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: (651)
November 21, 2013 at 8:57 am
&&&&&&&
Graham might also wish to comment on the dubious practice of employing interns for free (or more accurately at their parents’ expense) in the media. Or he may feel moved to comment on the fact that a club in Scotland is currently paying eye watering sums of money to win the lower divisions whilst making loyal, long serving backroom staff redundant. Or he may wish to cast an acerbic eye over the ‘manager’s pay cut’ that appears to have disappeared. Or he might want to enquire as to the whereabouts of ordinary supporters money, that was hoovered up in an IPO with the express assurance that it would not be spent on running costs, yet appears to have gone to pay ‘(higher than normal) expenses and fees’. Or he could cast an investigative journalist’s eye over the SFA’s lack of comment on the Pinsett Mason report into links between CW, Sevco and Charles Green. Or he could raise a query as to the granting of a licence to a club to play in Europe, to the detriment of other Scottish clubs, whilst the club was in breach of a fundamental qualifying rule. Or he might want to mull over the multiple murky connections between sevco and the SFA.
But only if Jack let’s him.
Have often tried to get STVGrant to respond to HirsuitePursuit’s contention of the liquidated RFC and Sevco being registered with the SFA at the same time. I posted a link on Twitter to Hirsuite’s post on here the other day. It seemed to cause quite a stir and STVGrant eventually came back with his view on it. He said he always interpreted that on that Friday night (Olympic opening ceremony) before the Brechin game, that Sevco Scotland were given conditional use of existing membership.
Wondering if Hirsuite or anyone else can come back on that ?
davythelotion@9:19am
Spot on.Once again Spiers seeks to curry favour from which ever way the wind is blowing.
TSFM says: (557)
November 21, 2013 at 9:04 am
4 1 Rate This
Jim
Whattaboutery doesn’t invalidate the sentiment. There is an unpleasant irony attached to this given the origins of the club. It’s fine to call out the MSM when they print nonsense and blatant untruths, but I can’t think of any ordinary football fan in my circle who would be criticising GS for that.
It is for me a very interesting topic – although it is strictly speaking a Celtic matter.
——————————————————–
davythelotion says: (233)
November 21, 2013 at 9:19 am
9 0 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (651)
November 21, 2013 at 8:57 am
&&&&&&&
Graham might also wish to comment on the dubious practice of employing interns for free (or more accurately at their parents’ expense) in the media. Or he may feel moved to comment on the fact that a club in Scotland is currently paying eye watering sums of money to win the lower divisions whilst making loyal, long serving backroom staff redundant. Or he may wish to cast an acerbic eye over the ‘manager’s pay cut’ that appears to have disappeared. Or he might want to enquire as to the whereabouts of ordinary supporters money, that was hoovered up in an IPO with the express assurance that it would not be spent on running costs, yet appears to have gone to pay ‘(higher than normal) expenses and fees’. Or he could cast an investigative journalist’s eye over the SFA’s lack of comment on the Pinsett Mason report into links between CW, Sevco and Charles Green. Or he could raise a query as to the granting of a licence to a club to play in Europe, to the detriment of other Scottish clubs, whilst the club was in breach of a fundamental qualifying rule. Or he might want to mull over the multiple murky connections between sevco and the SFA.
But only if Jack let’s him.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well said davythelotion
My sentiments exactly, but you are better at this writing lark that i am
– and graham (medium rare lamb) Spiers !
Esteban says: (30)
November 20, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Smugas says: (531)
November 20, 2013 at 9:57 pm
The most obvious reason for Charles Green to agree was that it was his only option if he was to see Sevco kick a ball in anger that season.
===============================
Not if there was a side letter provided saying they wouldn’t pursue in any case 😉
davythelotion says: (233)
November 21, 2013 at 7:45 am
upthehoops says: (665)
November 21, 2013 at 7:23 am
I see on Graham Spiers Twitter timeline he is urging the SPFL to give up on the pursuit of £250K from Sevco, citing it as ‘daft’.
#########
Jack has told Graham to say it’s daft.
==================================
Do not tell me Jack is not patently aware how beneficial paying the oldco’s fine would be to current ‘perceptions’ hence this suddenly becoming an issue once more. If you see my previous post of 9ish last night and take note of Auldheids more recent comment on the deterrant value of current rules – why not make the match fixing fine 25m (I know that was an extreme figure btw but it is to a liquidated company (or club – don’t go there) so it doesn’t matter but more importantly it would serve as a deterrant to others which you would have thought was the SFA’s principle interest in this). You would have thought!
Barcabhoy @ 9:07
The Telegraph article you post is interesting and IMO touches on the road society in general is being taken down, make no mistake it is a dangerous and dark one. If you begin to look at the tendancy of global events this century and throw in the increasing control over the media it might make some think of the 1930’s with improved technology.
My Toxic namesake, Jack Irvine of Mediahouse is very much valued by the current regime at Ibrox and the previous ones that went before because he has been able to maintain the fans blindness that has gone hand in hand with the loyalty. I find it disturbing that today we find twisting the truth has become such an openly sought after and well paid service.
Once you see through the Mediahouse spin, it’s very apparent what has and is happening but ask yourselves this, beyond the confines of Scottish football and at the very top of the political and corporate, are you blind to what is really going on ?
IMO the RTC blog was ground breaking. I saw it as a game of two halves with HT at the end of 2011.
Firstly it was more an investigative hub then in 2012 it became an important agenda pusher.
If the general framework of RTC was to be employed today with some of the major issues of society as subject matter, they may have a chance of addressing the increasing imbalance and control of message and therefore people.
