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!
jimlarkin says: (646)
November 19, 2013 at 11:21 am
7 0 i
Rate This
It has to be said / asked
– what if the SFA actually came out and said
We regard Sevco as Old Rangers ?!
Would the Creditors be able to make a Claim ?
====
Hi Jim,
The SFA regarding the current club as being the same club as the old club would be offering some form of recognition upon the current club – but that would be as far as it went. It wouldnt actually make it so, because of the pesky laws of the land.
Being considered as, or regarded as, the same Rangers that went before isnt the same as actually being the same club.
The creditors need to operate in the real world instead of footy lala land, and wouldnt get a penny from Loch Ness Rangers, unless it was volunteered. The current club cant be compelled to pay the creditors.
Thanks Cortes, worth a TU for humour. However, I know you’ll have both dictionary and thesaurus to hand, check it out.
Barcabhoy says: (277)
November 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But would the tax cost be greater than the legal costs when they lose? If so, then they have no option but to defend it as there are MIH as well as Rangers employees caught up in this web of deceit.
Document released yesterday from one of the Charlotte a/cs I think.
RIFC documenting contents of Pinsent Masons report.
Point 4:
“Sevco 5088 Ltd transferred it’s rights…to Sevco Scotland Ltd….signed by Charles Green”
https://twitter.com/pmcn888/status/402762755125809152/photo/1
willmacufree says: (232)
November 19, 2013 at 11:43 am
From what I’ve read If directors have traded with the same or a similar company name without the Court’s permission, all debts incurred may become their personal liability. Has the Court given permission in this case? Apologies if this is old hat.
Also, the role of liquidators of a business is to gather and sell the assets of the business to raise as much as possible for creditors, no more no less. To achieve this end they are armed with formidable powers to enable access to assets. They act, then ask questions.
In this case the assets are right there, yet nothing seems to have happened except the issue of a list of costs. Maybe I’m under the wrong tree.
_______________________________________________________________________
The assets are indeed right there, but crucially they will remain there unchanged. The value to creditors will not materially reduce. It could even be argued that if the current users of Ibrox stadium and Murray Park (is it still thus named?) go bust and the premises are vacated, those assets would be worth more for potential redevelopment than as an ongoing sporting venue. I think that BDO are looking into the potential for clawing back funds from the former directors and shadow directors of the company as a result of wrongful or fraudulent trading as well as possible issues with the conduct of the administration. They will be a lot more rigorous than, for example Pinsent Masons were in a recent enquiry, in establishing the full facts surrounding the collapse of RFC PLC (IL).
Don’t be fooled (was anyone?) by the revaluations of assets on the RIFC PLC balance sheet. That wonderful example of creative accountancy was purely for the purposes of trying to fulfil Charles Green’s “our balance sheet will have a tenner for every fiver on yours” promise. If you look at the LSE listing for RIFC PLC shown here
you will see pre-tax profit of £1.26M and eps (earning per share) of 2.09p on a £19.11M turnover. Just looking at those figures in isolation, it gives the impression that the company is profitable. No-one on TSFM would be fooled by that, as we have seen and analysed the full accounts. Assets are only worth what someone is prepared to pay for them at the time they become available. Fixed assets held at business cessations are of surprisingly little value and that value often bears no relation to the value to the business as a going concern.
paulonotini says: (33)
November 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm
=++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So PM saw the previously impossible to find Novation Agreement is what you are saying. Yes?
GeronimosCadillac says: (67)
November 19, 2013 at 1:02 pm
2 0 Rate This
Barcabhoy says: (277)
November 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But would the tax cost be greater than the legal costs when they lose? If so, then they have no option but to defend it as there are MIH as well as Rangers employees caught up in this web of deceit.
———————
If they lose they will have both tax costs and legal costs, and the Aberdeen Asset judgement along with the dissenting opinion of Heidi Poon makes that increasingly likely.
Barca,
I would imagine that Andrew Thornhill QC and his erstwhile associate PBW will carry out the defence on a pro bono basis as a defeat will render their entire careers will have been built on bad advice and misrepresentation. Doesn’t bear thinking about for them.
Barcabhoy says: (278)
November 19, 2013 at 1:12 pm
==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Agreed but each case is decided on the facts and in this case vanity and Rangers PR are almost as important as the dosh at stake. Remember these are people who very rarely surrender and, apart from CEO’s and Chairmen, don’t walk away nor do they sell their club for an Alan Whicker to asset stripping spivs.
seminal says: (7)
November 19, 2013 at 1:13 pm
0 0 Rate This
Barca,
I would imagine that Andrew Thornhill QC and his erstwhile associate PBW will carry out the defence on a pro bono basis as a defeat will render their entire careers will have been built on bad advice and misrepresentation. Doesn’t bear thinking about for them.
————-
I suspect PBW could not care less about his reputation. Thornhill wasn’t part of the advice that set up the scheme, and wont be affected reputation-ally by any forthcoming decision.
Pro Bono……i doubt it. Commercially that makes no sense to me. I’m sure our legal contributors on here can pass on their experience of highly regarded QC’s working for free !!
GeronimosCadillac says: (69)
November 19, 2013 at 1:20 pm
1 0 Rate This
Barcabhoy says: (278)
November 19, 2013 at 1:12 pm
==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Agreed but each case is decided on the facts and in this case vanity and Rangers PR are almost as important as the dosh at stake. Remember these are people who very rarely surrender and, apart from CEO’s and Chairmen, don’t walk away.
————
Exactly my point. Why should UK taxpayers pay a thin dime to prop up Rangers PR or Murray’s vanity.
GeronimosCadillac says: (69)
November 19, 2013 at 1:12 pm
No, they saw the one Green hurriedly drafted up himself during his one-man board meeting.
The original has never been found apparently.
When the SFA granted Sevco a conditional license to play Brechin on the 29 July 2012’should it not have been put to a vote by all the members of the SFA and not done via the infamous 5 way agreement.
When Ross County were “promoted” to the league they had to rely on being voted in by the membership as per the SFA articles of association,below i have pasted an extract from the SFA articles of association in particular the powers of the board,does anyone agree with me that the board have overstepped their remit by excluding the membership a vote to allow Sevco a conditional membership (by the way there is no such thing as a conditional membership in the articles there is only three types of membership,full ,associate and affiliate.
