – has declined the CEO role at the illustrious Govan club.
Oh dear.
That was a spectacular ‘PR own goal’ !
=====================================
That so called PR own goal, was nothing more than Spoofers own ego playing games!
He would have gone in a flash, suspect he might be waiting for third rangers to appear.
rangerscharitytheft @corsica1968 Protected account 37s
To clarify my earlier tweet about insurance related to a legal practice not Sevco.
In RIFC ‘s statement to the stock exchange in April regarding Sevco5088 they said ..” It is and has been a defunct non trading company over which termination proceedings began last year and which would have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies had false claims of directorships not been filed recently at Companies House.”. Is anyone able to tell me what documentation would be needed in order to become listed as a director of Sevco5088? Is it share certificates? and if so are these dated??
Cheers
ForresDee says: (120)
November 14, 2013 at 9:43 pm
StevieBC says: (882)
November 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm
So the Dundee CEO – Gardiner – has declined the CEO role at the illustrious Govan club.
Oh dear.
That was a spectacular ‘PR own goal’ !
=====================================
That so called PR own goal, was nothing more than Spoofers own ego playing games!
He would have gone in a flash, suspect he might be waiting for third rangers to appear.
===============
I meant it was a spectacular PR own goal for TRFC.
Of course, anyone who knows their value would have turned the role down easily, [unless there was a huge ‘golden hello’ involved, which didn’t apply here.]
The role shouldn’t have been offered – and rejected – in such a public manner in the first place, IMO.
Deflection / distraction perhaps, but it just doesn’t look good for TRFC – again !
Does dignity FC get prior notification from BDO that the report is going to creditors? Or is it only creditors who get it 6 weeks before publication (In which case we would know). Just trying to put a timeline against the rumours. Busy day tomorrow.
Can you insure share purchases against unlawful issue, type stuff.
Edit=must refresh @ Corsica
Just thinking out loud here.
Who has the deeds to the chateau in France?
iamacant @ 10.11 pm
Monsieur Blanc 😀
Tif Finn says: (835)
November 14, 2013 at 8:45 pm
‘…John, there have been some opinions released into the wild about this..’
———–
I don’t think I have seen that material, Tif Finn. And yet it seems to strike a chord.
Is it very recent, or does it go back a bit?
Mind you, the fight between Sevco 5088 and Sevco/Scotland/ rangersfc 2012/RIFC is one thing, and has its interest.
What I would like to find out is whether there is any case law relating to the nullification of the actions of Administrators involved in a conspiracy to sell off assets cheaply, if such a conspiracy was proved.
I think it is the case that if, for example, I buy stolen goods in good faith, I still have no legal title to them-they would have to go back to the original owner. And that would be tough on me, perhaps, but there would be nothing to do but grin and bear(!) it.
Would that same kind of principle apply in a case of criminal activity in an Administration, when thousands of people, perhaps, had in good faith, bought shares in the ‘stolen’ assets now ‘owned’ by entirely different people (ostensibly)
It might be, probably is, the case that the Courts would be powerless to undo the damage done by any crooked Administrators, because so many business transactions subsequently carried out by the supposed ‘owners’ of the business ‘criminally’ sold to them would be called into question.
I haven’t the skill or knowledge to research the matter.
But I’d like to know, because my gut feeling is that the assets of a club of which we hear that it is in process of being liquidated, still belong to it and not to any other new entity to which they were supposedly sold, novated, or otherwise passed on to.
john clarke says: (1356)
November 14, 2013 at 10:59 pm
0 0 Rate This
Tif Finn says: (835)
November 14, 2013 at 8:45 pm
‘…John, there have been some opinions released into the wild about this..’
———–
I don’t think I have seen that material, Tif Finn. And yet it seems to strike a chord.
Is it very recent, or does it go back a bit?
======================================
The original purports to date from march 2013, however I can’t remember when it was put online.
Tif Finn says: (835)
November 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
‘….The original deal was with Sevco 5088, of that there is no doubt.’
—–
Yes, indeed it was.
And somebody blind-sided somebody else to allow the name to be changed to SEVCO Scotland on the actual contract.
With, in my opinion, the full knowledge and consent ( or unbelievable and improbable professional negligence/ carelessness) of administrators.
I confess that I merely hope that that is the case, but acknowledge (as some sensible posters remind us from time to time, and honour to them) that hoping that something may be the case is a far cry from it actually being the case!
john clarke says:
November 14, 2013 at 11:17 pm
Yes, indeed it was.
And somebody blind-sided somebody else to allow the name to be changed to SEVCO Scotland on the actual contract.
With, in my opinion, the full knowledge and consent ( or unbelievable and improbable professional negligence/ carelessness) of administrators.
————
According to the minutes of the 31st October 2012 TRFC board meeting (as provided by Charlotte):
“The Company [known at the time as Sevco Scotland] entered into the APA and acquired Rangers (with Sevco 5088 and the Administrators of RFC 2012 plc being parties to the APA in addition to the Company to provide written consent to the change of acquiring entity).“
A cautionary tale before bedtime.
A new twitter account that looks to be trying too hard
https://twitter.com/Caennais/following
Using the name Patrick Wiggins and his first follow account is Irvine Bay regeneration company whose CEO is a guy called Patrick Wiggins. Just I can’t see the real Patrick Wiggins following:
@Pmacgiollabhain
@An_Phoblacht
@Ballymurphy1971
@UnitedIreland
I might be wrong about this guy but when your first ever tweet is to @pontiflex 🙄 you are trying far too hard.