Barcabhoy says: (287)
November 21, 2013 at 9:07 am
7 0 Rate This
“… it seems to me that trolling and deflection are much more common on here , than it was on RTC. I guess the PR firms , and those who don’t like the message from the blog, have learned from the damage RTC did to their clients, and have devised a strategy to disrupt.”
———–
Good thoughts and quote Barca.
The fact this blog is not a single-issue forum makes it easier for disrupters to find an angle for their nonsense. Less so on RTC.
Their IQ is often on a level with their morals, though, so they usually have little effect.
That said, there was a slightly more sophisticated effort recently that also involved twitter.
Auldheid says: (1024)
November 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Superb post, Auldheid!
jimlarkin says: (652)
November 21, 2013 at 8:57 am
Jim, Andrew Smith and Tom English wrote on this subject at the weekend and I didn’t see any criticism of them for it. I’m sure those Celtic shareholders who put the motion to the AGM were happy to have their cause publicised. I guess they’ll think the same of the Graham Speirs piece you refer to. This is a pertinent issue for alI top level football clubs, even in Scotland, where young men kicking an inflated bladder around a field are often overpaid whilst many staff at clubs are paid a pittance on zero hour contracts. More power to Auldheid and co.
Some managers may also wish to reflect on whether the benefits they derive from their employment are proportionate to other staff and fair on the fans who pay their wages.
TSFM says: (557)
November 21, 2013 at 9:04 am
Whattaboutery doesn’t invalidate the sentiment.
——
Well said, TSFM. There are many things Mr Spiers could turn his attention to. The “living wage” story is just as valid as any of them.
Resin_lab_dog says: (260)
November 21, 2013 at 1:38 am
66
2
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says: (1024)
November 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm
37
1
Rate This
______________________________________
Auldheid you have summed this up beautifully.
As a non glasgow fan with no axe to grind, I feel I have been ‘cheated’ by the ref blatantly and repeatedly with video evidence and no redress to the extent that the ref has donned the shirt of the guy who brought me down in the box, while others in the field of play have cheated repeatedly with impunity.
I have no axe to grind with the decent bears (that means you Ryan)… I just want someone to blow the whislte on their clubs (plural) more flagrant breaches every now and again. Otherwise what is the point? What was a great sport has decended into a comical farce, because of the wilful failure of governance in the face of repeated and flagrant breaches of rules and sportsmanship from – as it turn out – a single entity – apparently : (except when it comes to trifles like paying for what you owe or have consumed!)
Who can blame Ryan and his compadres?
If the guy is clear on goal and you bring him down with a clear 2 footed challenge that is nowhere near the ball in clear view of the ref and he waves play on, your fans will cheer. And next time the cheat will be even less circumspect when chopping down honest endeavour with foul play.
And about then the sporting contest ends.
It was OK while it lasted.
But the sport of football in Scotland is now over.
My money would be on the guy in the tights in the mask, but it loses its attraction even as a betting circus. There is no point becaue – sooner or later – it’s all rigged.
So Ryan, you got your wish. Your club, it seems, was saved after all. I wish you the pleasure of it.
Because the cost was our whole sport and the pleasure it brought through honest endeavour to generations.
Quality father & son time is important, especially in this day and age.
So I will take my son down the snooker hall this Saturday.
Tell me Ryan … was it worth it?
(… it wasn’t your fault, though – I wouldn’t make a decentguy like you shoulder that burden)
But… Cheats then. Cheats now. Cheats forever.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can I ask one thing of you and any other readers who feel as you do, particularly of teams other than Celtic or RIFC.
Please write to your club chairperson and tell him/her why you feel as you do and ask him/her to then send your letter to the SFA President to tell him the impact that the SFA’s on going policy of opaqueness and obfuscation with regard to RIFC is having on your club’s supporters. Ask your chairperson to remind the SFA President of the great play they made of transparency which provides clarity and why there has been none.
Just one letter to each club from a genuinely aggrieved supporter could make a difference.
Auldheid,
From your post last night.
“There is a school of thought held by most non RIFC fans that Rangers cheated the rest of Scottish football when they embarked on the ebt route by which they broke the trust on which rules and sporting integrity depend and that the punishment for such a crime should be that their history ended when they were put into liquidation.”
I’m probably just over sensititve just now following yesterday’s nonsense one here but I’m going to tread on very thin ice and actually qualify what you have said in the above. If anyone’s interested i’ll reaffirm that I am of the diddy persuasion.
For me personally I agree that when RFC embarked on their tax evasion strategy my take on it is that they cheated pure and simple. More importantly, they cheated and were caught. The fact that I even know this, that I have formed a factual conclusion on this is down to RTC and no-one else. I (and I stress again that I am talking personally here) did not however think that “the punishment for such a crime should be that their history ended when they were put into liquidation.”
Liquidation was not a punishment. It was a consquence of their indebtedness. Meanwhile, completely separately, a punishment was being devised for the footballing irregularities (a footballing punishment having already been imposed for their debt problem – the 10 pts). Some called for the titles won in the period concerned to be revoked. To be absolutely clear, that is an entirely different arguement to whether or not their own history ended because of liquidation.
I have opined before that to win the tax case was to lose LNS. I absolutely stand by that viewpoint. That the club argument continues and the fact that entirely unconnected diddy fans like me are still taking the huff about it is because somebody somewhere decided to somehow pick and choose the bits of the problem they wanted to deal with (with a clear end game that RFC survived despite the consequences on others) and ignore the rest. The MSM can do this, they have long driven their own agendas. Unfortunately those in charge of the game do not have that luxury.