It would be good to get some legal eagles on here to offer an opinion.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
62. Powers of the Board
62.1 The management of the business and the control of the Scottish FA shall be vested in the
Board, which shall be entitled to exercise all such powers and carry out all such objects of
the Scottish FA as are not by these Articles or by statute expressly directed or required to
be exercised or done by the Scottish FA in general meeting subject, nevertheless, to any
regulations from time to time made by the Scottish FA in general meeting, provided that no
regulation shall invalidate any prior act of the Board which would have been valid if such
regulation had not been made.
62.2 Without prejudice to the general powers conferred by Article 62.1 and of the other powers
conferred by these Articles, it is hereby expressly declared that the Board shall have the
following powers:-
(a) it may make, alter and revoke all such rules, bye-laws and regulations relative
to the use of the property of the Scottish FA and to the conduct or holding of
meetings, or for such other purpose as it may deem fit and proper, provided that
no rule, bye-law, or regulation shall be made under the foregoing which would
amount to such an addition to or alteration of these Articles as could only by law
be made by a resolution of the members;
(b) it may draw, make, accept, endorse, discount, execute and issue, respectively,
promissory notes, bills, cheques or other negotiable instruments, provided that
every promissory note, bill, cheque or other negotiable instrument drawn, made,
accepted, endorsed, discounted, executed or issued shall be signed by the
President, the First Vice-President, the Second Vice-President and the Secretary or
in such other manner as the Board may determine;
(c) it may borrow any sum or sums of money not exceeding in all the sum of
£10,000,000 on such security and upon such terms as to interest or otherwise as it
may deem fit;
(d) it may extend th
Barcabhoy says: (280)
November 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm
‘..I see the UTT hearing is now listed for 24th February and scheduled to last until 21st March..’
——–
Excellent.
Unless the good lady wife drags me off to Oz ( not that I would need much dragging to go and see the gran’weans,mind you) I shall be there.
But could it really drag out over 4 weeks’ of daily sessions?
It would on the face of it seem to me that the Upper Tribunal has only to decide what, if any, additional findings of fact should have been made by the First tribunal, and then decide how the law applies in the light of all the relevant findings of fact.
Dr Poon’s exposition of that and the precedent-bearing judgment in the Aberdeen Assets case seem to give a strong step for a hint as to that.
But let me not prejudge!
Danish Pastry on November 19, 2013 at 7:49 am
73 1 Rate This
upthehoops says: (662)
November 19, 2013 at 7:23 am
1 0 Rate This
———-
A caller to SSB last night contradicted the pundits — who were giving it the “Well, to me it’s the same club” line — by mentioning the creditors of the supposed ‘same club’. Funnily enough, Guidi & Co backtracked a little into the “Well, it’s not the same club from a creditors viewpoint, it’s a new club, but to us it’s the same new club”.
Liquidation as debt management is the way ahead, endorsed apparently by the SFA.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
So given that Celtic FC were creditors to the tune of just over 40k has Guidi not justified Mr Lawells Bremner/Blair comment. Or even better he has said that everyone who owns a share in CFC has a right to call them a new club. If only these guys take a minute to think of what they are saying and how moronic it is to anyone with any sense of reasoning.
Coming to a chip wrapper near you, the new SMSM winter collection. “Obsession is the new paranoia”.
To add further on Guidi logic. Dundee Utd, Hearts, Dunfermline, ICT, SK Vienna and Chelsea are perfectly allowed to call them a new club. But don’t dare call them a new club if you are an obsessive CFC fan, (unless you also happen to be a shareholder in your club). A completely daft idea and they have the cheek to shoot us down in flames when we question them. Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
Ps there are other teams to support apart from Celtic. The pundits just like to brand you as one if you question their hypocritical illogical stance.
Barcabhoy says: (280)
November 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm
UTTT hearing
Mmeant to ask, what is your source, barca? ) (Aye ready to check my sources, to preserve the integrity of the blog!) 🙂
BRTH,
Might your next gig be named, ‘Rory Bremner, the Phoenix Bird that Spent a Fortune’?
Do you do requests?
Ok compare and contrast this report……….
Hearts legend Gary Mackay awaits a vital day in the club’s 139-year history
Last Updated: November 19, 2013 1:34pm
Hearts legend Gary Mackay is preparing for a pivotal day at Tynecastle when the troubled club’s creditors meet on Friday.
The Jambos have debts of £28.5m, amassed under the stewardship of Vladimir Romanov, and administrators BDO need 75 per cent in value of the creditors to agree a Company Voluntary Arrangement.
Should a CVA not be agreed then Hearts will enter liquidation, bringing an end to 139 years of history.
The club’s fate lies with Ukio Bankas and UBIG, who hold a combined 79.9 per cent shareholding, and are owed £15.5m and £8.2m respectively.
All-time record appearance holder Mackay is hopeful liquidation can be avoided and fans group the Foundation of Hearts, who have battled to save their club, can begin the process of recovery.
“It’s a huge week in the history of the football club,” Mackay said.
“It’s about putting the mismanagement of this football club to bed and allowing the people that really care for the club, the supporters, to take it forward in a better manner.
“We can look at the relative success on the football pitch but there has been a price to pay for that and hopefully that price will be negated at the end of this week and Heart of Midlothian can regain a bit of pride and can become a dignified football establishment in Scotland.
“It’s a massive, massive time.”
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11781/9031415/hearts-legend-gary-mackay-awaits-a-vital-day-in-the-clubs-139-year-history
**
Now did you see the bit about liquidation and end of history?
The SMSM get it – they know, we know, and they know we know they know…………… 😯
Nobody is allowed to call them a new club.
… except creditors.
Nobody except creditors can call them a new club.
… except shareholders of the club that went bust.
Nobody except creditors or shareholders of the club that went bust can call them a new club.
I mean it!
Nobody else!
… except taxpayers who pay their taxes.
OK…
Leaving aside the creditors of the club that went bust (and, by implication, should that have been a company, shareholders of that creditor company) and the shareholders of the club that went bust, and the taxpayers who pay their taxes …
Nobody can call them a new club.
I mean it!
Thats final!!
Nobody else!!!