So careful who you share information and DM with out there.
Tif Finn says: (836)
November 14, 2013 at 11:04 pm
‘..The original purports to date from march 2013, ‘
——-
Ah, I was in Oz then, and having to run down to the local library to book a pc session, hoping to get a few minutes of catching up without wife and/or grandweans having to take priority. I might just have seen it and had a quick read without it fully registering.
[ and for those of you who might have read at the time of my anxiety over one of my ( then newish-born) twin grand-daughters, I am extremely happy to say that both of them, now almost 11 months old, are doing very well in every respect, and are now interacting with us on skype, as we call them by name and wave and make faces and generally act the daft grandparents. What joy!]
Great news On the twins John.
BigGav says: (72)
November 14, 2013 at 11:31 pm
‘..According to the minutes of the 31st October 2012 TRFC board meeting .’
——–
Thanks, BigGav.
Does this really mean either
that CG, wearing his Sevco 5088 hat, signed over to Sevco Scotland without CW knowing about the existence of Sevco Scotland, but WITH the knowledge and acquiescence of the Administrators?
or, that the Administrators , working for CW, were complicit in the plot to ensure that ultimately CW would win, because they knew he was a director/shareholder in Sevco 5088?
Wouldn’t we like to know!
scapaflow says: (1109)
November 14, 2013 at 7:59 pm
“IIRC Samuel George Lloyd was indeed the formation agent,..”
blu says: (434)
November 14, 2013 at 8:06 pm
“Scapa, 29 March-3 May.”
—————————–
Charlotte’s ‘Sevco 5088 statutory records’ document has a ‘Samuel George Alan’ of 7-a-side Secretarial for that date range. I haven’t seen the Companies House info.
John Clarke 11:51 etc…
Am I imagining that the late Corsica informed RTC of a submission by a group of potential investors to Duff and Duffer of a bid c £20m sterling which was never even acknowledged?
Cmon BDO: do your job….soon!
Cortes says: (41)
November 15, 2013 at 12:14 am
‘..Am I imagining that the late Corsica informed RTC of a submission by a group of potential investors to Duff and Duffer of a bid c £20m sterling which was never even acknowledged?’
—–
No, that was no imagining!
The fact of that submission, or at least, any enquiry into whether it was a fact, was never explored or followed up by the MSM.
And when I think about it, the coverage by the press and BBC Scotland of the whole saga has been , essentially, by sports journalists, who, to be fair, admitted that they were out of their depth when it came to the financial/business side of football!.
My personal view is that by any measure the saga is something that should not have been treated as a ‘sports’ story, but a serious business finance story that should have featured prominently in the business pages of our newspapers.
But there you are.
Daly has been silenced. And Douglas Fraser is not interested. And the newspaper hacks are too feckin partisan and/or ignorant to want to, or to be able to, follow up that kind of step for a hint.
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/revealed-rejected-bid-buy-rangers/1593
Details of an additional bid were covered by AT
Also a link to details on whites LBA
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/craig-whytes-lawyers-send-letter-action/4906
Headline in Scottish Sun caught my eye.
Gers Cops Quiz Ally
So have the Govan club got their own internal Police force da? Aye son its Strathclyde’s finest
Probably 1st of few today:
David Low @Heavidor 2m
S5088 Annual Return has Whyte & Earley as the directors & owners with Law Financial, a Worthington subsidiary. Ready for action? Aye Ready!
David Low@Heavidor5m
S5088 Annual Return has Whyte & Earley as the directors & owners with Law Financial, a Worthington subsidiary. Ready for action? Aye Ready!
TJB/CF
Well if that is indeed the case ,where does that leave the SFA and their secretive 5 way agreement .
Maybe it makes sense now as to why it had to be so secret ,was it in because CWs link was going to be exposed eventually and the agreement will be written up to suit the subsequent fall out .
paranoid ,we were not paranoid enough
Reading various snippets there on the new Ibrox Director appointed yesterday. Why is every appointment portrayed as if they have secured someone who is a absolutely massive hitter in Industry/Banking etc? Also, no harm to the current Chief Executive of Dundee, but he is being spoken of in the media in terms his CV surely doesn’t merit.
I guess every other club will just have to be happy with the faceless men and women who sit in their boardroom and plough the mundane furrow of keeping their club living within its means. The Captains of commerce and industry queuing up for a seat at Ibrox are outwith their reach I’m afraid.
eadcelt says: (178)
November 15, 2013 at 6:42 am
2
0
Rate This
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/revealed-rejected-bid-buy-rangers/1593
Details of an additional bid were covered by AT
Also a link to details on whites LBA
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/craig-whytes-lawyers-send-letter-action/4906
————————————————————————————————
It is baffling that Tristan Loughrey’s bid wasn’t accepted as he seems to be the real deal in terms of access to funding to take the whole thing forward. Without doubt there could have been a half decent settlement for creditors in a CVA.
Has Duff and Phelps broken the law here by deliberately ignoring the best option for creditors and shafting them by taking the CG route instead? In a fair and just society there would be a major inquiry into this.
Or perhaps it’s much simpler. Was Malkie Murray involved and research the roots of the Loughrey/O’Loughrey surname??? 😈 😈