Greenock Jack says: (169)
November 21, 2013 at 9:58 am
4 0 Rate This
Once you see through the Mediahouse spin, it’s very apparent what has and is happening but ask yourselves this, beyond the confines of Scottish football and at the very top of the political and corporate, are you blind to what is really going on ?
———
OT (look away now)
Interesting thoughts on the broader principle GJ, especially in light of the anniversary coming up tomorrow. I remember up to the 30th anniversary of the JFK assassination I had been researching for some months with a view to writing some pieces for a national daily over here.
One of the things that surprised me was was how totally controlled the story was from 22 November on. Among other things, I went back and read the original newspapers from that weekend on microfiche, and noticed that original doctors statements, reported immediately, mentioned a wound at the front. Anyway, that all changed very quickly and to this day very few of the doctors will deviate from the ‘official line’. Turns out the US government also used ‘media assets’, and so the myth was covered in more and more layers of deception, continuing to this day with some of the outrageous stuff still printed and broadcast. Some reporters who did try to investigate the true events lost more than their jobs.
A bit OT but the principle is, if you cover up wrong-doing by certain individuals or organisations, they will remain in power and gift other like-minded people positions of influence. Not unlike what happens in some football organisations, FIFA being a prime example, and that other one I often hear mentioned on here.
We in the West are in serious need of a bit of glasnost.
Morning all.
Yesterday,amid all the supposed trolling,deflection etc,A couple of us asked if the RIFC shareholders had received their AGM notices.Reason being,if they have to be delivered 20 working days before the AGM then they should have been received yesterday.
If they weren’t,and i’ve seen no one saying they were,then are the RIFC board now in breach of the law?.
Also,if the statutory notices have not been sent out on time,can the AGM go ahead?.
What are the consequences if there is no AGM and if it’s correct that the notices have not been delivered on time,why are McColl,Murray etc not shouting this out loud?.
Are the spivs going to shut down RIFC in the next couple of weeks,thereby avoiding the need to answer any questions wrt accounts etc.
Who knows.
Just a reminder of the basis for the SPFL to claim the £250,000 from TRFC.
From Charlotte’s leaked 5-way agreement document
2. AGREEMENTS AND UNDERTAKINGS FROM AND WITH RFC AND SEVCO AND COMPLETION
RFC and Sevco agreement with the SFA, SPL and SFL and Sevco undertakings to the SFA, SPL and SFL
2.1 The SPL, Sevco and RFC hereby agree that on Completion Sevco shall, other than with respect to the CW Exempt Acts, become liable and responsible for the purpose of imposition of sanctions by the SPL for any and all acts and/or omissions of RFC and/or Rangers FC which predated Completion including the CW Enduring Acts and which caused, resulted in, contributed or led to a breach of or failure to fulfil any provision or provisions of the SPL Articles and/or the SPL Rules by RFC and/or Rangers FC as if, for that purpose, such acts and/or omissions had occurred at a time when Sevco was the owner and holder of the RFC Share and Rangers FC had been owned and operated by Sevco and Sevco had been a full member of the SFA.
…….. and from the SPL’s letter of undertaking to Sevco re the 5-way agreement.
the SPL hereby undertakes solely and exclusively to Sevco and to no other Person (defined below), that notwithstanding clause 2.1 of the Agreement that the SPL shall not after Completion take or commence disciplinary proceedings against Sevco under and in terms of the SPL Rules (as defined in the Agreement) for an alleged breach of the SPL Articles (as defined in the Agreement) and/or the SPL Rules by RFC and/or Rangers FC (as defined in the Agreement) prior to Completion in respect of any EBT Payments and Arrangements (as defined below), except where any such EBT Payments and Arrangements shall constitute a CW Enduring Act or Acts (as defined in the Agreement)(“the Undertaking”).
……… and from a recent SPFL Board minute
Rod McKenzie sought instruction from the Board about whether it wished to pursue The Rangers Football Club Limited for the £250k financial sanction imposed by the EBT Commission under the terms of the Five Way Agreement. This was a matter for the Board to decide. There was an offset mechanism to facilitate this should the Board decide to pursue.
The background to the Five Way Agreement, including the parties involved and the provisions therein, was rehearsed by Rod McKenzie.
During discussion, the Chief Executive raised concerns about negative PR in pursuing this matter since the organisation was trying to attract a title and other sponsors. The potential legal costs of the matter being referred to CAS were also noted.
Following a further period of discussion, the Board agreed that it had to continue to act in the best interests of the League. Particular reference was made to the level of the financial sanction imposed by the EBT Commission. The Board agreed that it was reasonable for the organisation, in difficult financial times, to pursue The Rangers Football Club Limited under the terms of the Five Way Agreement.
I hope that the SPFL does proceed with the claim under the 5-way agreement and that TRFC dispute it as being “not us guv, that was the old club”. If it becomes a legal dispute then the 5-way agreement may end up being published and the new club/ same club argument can be subjected to a legal ruling.
Smugas says: (533)
November 21, 2013 at 10:45 am
I have opined before that to win the tax case was to lose LNS. I absolutely stand by that viewpoint. That the club argument continues and the fact that entirely unconnected diddy fans like me are still taking the huff about it is because somebody somewhere decided to somehow pick and choose the bits of the problem they wanted to deal with (with a clear end game that RFC survived despite the consequences on others) and ignore the rest. The MSM can do this, they have long driven their own agendas. Unfortunately those in charge of the game do not have that luxury.
=======================================
The problem we have here is that those in charge of the game actually do believe they have that luxury. In the same way that a parent will protect their errant child they have sought at all times to protect that what they hold dearly. Given the number of “Rangers minded” people in positions of authority within the SFA it was never going to be anything other than this.