JC
No source just the official site
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf
Galling fiver says: (20)
November 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm
I find CG’s letter to HMRC, FM and PM on a par with the more mental things Charlie done. It comes across as if he’s instructing them more than pleading with them IMHO. Given the lack of cooperation with HMRC from the beginning and later on the photographing of tax officials, I would have thought any letter would have been nauseatingly apologetic and given us all the boak, but no, more deluded righteousness. I’m surprised he never stuck in some Masonic jargon, WATP and signed it no surrender Charlie. That more likely pissed hector off, anyway every little helps.
———————————————-
Was there not a feeling in some quarters that it was actually in Charles Green’s interests for the CVA to fail?
Re Thornhill’s reputation if the UTT should overturn the FTT; surely this would actually enhance his reputation in that he managed to secure a favourable verdict in the first place from such a weak position?
RIFC shares are taking a bit of a battering today. Seems like concerted selling. Not massive volumes, but no sign yet of a support level. Could be heading for a new low.
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=RFC&share=rangers_int
Exiled Celt says: (803)
November 19, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Not a criticism of you Exiled Celt, but note a further example of the media being selective/lazy. What level was the HMFC debt at when Vlad bought the club?
I’ve sure there’s a murky story there worthy of the characters that have infested Ibrox for the last twenty years but Hearts were £20m+ in debt when he arrived.
Exiled Celt says: (803)
November 19, 2013 at 2:56 pm
**
Now did you see the bit about liquidation and end of history?
The SMSM get it – they know, we know, and they know we know they know…………… 😯
==================================================
to be fair, originally, all the main papers carried a “Rangers are dead” type headline
of course, they soon recovered from the shock that their beloved club died and went from journalism to the world of fictional writing…….I blame things like Twilight and The Living Dead for creating this “eternal life” delusions.
Blu – you are spot on – no one has ever really blamed SDM for RFCs amassed debts in the same way either – seems CW is the Lone Ranger as always! Just as Vlad is going to be the fall guy for Tynecastle.
FIFA says: (402)
November 19, 2013 at 10:31 am
45
1
Rate This
Jim Larkin
There we have it ,Jim from renfrew has nailed it , from now on all fraudsters will have the title Loch ness in fron of their names ,Loch Ness Keevins ,been a pundit that long he now thinks he is a journo ,the new entity that plays out of Ibrox ,Loch ness Rangers ,SFA President Loch Ness Ogilvie ,we are told they are out there somewhere but where.
__________________________________
Objection:
And what do you mean by trying to irreparably damage the Scottish tourist industry by associating one of its top venues with a load of crooks and charlatans?
Some of us live here you know!
We’re quite happy with our beautiful scenery, real life football club and our make believe monster up in these parts.
So just you keep all that ugliness down in the central belt, with the real-life monsters and that make-believe football club, thankyou very much!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jik2G7MblKw
It would appear that some folks at Sevco don’t recognize a PR own goal when they score one…
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (169)
November 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jik2G7MblKw
ah the penny dropped
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11781/9031415/hearts-legend-gary-mackay-awaits-a-vital-day-in-the-clubs-139-year-history
This was removed from the original piece:
“Should a CVA not be agreed then Hearts will enter liquidation, bringing an end to 139 years of history.”
The unseen hand of PR
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
November 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jik2G7MblKw
It would appear that some folks at Sevco don’t recognize a PR own goal when they score one…
———
All I see is
“SEVCO The Day…” This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Rangers FC.
What have I missed?
Oh dear
Could that mean a Loch Ness Hearts also, maybe a re-think needed.
fara1968 says: (140)
November 19, 2013 at 2:01 pm
————
Another wee detail from SSB is worth reporting:
Mark Guidi, mentioning Boyd or Rhodes, said that Boyd was the all-time top scorer in the SPL, and that (the SPL) was gone, finished, so that record will stand, it will never be bettered. Hmm …
Now taking the previous argument about the club, surely it’s the same SPL? Only the name has changed. But no, according to Guidi, the SPL is gone, finished.
Jings. It’s all getting very confusing.
None of the pundits is pointing out that this nonsense is actually hindering genuine RFC supporters in moving on. In reality, recognizing that the original RFC did not make it via a CVA and ‘is gone, finished’ could be a liberating experience. It would allow any group to start a new club which could claim to carry on the ‘tradition of the team that once played at Ibrox’. If it has the main part of the original supporters, then it can do a Wimbledon AFC or Airdrie United. The tens of millions already invested in RIFC could have been used to establish that newco. Insisting that it’s the same club has played straight into the hands of those who’ve been milking the lie for the past 18 months. Sad really. But sometimes we get what we deserve.
Phil – correct this is now updated with that portion taken out (see timestamp from above with this one) – wonder if Hearts complained? If not then who?
Hearts legend Gary Mackay awaits a vital day in the club’s 139-year history
Last Updated: November 19, 2013 1:34pm
Line is there – Should a CVA not be agreed then Hearts will enter liquidation, bringing an end to 139 years of history.
Hearts legend Gary Mackay awaits a vital day in the club’s 139-year history
Last Updated: November 19, 2013 3:31pm
Deleted!
I think this may well be my last post.
For the sake of sanity, please try to understand- in the sense that the word club is used on this forum-
A “club” does not have creditors.
A “club” does not have shareholders.
A “club” cannot enter into contracts
A “club” is not a legal person.
A “club” is not a company or a partnership or a person. A company has shareholders, owns assets, may have creditors, and is a legal entity. Try taking a football “club” to court- you can’t. It has no legal existence. It can’t own anything, owe anything, be a member of anything, enter into a contract with anything, buy anything or sell anything, That is why all football teams are owned by things called companies. If you want to sue – just for an example, and I am very fond of Clyde as it happens- Clyde FC, you need to find out the legal entity to sue, most likely the company which trades as Clyde FC. You cannot sue the “club”.
All these “proofs” all these “facts” that the club died with the company are just a load of guff, I am sorry to say. Any business can survive the liquidation of the company that owns it. The administrator or liquidator can sell it on. So long as it is bought by genuine third parties, it can trade under the same name, if the new owner bought that right from the administrators or liquidator. That is business UK 2013 folks, that is how it works. Disgusting, maybe, but true.