However they will slip up at some point and we must be there to take advantage of the slip. A major problem for them will be if/when RFC do go into administration again. Do they penalise the club for a second failure or do they treat the club as a new entity. This will be their undoing because no matter what road they go down it will be the wrong road for certain sections of the public. Their natural inclination will be to do what is in the best interests of RFC whilst pandering to the notion that they are actually punishing them. We must ensure that the actions they take are in the best interests of natural justice.
JC point well made and understood.
I think this £250,000 fine is being lined up as a trumpeted link to dead club, if they pay it that is, hence the reporting of it.
Or is it possible that the LNS ruling has bitten their arse? As other football debts were “negotiated” using the football debt creditors trump card IIRC, so why not this one? It’s not as easy as tight finances. Something smells. Am i being cynical or daft.
Resin lab dog, to respond to your post:
Its hard to argue with a lot of what you said, and while I’d happily get into some of the nuances I don’t want to detract from the direction of the blog – happy to pick up with you via pm if you wish.
What I will say in response to your direct question, “was it worth it”, I will repeat what I’ve said on here previously. I wish Rangers had never even contemplated the tax dodging policies they used. I wholeheartedly wish it had never happened. And if you look at what has happened specifically to Rangers since then (liquidated), then the only possible conclusion that no, it was not worth it.
And for the little its worth, I regret and am sorry for the fallout caused by the actions of Rangers over the last decade and a half.
Actually, if I write that and leave it at that someone will be straight back on asking if I’m also sorry for the sectarian employment policies of the past, so yes, I am appalled by that disgusting policy.
Danish Pastry says: (1704)
November 21, 2013 at 10:47 am
DP, I watched a great documentary last week on Channel 5 naming George Hickey, bodyguard, as being the person who accidentally shot JFK.
The subsequent cover up was monumental.
Easyjambo,
Thank you for reminding us of the legal basis of the SPFL announcement. I am wary of supporting any such move until such time as the actual agreement – the whole agreement including any side letters – is made public. Transparency anyone?
Similarly my gut feel given all that has gone before is that I am wary of pursuing the new club for the old club’s fine. To be clear my definition of club is the reg number held at SFA HQ – the one that reapplied, the one that played first round of the cup etc. This was not a footballing debt in the traditional sense of the term. It’s essentially the same arguement as whether, and at what time the tax debt had crystalised.
There is a quid pro quo however. No fine = new club (whether it’s called the same name, carries the same branding, support, values, level of favours, MSM coverage and lamb menu are all immaterial).
I cannot see any way that the fine could be imposed and the same club fantasy not just be accepted indeed actively promoted as the norm. TRFC will not pay this because of a sudden belief in democracy. I am extremely doubful that the SAPFL could realistically pursue this because of the reasons given above (unless they really did play hard ball during the olympics ceremony and do you really think that was the case? Really?) TRFC MIGHT offer to pay this simply because the sum is relatively small and they can see a bigger £andp benefit to their brand in so doing.
It (the fine) may be pursued for all the right reasons. But it MIGHT be paid for all the wrong ones.
IMHO.
john clarke says:
==========================
To be fair they don’t actually have a league championship, they have a divisional championship.
If the SFL had a league champion in it’s final season then that would have been the champion of the top division, not the bottom one.
BDO report ,damp squib,liquidation fees to date 980,000,and there is 4 sensitive areas it doesnt go into,1)Conduct of Directors, 2)Conduct of D and P, 3)Collymore Bristow Litigation, 4)HMRC appeal.
The Herald:
—
Millions of Rangers shares sold on day new chief is appointed
Richard Wilson Sports writer.
Thursday 21 November 2013
MORE than three million shares in Rangers were traded in the club’s single biggest stock exchange transfer for almost a year on the day a former senior Manchester City figure was appointed as the club’s new chief executive.
Intrigue surrounds the identity of the buyer of the 3.2 million shares.
The transaction is the largest since Rangers International Football Club was listed on the Alternative Investment Market last December. With the shares sold at 41p, the total value was £1.4m.
It represents 5.1% of the shareholding, and only Artemis, Hargreave Hale, Laxey Partners and Blue Pitch Holdings held enough stock to be able to sell that amount.
It came as Scots-born Graham Wallace, a former chief financial officer at the English Premiership giants, took up the vacant post with immediate effect.
Mr Wallace, who is originally from Dumfries, spoke of his delight at joining the Ibrox club.
The appointment will be voted on by shareholders at next month’s annual general meeting.
He spent four years at Manchester City, overseeing the development of the club under Sheikh Mansour and also the 2012 Barclays Premier League title win.
“I am delighted to join Rangers Football Club as the club continues its journey back to the pinnacle of the game in Scotland and beyond,” said Mr Wallace, who had previously spent three years as chief financial officer for IMG’s global media business, and five years as chief financial officer for MTV Networks Europe.
He added: “While the last few years have been distressing, there is no reason why Rangers cannot be even stronger than we once were before these challenges presented themselves.
“That strength will be built upon strong leadership of the club and the continuing support of the fans. I watched from afar as the Rangers support came to the club’s aid during the times of turmoil and now it is the turn of the board and management to provide the stability and governance to drive Rangers’ recovery forward.”
With two shareholder blocks backing different boardroom candidates, the AGM is expected to be a fraught affair.
The vote on the current directors and four nominees – Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson – is likely to be tight.
Mr Wallace, 52, is the third Rangers chief executive in the past 12 months, following Charles Green, who stepped down last May, and Craig Mather, who left the role last month.
The appointment ends several weeks of recruitment searches, following the appointment of David Somers as a non-executive director and interim chairman.
Mr Somers said it was a priority to seek a new CEO, and discussions were held with Scott Gardiner, the Dundee FC chief executive. A lifelong Rangers fan, Mr Gardiner was keen on the role but did not want to take it when there remains such uncertainty around the future control of the club.
David Longmuir, the former Scottish Football League chief executive, also decided not to take the position.
Rick Parry, the former Liverpool managing director, was contacted by a third party about the position, but the talks did not progress, while Garry Cook, who was Wallace’s superior at Manchester City, was also linked with the role.
Mr Somers said: “After an extensive recruitment process the board interviewed several high calibre individuals and determined Mr Graham was by far the outstanding candidate for the position.”
—
jean7brodie says: (358)
November 21, 2013 at 11:16 am
1 0 Rate This
DP, I watched a great documentary last week on Channel 5 naming George Hickey, bodyguard, as being the person who accidentally shot JFK.
The subsequent cover up was monumental.
———–
Sounds a bit like a North-American squirrel, Jean (not Brenda) 🙂
I would recommend reading Mark Lane, who wrote the first critique of the government story in ‘Rush to Judgement’. His 2011 book (‘Last Word’) is the summation of his more than four decades commenting and working on that case. There’s an audio version too. Fascinating and understated man, he’s a US lawyer who actually worked for the JFK campaign in the early ’60s. He also worked with the 1970s investigation (HSCA).
He’s a heavyweight researcher.
The £250k fine was against and sent to oldco/club. The 5 Way agreement was in place at the time of the imposition. I’m somewhat puzzled why they are contemplating reviewing that decision.
Is the SPFL so hard up it is willing to take a “fly kick” at The Rangers, its previous F-less incarnation sought not to do at every turn? Odd.
Is it the start of the SPFL or SFA formally determining/bestowing same club status? Perhaps.
The Aberdeen Asset Management EBT ruling I think may be exercising minds down Mount Florida way.
What happens I wonder to TRFC/RIFC then as the same club if UTT finds against MIH & subsidiaries to prove a decade of cheating? Nothing? Say its been dealt with by the £250k fine duly paid?
I don’t think that’s going to wash but they’re thinking of trying.
Danish Pastry says: (1705)
November 21, 2013 at 11:37 am
Brenda???? 😕
Angus1983 says: (1241)
November 21, 2013 at 11:30 am
Mr Somers said: “After an extensive recruitment process the board interviewed several high calibre individuals and determined Mr Graham was by far the outstanding candidate for the position.”
—————————————————-
So he was by far the outstanding second choice.
Before and after LNS, Neil Doncaster said paying players more than you could afford was “automatically” a means of gaining a competitive advantage over the teams you were competing against. He said this, famously, in a blog entry that has not made it across to the new SPFL website. But we all saw it.
Stuart Cosgrove saw it and asked Neil Doncaster about it live on Radio Scotland after the LNS decision became public. Neil Doncaster stuck by what he had said and told the nation that the SPL board would discuss how to follow up.
Thanks to Charlotte, we know that at the SPFL board meeting at the end of October the subject of LNS came up, with the SPFL board agreeing with Roddy McKenzie that it was worth considering going after Sevco for the LNS fine on Rangers.
I wonder if the automatic competitive advantage question came up too. Charlotte hasn’t said, but we all know Charlotte has her own agenda. Someone should phone Neil Doncaster and ask.
A journalist, a journalist; my kingdom for a journalist.
Sugar Daddy says: (145)
November 21, 2013 at 12:10 pm
What happens I wonder to TRFC/RIFC then as the same club if UTT finds against MIH & subsidiaries to prove a decade of cheating? Nothing? Say its been dealt with by the £250k fine duly paid?
========================
If you asked me for a guess I’d say that they’d say that that was a financial matter of the old company RFC(IL) and therefore not a footballing debt (thus nothing to do with football). I would expect them to specifically highlight the difference between football and non footballing debt being, well, football, and if its to do with football, then its the club, which it always was. Glad to help.
Cue DR picture of new CEO and CM standing with one of those outsized cheques shaking hands with Campbell.
Job done.
Smugas says: (535)
November 21, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Those big cheques are magic. What will banks do for positive PR shots when they finish phasing cheques out altogether in October 2018?
Only had my picture taken with one once. Deliberately held my hand across the logo and as much of the name as possible. Got the distinct impression that said bank had pissed off the photographer in the recent past as well. 😆
Small victory for me there I feel!
It seems that it was Laxey Partners who bought the shares. They now own 11.64% of the club
But who sold them to Laxey?
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11781954
Laxey are also entitled to receive another 714k shares from Charles Green by 19th Dec as per the Share transfer agreement made in October 2012. (this was to compensate Laxey for having bought shares at £1, but the IPO price was only £0.70)
Danish pastry @ 11.37am
Think you’re getting your jean’s and Brenda’s confused 😆
highfibre says: (11)
November 21, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Just to be clear…
The AGM does not require 20 working days notice. It requires 21 clear days notice. “Clear days” means 21 calendar (not working) days not including the day of the AGM and the day notice is served. If they wish they can pass a motion at the AGM reducing that to 14 clear days.
If they post a notice on the 27th of November that will be sufficient for a meeting on 19th December, so don’t hold your breath today.
Added… As a plc they have 6 months from the year end to hold the AGM, so if they have not posted notice by 9th December then they are in trouble. I’m not sure if that just means they just get de-listed and have a further 3 months to hold the meeting, or whether it is an actual breach of the Companies Act.
===============================
Cheers.