Get away from this oldco/newco, oldclub/newclub stuff and focus on the real issue- how did Sevco acquire the SFA membership of RFC? That membership should have been unavailable before the 5 way agreement, because that membership should have expired on the liquidation of RFC. Why were RFC not in liquidation at the time of the 5 way agreement? Because Lord Hodge stopped the process. There should have been no RFC membership for Sevco to acquire. Can anyone point me to another Scottish case where liquidation was delayed in such a way, whether by Lord Hodge or anyone else? No they can’t, and I’ve asked enough times. The Scottish judiciary, both Hodge and Nimmo Smith, are in this right up to their manky old necks.
The oldclub/ newclub nonsense is a great big squirrel. Is anyone talking about Lord Hodge’s bizarre delay of the RFC liquidation- no they are not. Job done for the “establishment”, now let’s talk about a “club”, which can’t have any debts, not paying its debts. How a “club” which has no shareholders treats its shareholders. It is all nonsense. The people who actually run the show in this sad little country of ours have played us all like a deck of cards. We sing and dance to the tune they play. Huge squirrels wander across the land, and nobody asks the questions which should be asked while we all turn and stare.
This forum is going nowhere I’m afraid. Was Mr Ogilvie’s position mentioned at the Celtic AGM? Thought not. Let’s shove in a Rory Bremner one liner to keep the papers happy, while matters of fundamental importance are papered over. Let’s focus on a truly sterile zomby argument instead.
Good luck to you all. I have enjoyed this forum for a long time, but it seems now is the time to go. I hope you get Ogilvie booted out (ain’t going to happen), I hope TRFC go bust (but another pile of excrement will rise from the ashes) and I hope you get honest governance in Scottish football. My very best wishes to you all.
Danish Pastry – so to keep on that argument, how would Guidi have his hero Ally positioned?
He scored in the old Football league and the SPL – does that mean his goals in the old football league should not count towards his world record bestest ever for a “young” manager in the SPFL……….or is that different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_McCoist
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/resolution-12-shareholder-statement/#more-4194
Please read.
TCN @CelticNetwork11 24m
And here is the video that upset sevco
http://thecelticnetwork.com/2013/07/04/sevco-the-day-of-reckoning/ …
Edited to add
TCN @CelticNetwork11 2m
I found out who complained about my sevco video
pic.twitter.com/6b63sydWCP
Danish Pastry on November 19, 2013 at 4:16 pm
//////////////////////////////////……
Agreed. You don’t require the intellect of a troldmand to work out what would have been the best foundation to start anew from. And clinging to spin, however ridiculous isn’t going to make things better.
BigGav says: (77)
November 19, 2013 at 4:01 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
November 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jik2G7MblKw
It would appear that some folks at Sevco don’t recognize a PR own goal when they score one…
———
All I see is
“SEVCO The Day…” This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Rangers FC.
What have I missed?
——————–
Took me a while too. The irony/joke here is that Rangers FC have made a copyright claim over a film titled SEVCO…
I had to amend my previous post to save my own blushes!
I believe this story of the ‘missing’ agreement comes from a mistaken reading of the CF-leaked minutes of the October 31st TRFCL board meeting.
I have previously suggested (and ecobhoy later agreed with me) that the ‘missing’ document mentioned there actually relates only to the transfer of Ahmad’s loan from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland, and not to the novation of the asset purchase.
After all, D&P should also have a copy of that.
(See http://www.tsfm.org.uk/2013/09/the-immortality-project/comment-page-7/#comment-63506)
The real issue is this – did Green have the authority to make this agreement on his own?
He claims to have been the sole director of Sevco 5088 at the time, but White and Earley claim that they too were directors and the agreement was made without their consent.
neepheid says: (907)
November 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm
I think this may well be my last post.
Good luck to you all. I have enjoyed this forum for a long time, but it seems now is the time to go. I hope you get Ogilvie booted out (ain’t going to happen), I hope TRFC go bust (but another pile of excrement will rise from the ashes) and I hope you get honest governance in Scottish football. My very best wishes to you all.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Neepheid, without you and all the rest of us and our kind in a few other bampot sites the new Rangers would have stayed in the SPL 18 months ago.
That’s what Regan promised them.
Don’t forget that RTC started this all all not knowing where it would lead or what would happen.
We’ll never get the nuclear result we’d like but because of us and a few others like us the people behind the 5 way agreement know that we know.
They know we’re on their case.
And Jack at Mafia house finds us pesky.
The SFA “Berlin Wall” will crumble, we just need more fans backlash – not less.
The key (and this site occasionally forgets it) is not to be anti Rangers because then we’re just as sad as Murray and his legions, no the key is just to be anti-corruption.
This blog is at its best when it is just that.
We’ll always have more frustrating days than good ones but that has always been the way for non old firm fans in Scotland.
But with the penny share date and the asset swap looming I’d say we have some great stuff in the pipeline and we’ll have a few smiles in December.
neepheid says: (907)
November 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm
You seem to have a bee in your bunnet at the moment. I hope it passes, as its good for tsfm to have you around.
But you currently seem exasperated at others’ misunderstanding. With respect it is you who misunderstand.
“Any business can survive the liquidation of the company that owns it.”
No it cant.
The assets may survive, but the business comes to an end, its trade and activities cease . The assets used to conduct whatever business was ongoing, might be sold on and then be used by the next company that wants to have a go at pretty much the same thing. But that is clearly not survival of a business.
If you buy a business, you buy its plusses and its minuses, but if you buy the assets you are unencumbered (or uncredited) with these plusses and minuses.
Businesses would all be incentivised to operate beyond their means if they could survive liquidation.
Was Jim White in the SkySports office at the time? He seems to be a bit squeamish when it comes to the death of football clubs from what we’ve seen.
Danish Pastry says: (1693)
November 19, 2013 at 4:16 pm
3 0 Rate This
fara1968 says: (140)
November 19, 2013 at 2:01 pm
————
Another wee detail from SSB is worth reporting:
Mark Guidi, mentioning Boyd or Rhodes, said that Boyd was the all-time top scorer in the SPL, and that (the SPL) was gone, finished, so that record will stand, it will never be bettered. Hmm …
Now taking the previous argument about the club, surely it’s the same SPL? Only the name has changed. But no, according to Guidi, the SPL is gone, finished.
——————————————-
ah, but……just to make it more confusing Danish
the SPFL is actually the SPL with a new name (same company number)
So, RFC PLC dies, is liquidated and gone. A new club forms and claims to be the old club – FINE
the SPL goes through the process of acquiring the SFL members and changes it’s name keeping the same company name, accounts, creditors, contracts etc – yet it is no more – FINE
strange world these hacks live in.