Another few days waiting to see what happens then.
highfibre says: (11)
November 21, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Just to be clear…
The AGM does not require 20 working days notice. It requires 21 clear days notice. “Clear days” means 21 calendar (not working) days not including the day of the AGM and the day notice is served. If they wish they can pass a motion at the AGM reducing that to 14 clear days.
If they post a notice on the 27th of November that will be sufficient for a meeting on 19th December, so don’t hold your breath today.
Added… As a plc they have 6 months from the year end to hold the AGM, so if they have not posted notice by 9th December then they are in trouble. I’m not sure if that just means they just get de-listed and have a further 3 months to hold the meeting, or whether it is an actual breach of the Companies Act.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Companies Act 2006 says this is relation to PLC AGMs.
and this about notice of said meeting
jean7brodie says: (359)
November 21, 2013 at 12:14 pm
2 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: (1705)
November 21, 2013 at 11:37 am
Brenda????
———–
Sorry Jean (and Brenda).
S307A gives more detail of notice.
Sorry that the earlier post didn’t come out clearer but that is the hazard of copy and pasting in a hurry.
The links are below
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/307A
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/336
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/337
Tif Finn says: (880)
November 21, 2013 at 12:15 pm
5 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1241)
November 21, 2013 at 11:30 am
Mr Somers said: “After an extensive recruitment process the board interviewed several high calibre individuals and determined Mr Graham was by far the outstanding candidate for the position.”
—————————————————-
So he was by far the outstanding second choice.
—————————————————-
Third choice
According to the huge chip wrapper
1 – scott gardiner
2 – david (brown envelope) longmuir
3 – graham wallace
whatsthescore says: (26)
November 20, 2013 at 5:58 pm
MoreCelticParanoia says: (76)
November 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Haha, Jesus do you have a life outside this blog? Serious question. I post then get on with my life and according to you this means I go away in a huff lol. You really do need to get more. I’m just about to have my dinner and will reply fully when I care
—————————————————-
Ad Hominem – the last refuge of the defeated and discredited
Just thinking out loud re where the Laxey shares were sourced, the Easdale brothers own 3.2M shares between them. It wouldn’t take many more to make up the 3.33M bought by Laxey. Could it be their pay-off for being caretakers of the Spivco. With Laxey now the largest individual shareholder, I would expect someone like Colin Kingsnorth to seek a Boardroom, if not the chairman’s role
If so, there should be further announcements re the sale of shares by both brothers.
jean7brodie says: (359)
November 21, 2013 at 11:16 am
11 3 i
Rate This
Danish Pastry says: (1704)
November 21, 2013 at 10:47 am
DP, I watched a great documentary last week on Channel 5 naming George Hickey, bodyguard, as being the person who accidentally shot JFK.
The subsequent cover up was monumental.
_____________________________-
I saw that too Jean and I’m afraid to see it was so full of misleading selective use of facts and testimonies it would have done the Scottish media proud!
It was a highly inplausible theory.
Just one brief example – they had a “gunman” in the 6th floor window pointing a laser into the back of an actor representing JFK, moved him to the side and said the laser carries on exactly into the position Govenor Conally was hit and a quote along the lines of “so there was no movement of the bullet from side to side or up or down as maintained by conspiracy theorists”. Em… except that the bullet came out of JFK’s throat so how did it manage to do that without going “up or down”?
The also made a fuss questioning why the bullet didn’t come out the left side of his head if fired from the shallow right to left trajectory back to the 6th floor. The answer is simple, JFK was facing slightly to his left so the bullet struck him at an angle, going in the back and coming out the right front side. Not to mentiont he fact that bullets don’t travel in perfect straight lines when the hit people.
The programme was no more than exploiting a wacky theory to make money
jimlarkin says: (653)
November 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm
4 0 Rate This
Third choice
———–
‘Craig from Cambuslang’ mentioned that point too at the very end of SSB. He’s apparently one of the Sons of Struth and had some interesting thoughts. A welcome voice of blue scepticism.
re AGM notice periods, and please don’t laugh, but UK Corp. Gov. Code calls for 20 clear working days notice. The Companies Act allows for 21 days. Which will RI be adhering to you think?
Completely OT maybe and not wishing to personalise anything but TRFC’s interim (?) chairman and new CEO do have one obvious thing in common – corpulent corporates anyone ?
OK, I’ll get ma weighing scales…..
Smugas says: (536)
November 21, 2013 at 10:45 am
Liquidation was not a punishment. It was a consquence of their indebtedness. Meanwhile, completely separately, a punishment was being devised for the footballing irregularities (a footballing punishment having already been imposed for their debt problem – the 10 pts). Some called for the titles won in the period concerned to be revoked. To be absolutely clear, that is an entirely different arguement to whether or not their own history ended because of liquidation.
————————————-
Really good and important point that gets lost in the Media House smoke amd mirrors mincer and mashed up and presented to us as an unrecognisable unpalatable paste. The media allow this “we/they were liquidated and fined and lost all our/their players and relegated” stream of consciousness to travel unchallenged.
Rangers could have used their highly dubious contract and remuneration arrangements and – especially given the surprisingly favourable FTT judgement – still lived to fight another day quite comfortably after being rumbled. They wouldn’t have been assured of outright domination right enough and that appears to be the root of the problem.
The fact that they ended up in liquidation illustrates just how craven and, quite frankly, pathological they were in pursuit of total domination, that they they couldn’t even survive while avoiding tens of millions in public taxes.
easyJambo says: (571)
November 21, 2013 at 12:39 pm
6 0 Rate This
It seems that it was Laxey Partners who bought the shares. They now own 11.64% of the club
But who sold them to Laxey?
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11781954
Laxey are also entitled to receive another 714k shares from Charles Green by 19th Dec as per the Share transfer agreement made in October 2012. (this was to compensate Laxey for having bought shares at £1, but the IPO price was only £0.70)
————
Any significance in new director Norman Crighton’s links to Laxey in all this?
MoreCelticParanoia says: (79)
November 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Thanks MCP. I was beginning to think I was obsessed!
On your point
“Rangers could have used their highly dubious contract and remuneration arrangements and – especially given the surprisingly favourable FTT judgement – still lived to fight another day quite comfortably after being rumbled.”
In the interests of clarity – and separation of elements of the unpalatable paste(c) – I also believe it worth reiterating why HMRC took so long to reach their (surprisingly favourable) majority decision. I do believe the words deliberate obfuscation, denial and in at least two cases tampering with and destruction of key evidence were mentioned. I’m sure that helped the case come to court so much quicker! Anyone would think they expected to lose.
MoreCelticParanoia says: (79)
November 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm
3
2
Rate This
jean7brodie says: (359)
November 21, 2013 at 11:16 am
11 3 i
Rate This
It was a highly inplausible theory.
_____________________________
Not only that but an old and previously discredited one.
This allegation against the bodyguard in question surfaced in the media not too long after the events in question. The individual concerned sued for libel and was awarded hefty damages.
Now that he has departed this vale of tears, he cannot sue (there is no libel for the deceased) so the media can propogate conjecture with impunity.
RyanGosling says: (97)
November 21, 2013 at 11:16 am
73
0
Rate This
__________________________________
Thanks for that.
Danish Pastry says: (1708)
November 21, 2013 at 1:17 pm
DP, just because we’re on the same site, saying the same things and we both have a woman’s name doesn’t mean we are the same entity 😉
We just going round in circles here:
Venture capitalists in the City of London or other far off offshore sites well away from the Glasgow bubble look at Rangers and think to themselves:
Secure guaranteed turnover of £30m a year
Potentially £60m a year with CL and SPFL price winning
Outside chance of one day joining EPL or Pan Euro league being a massive jackpot. Turnover in the £100ms
Massive global fanbase or potential thereof (so we hear).
Massively run in to the ground by the dim Scots, needs a bit of London “restructuring” to bring it back. EASY MONEY for an investment of only £10m to £20m. A simple matter of cutting costs, invest for the future, back the manger, and beat all these diddies on the way back up.
$$$$$$$$$$$ £££££££.
However once in situ, they soon get a shock.
Some people call it “Rangersitis”
But Walter was right: Normal rules of business economics do not apply to the brand Rangers. Unless a massive war chest is provided then that “guaranteed” turnover of £30m qiickly becomes a guaranteed turnover of £20m.
Basically the cost of Rangers dominion is far more than any amount of turnover it can generate off the back of it. Always has been and always will be. And without dominion (or the hope thereof) there will be little or no turnover.
Hoover pitches, anybody?
Laxey will be the latest set of losers to find this out.
Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.
Resin_lab_dog says: (262)
November 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm
“he cannot sue (there is no libel for the deceased)”
Exactly, no doubt this will be the defence Mr Lawwell will put forward, in the unlikely event that this ridiculous complaint ever sees the light of day.
One of the most amusing things about all this is the way that those who are connected with Rangers seem to be determined to be the living embodiment of Stalin’s maxim:
Gratitude is a disease of dogs
MoreCelticParanoia says: (79)
November 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm
MCP, it made me feel better to think it was an accident!!! Silly me. 😉
Smugas says: (537)
November 21, 2013 at 2:15 pm
8 0 i
Rate This
MoreCelticParanoia says: (79)
November 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Thanks MCP. I was beginning to think I was obsessed!
In the interests of clarity – and separation of elements of the unpalatable paste(c) – I also believe it worth reiterating why HMRC took so long to reach their (surprisingly favourable) majority decision.
——————————————
No problem, although I might not be the best character witness!
In the interests of pedancy – as I am sure you are no doubt aware anyway – it was the FTT’s surprisingly favourable decision not HMRC’s.
Nevertheless another worthwhile point made
jean7brodie says: (361)
November 21, 2013 at 2:57 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
MCP, it made me feel better to think it was an accident!!! Silly me.
————————–
Och yer a wee silly sausage 😉
Sometimes you need to be as paranoid as me to see past the smokescreen
Serial Championship cheats Livingston FC are facing administration…again.
Story is in the Record, the Sun and on the BBC rumours webpage.
They are losing £250k per year and facing a £300k lawsuit.
Danish Pastry says: (1708) November 21, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Any significance in new director Norman Crighton’s links to Laxey in all this?
==============================
Almost certainly!
Laxey-Crighton links
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/248525-norman-crighton-appointed-rangers-investment-committee-director/
Mr Crighton, who does not currently hold any shares in Rangers International, was a senior vice president at financial management firm Merrill Lynch between 1994 and 1999, Rangers said, while he has non-executive roles at several publicly listed companies including environmental investor Trading Emissions PLC and technology investment firm Private Equity Investor PLC.
He was appointed to Private Equity Investor to replace non-executive director Colin Kingsnorth, who founded and runs the Isle of Man hedge fund Laxey Partners Limited, which owns a 6.53% stake in Rangers. Laxey has previously indicated it would vote in line with the fans when it came to the annual general meeting appointments, while it owns a 13.2% stake in Private Equity Investor.
At Trading Emissions plc, he also sits on the board alongside another Laxey director, Christopher Agar, although it is not known if his appointment at Rangers is related to his association with the hedge fund.