I’m starting to think I am just a Sim living in a gme like second life or such like…..i’ve somehow ended up beyond the looking glass.
I have made this point before; but it is always worth
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf
“member” means a full member and/or an associate member and/or a registered member of the Scottish FA, and the expression “membership” shall be construed accordingly;
6.2 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 18, provided it is not already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.
============================================================
https://web.archive.org/web/20121101141322/http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/press-statement-49/
PRESS STATEMENT
Friday 13th July 2012
The Member Clubs of The Scottish Football League have today voted to willingly accept The Rangers Football Club as an Associate Member of The Scottish Football League. Furthermore, The Scottish Football League’s only acceptable position will be to place Rangers F.C. into the Third Division of the IRN-BRU Scottish Football League from the start of this season, 2012/13.
This decision followed our tried and tested process and was taken in cognisance of the other option which was available for consideration and approval.
Today’s decision has been one of the most difficult for all concerned, but it has been taken in the best interests of sporting fairness which is the fundamental principle of The Scottish Football League.
The Scottish Football League has been entirely consistent in our willingness to work with other bodies to ensure that we focus on rebuilding our game, restoring pride in our game and exploring revenue streams which allow the game to prosper. Our willingness to achieve these aims does not alter.
======================================================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252
Agreement on transfer of membership
Friday, 27 July 2012
Joint statement on behalf of The Scottish FA, The Scottish Premier League, The Scottish Football League and Sevco Scotland Ltd.
…
Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012. At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete.
=====================================================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287
Transfer of membership
Friday, 03 August 2012
The Scottish FA can confirm that The Rangers Football Club Ltd have today received confirmation that full membership of the Association has been transferred.
=======================================================================
We know that on the 13th July 2012 “The Ranger Football Club” (aka Sevco Scotland Ltd) was admitted to the 3rd division of the SFL.
We know also that RFC(IA) were the registered shareholder of an SPL share until 3rd August 2012.
The SFA Article 6.2 tells us two very important things.
1. A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18
2. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association.
The key thing here is not the timing of the transfer of the full membership of the SFA. It is the fact that both clubs were REGISTERED members of the SFA during the period 13th July 2012 – 3rd August 2012 through membership of their respective leagues.
RFC(IA) as members of the SPL (remember RFC(IA) got voting rights on all SPL business on Sevco’s application to join the SPL) and Sevco Scotland Ltd as associate members of the SFL – were both members of the SFA during this critical period.
The transfer of FULL membership was a transfer between two clubs who were separately REGISTERED members of the SFA.
Unless the clubs were merged – and I have seen nothing to suggest they have been – how can these two distinct clubs be one and the same?
The SFA have (to my knowledge) never said they are the same club.
Barcabhoy says: (281)
November 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm
——————————————–
Barcabhoy – I agree that Lloyds should think carefully as to the cost to the taxpayer in defending the appeal. My only note of caution is if HMRC win at the UTTT, then it will be very easy for some people to argue that Rangers did not get a fair chance to defend their position and that the outcome is a fix etc.
In this case, I feel that Rangers should be in a position to fully defend the case. If that means the use of taxpayer money to do so then I think that that is a price worth paying,
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1028)
November 19, 2013 at 4:52 pm
2 0 Rate This
————
Good point, and perhaps a little indication of how adamant the pundits would be if it was any other club.
In spite of Daziel and Guidi there were actually some very good callers yesterday. Two of the best were self-confessed Ibrox faithful who thought the Lawell rumpus was a storm in a teacup, and hardly worth mentioning. They inferred that it was being used by those running their club to distract attention from the ‘bigger fish they had to fry’ — regarding the identities of the hidden investors and the recent appointments.
And judging by the flak JI is taking on twitter it would seem the PL comment statement from Ibrox has backfired and done nothing to endear him to the restless natives, so to speak.
Am sure the next question will be – if the real storyline that going on while the squirrels run amok (see David Low tweet below from this afternoon!) and Worthingtons do indeed win and prove that Sevco5088 is the real owner, then who played last year and won SFL3 – will it count in the new honours of the newest new club? Wow….SSB could be running circles over it all!
David Low @Heavidor 8m
RIFC shares fall another 5.5% to 42.5p & test all time low as factions draw up battle lines & Worthington prepares to challenge ownership
2 wonders
First I remember big Jackie Charlton coming on telly and boasting in his own way about the fact he had a wee book with the names of the people who had been bad to him on the park.
He had written their names because he was going to do them the next chance he got.
I wonder if Jackie Irvine has a wee book of all the secrets and bad things he knows about journalists and commentators in the media who do the writing and talking that the fans do the reading and listening of so that everyone north of Hadrian’s wall is his friend?
it would be a fun book for bedtime.
Second I wonder if Mr Salmond ever replied to Charlie about his phoenix plans after he had been copied in with Posh Dave whose grandfather came from inverness.
Has anyone asked under freedom of information if Mr S ever acted on the letter?
@Exiled
That share price has been going down by about 1p a day this past week.
Now actually 41.50 — is that a new record? But how far does it need to drop before it’s critical?
I hope Neepheid reconsiders as he has been a giant on this and RTC – would a shame not to have his input.
Neepheid does raise some valid points about the legality (or at the very least lack of transparency) of how Sevco5088/Sevco Scotland got to have a team out in time to play Brechin amongst the hedges.
The 5 way (not 4 way!) was agreed and announced on a Friday evening while everyone watched the opening ceremony of the London Olympics. From 8pm there was a matter of 20 or so hours to get all the paperwork to SFA to have the players registered, trialists registered, playing kit assembled and travel details organized.
Remember up to that point there was only the Bibs v Non Bibs game at Ibrox that had to be organized.
So are we to believe that the new membership invented by SFA (conditional) that is nowhere in any of its rules was given to the current team that evening just in time for the game? No – and anyway we all know its nonsense what happened because the “real” membership was transferred AFTER the Brechin game to RIFC.
And what of the Club12 in the fixture list? Why were Dundee forced to wait so long for confirmation they would play in SPL that they had no preperations for SPL and as such were relegated long before the season started.
Neepheid has a great point about the liquidation being delayed – we all cheered when the delay was announced as we all assumed he would find what everyone at the time knew and what the tapes have confirmed – that D&P were so conflicted it makes CO appear innocent! It was another delaying tactic unfortunately! As were every other decision in this – the transfer embargo, the CoS, the LNS verdict – everything delayed until a time of their choosing to fit the result of their choosing.
However I would advise Neepheid not to be so ready to throw the towel in – not yet anyway.
Scotland Internet Bampots for Sporting Integrity & Accountability needs folks like Neepheid!
The Cat NR1 says @ 1.10 pm
“…..Fixed assets held at business cessations are of surprisingly little value and that value often bears no relation to the value to the business as a going concern.”
Thanks to The Cat NR1 for his response, part quoted above, to my question @ 11.43am. I’m sorry I took so long to get back. As you’ve guessed my concern is that we’ll see an individualistic liquidation similar to the eccentric administration we have already witnessed, although I’m glad you think this won’t happen.
The assets in question must surely rate a value of ca. £30 m? I thought going concern values don’t enter the equation. Isn’t that where the admin went haywire? Incidentally have you calculated the newclub/new co debt cover ratio?
Maybe I’m up a gum tree right enough and this has all been done. If so, sorry folks.
HP
It’s wee diamonds like that post that makes reading this blog worth every up and down and divorce threat .
😀
BigGav says: (78)
November 19, 2013 at 4:38 pm
After reading your post you highlighted, I agree.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
HirsutePursuit says: (435)
November 19, 2013 at 5:09 pm
Sometimes it’s what people don’t say that’s important.
And actions speak louder than words.
The SFA cannot possibly state that Sevco are the same club as Rangers, as their own actions prove otherwise.
As your post says, an SFA membership can only be transferred from club to club; the SFA does not regulate holding companies! Add in the fact that Sevco had to participate in the first round of the SC, as a new club would, then it’s pretty clear.
Another fact you posted was that RFC had a vote to allow this new club to join the SPL. How can a club vote to allow itself to be a member of the SPL when it already is one?!
The football authorities have made a complete pig’s ear of the whole thing, but rather than admitting they screwed up, they’re hoping it all blows over.
Nae chance I’m afraid!
HirsutePursuit says: (435)
November 19, 2013 at 5:09 pm
Unless the clubs were merged – and I have seen nothing to suggest they have been – how can these two distinct clubs be one and the same?
.
Correct HP
To transfer – requires separate entities – QED
.
As long stated – I believe there was no transfer – there was nothing to transfer
With no plan or consideration:
The SFA Membership lapsed with SPL expulsion – they were bereft [nothing]
It was a new membership [no other possibility]
HAD THEY
Arranged to have the SFA membership continue legitimately after the SPL
– it would be a different matter
But they didn`t – SFA Membership automatically lapsed – As proof positive;-
They couldn’t play friendlies in the close season – no membership – no licence
Had they arranged the SFA membership to be continued post SPL– it could have been taken over with the IP / Brand / – and continued as a whole distinct Club
But the spivs were totally focussed on monetising the support – dodgy deals – to line their pockets – and couldn`t give a rats ***** about the supporters real interest’s.
Money deals came first and foremost to the Spivcreants – rich short term pickings
SFA Membership lapsed post SPL – so did the history continuance
Spiv-Plan did this – no others – SFA did as they were `told` – as did the MSM.
Either way it was a NEW Membership – Could have been avoided – but wasn`t
john clarke says: (1370)
November 19, 2013 at 1:54 pm
———————————
If you check Barcabhoy’s link, you will see that every Murray company had its corporate snout in the EBT trough – the corpse, Premier Property Group and MIH. They are all under appeal from HMRC and it has to be defended. At the moment, though there is a firesale of some assets to raise cash, the Murray companies simply don’t have the cash to settle with HMRC.
So it is more than the corpse’s tax-avoiding that is going to be kicked around between Feb-Mar next year. That’s why 4 weeks are needed.
As for PBW, he won’t be there that’s for sure. He has other more important fire to put out and he was only ever there at the beginning, when the fee was sorted.
Thornhill loves an uphill challenge and the CV of every quality QC contains a mixture of wins and losses.
He will see himself cast as the underdog in this case and will probably thrive on it.
The AAM decision in the Court of Session and HMRC’s comments following that case last month suggest that the tide is turning and, as I suggested almost exactly a year ago, the seminal dissenting opinion of Heidi Poon will be the go-to-opinion in tax avoidance cases for many years to come.
Speaking of QCs, when Liz pops her clogs eventually, all QCs will become KCs. I wonder if they take the history with them or start with a blank slate?
Danish Pastry says: (1695)
November 19, 2013 at 5:46 pm
4
0
Rate This
@Exiled
That share price has been going down by about 1p a day this past week.
Now actually 41.50 — is that a new record? But how far does it need to drop before it’s critical?
________________________________________________
Makes no odds how far it drops unless you are a shareholder. Has no impact on the running of the business, except its ability to issue new shares without diluting existing shareholders to a greater extent. If the share price is £1, and the company issues new shares to raise 25p per existing share, the existing shareholders get diluted to 80%. If the share price is 25p and the company issues new shares to raise 25p per existing share, the existing shareholders get diluted to 50%.
So a low share price affects …er…. the shareholders.
What a low shareprice does do is make it easier for someone to make a takeover bid and change ownership. However, if someone is launching a takeover, they want the business, so will be buying up shares, which pushes the price back up.
An abortive takeover bid coudl be signalled by a catastrophic price drop, because someone who was buying up shares to try and get control decides not to bother, may sell their own shares, and will stop hoovering up any that drift onto the market naturally, allowing the price to go south.
Maybe the Easedales are getting cold tootsies?
@MoreCelticParanoia
Indeed so.
😀
Neepheid – I am mostly a lurker on this site. Occasionally I’ll chime in with a joke or analogy/metaphor where I think/hope it might add something to the discussion. But indulgences like these are nothing more than a sideshow to this blog’s main event – the relentless business analysis and forensic discovery of posters like you and many others that have brought to light an insidious corruption encompassing every pillar of the Scottish establishment. This is important work. So whatever your frustrations with any particular line of discussion or perceived deviation from the site’s true goals, I would urge you to reconsider. But whatever you ultimately decide, I want to thank you for your stellar contributions on this site and RTC. Cheers!
MoreCelticParanoia says: (60)
November 19, 2013 at 4:32 pm
16 0 Rate This
BigGav says: (77)
November 19, 2013 at 4:01 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
November 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jik2G7MblKw
It would appear that some folks at Sevco don’t recognize a PR own goal when they score one…
———
All I see is
“SEVCO The Day…” This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Rangers FC.
What have I missed?
——————–
Took me a while too. The irony/joke here is that Rangers FC have made a copyright claim over a film titled SEVCO…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Has anyone told these guys?
http://www.sevcoengraving.co.uk/about.asp
© 2013 Sevco
or these guys….
http://sevcofoods.com/fresh/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=253
Copyright © Sevco 2013 All rights reserved
😀
Lord Wobbly says: (972)
November 19, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Maybe RFC (IL) should issue a copyright complaint over the use of Rangers FC by Sevco?
BigGav says: (78)
November 19, 2013 at 4:38 pm
The real issue is this – did Green have the authority to make this agreement on his own?
He claims to have been the sole director of Sevco 5088 at the time, but White and Earley claim that they too were directors and the agreement was made without their consent.
=================================================================================================
I have been trying to find a way to bring some kind of sense to the mince which CF has revealed with the leaking of what purports to be the Pinsent Masons draft conclusion to their obviously hog-tied deliberations – I will not describe it as an in-depth investigation as it falls woefully short of that.
Sevco 5088 entered into binding agreement with D&P on 12 May 2012 to purchase the assets of Rangers.
Subsequently on 14 June 2012 agreement was reached between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland as well as D&P to purchase the assets of Rangers. According to the TRFCL 31/10/2012 minute a few days before this date the directors of Sevco 5088 (Note the use of the plural throughout the TRFCL minute) decided to incorporate Sevco Scotland Ltd as a Scottish company after receiving tax advice and considering the commercial objectives for the purchase of Rangers.
However, according to the Pinsent Masons draft conclusion, the reason for Sevco Scotland’s incorporation was it was thought advisable that Rangers should be owned by a Scottish company. What a critical point considering what the Pinsent Masons secret ‘investigation’ was supposed to be about. They don’t even appear to be aware that the TRFCL Board recorded the reason for the company switch which was a bit more than wanting a wee bit of tartan trimming.
Pinsent Masons state in the draft conclusion that on 14/6/2012: ‘Charles Green was the sole registered director of Sevco 5088 Limited. He therefore had prima facie authority to effect the transfer on behalf of Sevco 5088 Limited’.
The word used are interesting to say the least and ‘sole registered director’ doesn’t of course rule out that there were other directors of Sevco 5088 on 14/6/2012 who hadn’t been ‘registered’ with Companies House. Indeed Pinsent Masons appear to have ignored the TRFCL 31/10/2012 minute which states there were other Sevco 5088 directors other than Green who attended the TRFCL 32/20/2012 Board meeting and one would have thought he would have corrected any mistakes about more than one director if someone else made it. Presumably he didn’t and I wonder if he ever had the minute corrected at a subsequent TRFCL Board meeting?
The other thing not mentioned by Pinsent Masons in the draft conclusion produced by CF is that Green who they believe to have been the sole registered director of Sevco 5088 was also the sole registered director of Sevco Scotland. So, in effect, Green wearing his Sevco 5088 ‘hat’ signed the company’s exclusive right to purchase the Rangers assets to Sevco Scotland and also signed that agreement wearing his Sevco Scotland ‘hat’.
Returning to Pinsent Masons statement that Green: ‘Had prima facie authority to effect the transfer on behalf of Sevco 5088 Limited’ it’s worth remembering that ‘prima facie’ doesn’t mean it actually is a fact but just that it appears to be the case but might not be if challenged. I just don’t happen to think that Pinsent Masons did much to test the claim.
They obviously don’t appear to be aware of Green stating on STV that he handed Sevco 5088 back to Whyte as he had no need for it having used Sevco Scotland to purchase the Rangers assets. Did a teeny weeny little thought not cross the minds of the leagle eagles at Pinsent Masons that if the only registered director of Sevco was Green then why would he give the company to CW who apparently had nothing to do with it. There is also the question of the ‘directors’ repeatedly mentioned in the TRFCL Board m inute of 31 October 2012 because if Green was the only director then who were the other directors?
But even more interesting is the dismissal of the CW and Earley director appointment forms for Sevco 5088 as being of ‘doubtful propriety’ and the allegation that Green’s signature authorising the two appointments on the form appears to have been copied on at least one and possibly both forms. I have no idea what evidence they have to substantiate that claim but have they got a simple signed statement from Green stating he didn’t sign the forms? I think if they had we might have heard about it.
They also claim, rather melodranmatically, that the CW and Earley director appointment forms for Sevco 5088 were submitted ‘by persons unknown’. My understanding is that CW and/or Earley submitted them and when Green sent in director termination forms for CW and Earley both men complained to Companies House and were reinstated as direcors of Sevco 5088 and the The Registrar at Companies House ordered the director termination forms, apparently signed by Green, to be removed from the Public Record.
But as I say if an ‘unknown’ hand submitted and signed the CW and Earley Sevco 5088 director appointment forms to Companies House, effective from 9 May 2012. why did Green send in official termination forms backdated to 9/5/2012. Why didn’t he just tell Companies House that he didn’t sign the forms? Did Pinsent Masons never stop to consider such a simple question?
I won’t even attempt to deal with Point 7 of the Pinsent Masons draft conclusion but just undernote it although it should have a health warning in case you bust a gut laughing while reading it. Still if CW funded the Sevco 5088 exclusivity fee paid by Ahmad you would think that it might have crossed their mind to wonder why Green was reimbursing him via his mum’s bank account. One might also consider that CW thinks he is due the 5 million 1p shares given to Ahmad.
I’m still looking at other points and will probably post on them but tbh my heart isn’t in it because I find the draft conclusion embarassing to read because it is so infantile. Personally I wouldn’t have had the cheek to charge any money for writing it.
Undernote
Point 7
Despite having been banned by the Scottish Football Association from involvement in a Scottish football club which was a member of the Scottish Football Association, Craig Whyte desired to continue to be involved with Rangers Football Club ( STRIKETHROUGH: and it appears that Imran Ahmad and Charles Green made positive overtures to Craig Whyte about the potential for him to be involved in Rangers Football Club following the acquisition of Old Rangers.)
Craig Whyte may have been led to believe by Messrs Green and Ahmad that there was an opportunity for him to be involved in Sevco 5088 Limited and he may have thought that he would subsequently be involved with Rangers Football Club. It also appears that £137,500 was deposited in Imran Ahmad’s mother’s bank account as a part repayment of an exclusivity fee funded by Imran Ahmad. The most likely source of that money was Craig Whyte or an entity or person associated with Craig Whyte.
It has also been alleged that Charles Green may have received £25,000 from a business associated with Aidan Earley to fund certain legal fees. (STRIKETHROUGH: We have not got to the bottom of that alleged transfer of sums.) It is understood that Charles Green denies having received any such money.
Neepheid,
Don’t be eponymous! 😀 A club is people coming together for a purpose, to eat drink play games, walk, run or whatever.
You say clubs do not have creditors. That’s exactly the point. Suppliers do provide goods and services to clubs on credit though. All members are then jointly and severally (I think the phrase is), liable for all debts, whether they benefited from the unpaid for purchases or not. The members sure can have creditors.
Any or all members could be sued for a debt they did not incur, possibly causing personal bankruptcy. Enter Limited Liability, and later Public Limited Liability. Club becomes Club Ltd. and possibly Club PLC. Members are liable for debt only to the value of their shareholding. Just what members needed. There’s a non-counsel’s opinion.
Stay with it!
Why did the chicken cross the road
Because it needed to lay a new company
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZdQVkCIYAAQfCx.jpg#twimg
Neepheid,
You and I probably share very few common viewpoints. There’s things you’ve written that have made my blood boil and I can only imagine what you think of my contributions. From your post the other day, I know that you would like to see my team playing out of Glasgow Green – and I dare say if that happened you’d like to see them moved even lower.
But you are a big reason why I log onto this site day after day. Please don’t leave. Your frustrations (which I don’t disagree with and admit to playing a big part in, especially the last weekend) over the directions of conversations are justified. But its much more valuable to change the direction of an important conversation from within than to walk away and leave us.
For what its worth, I’d say post more, not less. Even if I don’t always enjoy what I’m reading.
Barcabhoy says: (281)
November 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm
‘…..just the official site
-http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf..’
——-
That’s really what I meant: couldn’t find it in my Bookmarks from the last time I looked at it. Thanks.
Lord Wobbly says: (972)
November 19, 2013 at 7:36 pm
3
0
Rate This
_____________________________________
Has anyone told these guys?
http://www.sevcoengraving.co.uk/about.asp
© 2013 Sevco
or these guys….
http://sevcofoods.com/fresh/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=253
Copyright © Sevco 2013 All rights reserved
😀
__________________________________
Do sevco engraving do Tombstones?
Could get them to knock up a wee RFC 1872-2012 number for us mebbes? (leave the label on of course )
And
Do Sevco foods serve :slamb: ?
andygraham.66 says: (70)
November 19, 2013 at 8:31 pm
5 0 Rate This
Why did the chicken cross the road
Because it needed to lay a new company
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZdQVkCIYAAQfCx.jpg#twimg
=====================================
He forgot to mention that the chicken died during childbirth in 2012 😉
andygraham.66 says: (70)
November 19, 2013 at 8:31 pm
5 0 Rate This
Why did the chicken cross the road
Because it needed to lay a new company
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZdQVkCIYAAQfCx.jpg#twimg
———
That has hatched some pretty funny egg puns on twitter.
Testing…
neepheid says: (907)
November 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Neepheid
I feel your pain, sometimes the blog gets bogged down in detail, diverted by bickering, and generally loses its way. There are times when it becomes all about the personalities and the real issues are lost. But we always find our way back. There are times when something wonderful happens – breaking news, a fantastic piece of investigation, a new interpretation or perspective, or a little piece of philosophy to make you pause and think.
Here’s my advice – if you don’t like the narrative, change it. Take your word to the people. SSB gets lots of stick on this site. Why do the more knowledgeable posters on this site not go on SSB and tell the truth about new club / old club? It isn’t that hard. If enough people do so, challenge the pundits every night if need be. Graham Spiers has admitted on many occasions that Rangers are “technically” a new club and the idea of club / company separation (according to Insolvency Experts he has spoken to) is ludicrous. I sense change in the air but it won’t happen without concerted and coordinated effort.
Neepheid, old club / same club remains a big issue and it won’t go away until resolved. You may be tired of it and see it as a distraction, but it shouldn’t stop you fighting the good fight. The Rangers PR machine is well oiled, and ruthless. The battle is on many fronts. We can’t afford to lose a good man.
ecobhoy says: (2050)
November 19, 2013 at 8:19 pm
‘…….Sevco 5088 entered into binding agreement with D&P on 12 May 2012 to purchase the assets of Rangers.
Subsequently on 14 June 2012 agreement was reached between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland as well as D&P….’
——–
I’m very happy with your post, ecobhoy.
Looking at the sentences from it that I have cited above, it seems to me that ‘Administrators’ are right in there in the dock , up to their ears in the creation of fiction at the behest of the green man( while either being hood winked by assurances that their original hirer (the white man) was still the major player (but having to remain unnamed because he was persona non grata to the football authorities) OR ready to sell him out for a bigger kickback from the greenman.
I think any other Administrators would have felt obliged to inform the director of the club which had asked the Court to appoint them as Administrators, that the assets of his club were being bought by a former associate of his, who was now operating as the sole director of the purchasing new club , for simultaneous sale to another new club of which the same former associate was the sole director!
Someone will come out of this very badly indeed, loss of licence to work as administrators or liquidators being the least of it.
Once the Liquidators confirm the bogus nature of the Administration.
Resin_lab_dog says: (257)
November 19, 2013 at 8:52 pm
‘…Has anyone told these guys?
http://www.sevcoengraving.co.uk/about.asp…..’
———-
If I may go OT, that kind of advertising statement from a company, which is nothing but their own self-praise, is counter-productive as far as I’m concerned. Would deliberately not use them because it shows that like certain directors of dodgy football clubs, they have nothing to offer but flannel, with no evidence.
And what else would engravers use but ‘cutting edge’ technology! 😀
I think maybe somebody got a wee bit confused
http://www.widgits.co.uk/Bluebelle.html