OT
MoreCelticParanoia says: (81)
November 21, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Ad Hominem – the last refuge of the defeated and discredited
——
Actually, the last refuge in a disagreement is “name-calling” (e.g. calling your opponent “defeated and discredited”).
Sorry. 🙂 🙂
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 18s
Lots of speculation about who Laxey will support at upcoming #Rangers AGM. Expect them to announce they support current board.
rantinrobin says: (422)
November 21, 2013 at 3:32 pm
I’m shocked, shocked I say! As someone pointed out the other day, the “Requisitioners” are probably already working on their face saving press statement.
We are some way from the end game.
If we can take a rest from looking through the Hubble and focus on Govan through ordinary eyes ,with all the additions to the board how does this alter the weekly finances as these guys will not come cheap ,mass cull in the Jan transfer window to pay for all the goings on ,Ally must be saying is this what my wage cut was all about ,its time for the half season book to be rolled out also.
Hearts Creditors meeting to vote on a CVA delayed by a week until 29th Nov. Will now be held at the same time of the shareholders meeting already scheduled for that day.
Both the creditors and shareholders votes are required to allow the CVA to proceed, so it shouldn’t affect the overall timescales.
FIFA says: (407)
November 21, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Wage cut? Wage cut? Show me the payslips, as Bomber Brown would say…
scapaflow says: (1121) November 21, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Resin_lab_dog says: (262) November 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm
“he cannot sue (there is no libel for the deceased)”
True – can’t libel a dead man.
For a statement to be defamatory the imputation must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. Even if the words damage a person in the eyes of a section of society or the community, they are not defamatory unless they amount to a disparagement of the reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people generally.
In what way could the reputation of “Rangers” be damaged [further] in the minds of right-thing people generally?
jockybhoy says: (267)
November 21, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Joking aside JB that is actually a key point. Right minded people (why do parents immediately spring to mind?) who are not as obsessed as us can only believe what the fair minded, utterly impartial, straight down the line mainstream media tell them. For that reason Lawell’s comments could be construed to defame, since, as far as they are aware, RFC are not an impersonation of RFC, they’re the real deal that emerged from liquidation.
Thereins the problem, especially if you side with the version based (apparently) on popular heresay and not the side that would appear to have factual information on its side.
RIFC Plc have updated their web site to show the share purchase by Laxey Partners Ltd.
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information
But guess what? The listed holdings by Artemis, Hargreave Hale and Blue Pitch Holdings are unchanged!
So, who’s shares where they? The plot thickens.
cleared as I mis-read the RIFC website
scapaflow says: (1122)
November 21, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Ach, the twerps just haven’t updated their website to reflect the change in holdings announcement this morning. A wee jog from AIM will do the trick…..
From The Herald
===============
“Picture gallery: 25 years since David Murray bought Rangers
…Murray claimed that he had invested £100m of his own money in Rangers, however, since selling the club, his financial management has come under fire, especially after Rangers entered administration in 2012.
Whyte blamed Murray’s regime for causing the club’s liquidation. However, Murray has always played down his role in the club’s financial meltdown and denied claims of ‘cheating’ following his use of EBTs at the club…”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/picture-gallery-25-years-since-david-murray-bought-rangers.1385050556
=================
Curious article.
Some mild criticism of Murray, [well it’s a start !], and a photo gallery…
Why – when the MSM generally has avoided all things (S)DM ?
And why now ?
[Apart from the 25th anniversary that is… 🙄 ]
Confused.com
[Further edit: it’s also posted on the Evening Times site, and someone there might be having a subtle dig at (S)DM and ‘Rangers’…rather than in the Sports section, the article is included under the ‘Memories’ section. 😉 ]
Ah but Smugas, that was only part of the problem.
It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true. It is not necessary for a defendant to show that there was a public interest in publication and it does not matter whether he or she acted maliciously.
If relying on the defence of justification the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the allegations made are true. The defendant must prove it on the balance of probabilities, that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true.
A defendant is not required to prove that every allegation is true. The Defamation Act 1952 provides that where the words complained of contain two or more distinct allegations a defence of justification can still succeed if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant’s reputation having regard to the imputations which are proved true.
THIS is why NewGers won’t go to court, IMO, their defence is the history of the club is intact – well that may well be, but the company (and the two are inextricably linked, in the eyes of everyone but the SFA) is new, undoubtedly, and that is easy to prove. The defence of justification of the “NewCo” term would be easy to prove and that would explode the myth…
Rumours abound that the SPFL are taking the team from Ibrox to task over non payment of the £250k fine for non disclosure of payments. Is there going to be a new club, nowt to do with us statement coming soon.
Not worth getting excited about. If they have half a brain, they’ll stump up (assuming they haven’t run out of cash, obviously), simply because it bolsters their ‘same club’ charade, and, as pointed out earlier, if it’s settled before the appeal over the BTC is heard, then it gives both the SPFL and TRFC room to claim that they’ve ‘already been punished’ in the event of the conclusion actually being the one that every reasonable person would draw from the EBT scheme, and that the case against Rangers (the old club, obviously) can’t be revisited by the authorities.
Good evening,
just logging on after lurking for a few days.
My guess is that the SPFL are going after newco for oldco debts as they know from inside info that CW is still pulling the strings and they need to get in and get the money before it all goes down the black hole.
As for Sevco it has been teetering on the brink for ages but don’t worry it’s about to go over the cliff soon.
What are millions of shares worth in a company which owns nothing?
When CW pulls the pin and takes the property back everyone will have invested in a shell which owns he haw.
There will be no AGM in my opinion.
The problems with Scottish football still remain and will do so until CO and his brothers go. They have no honour they have no shame.
Shooperb says: (329)
November 21, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Not worth getting excited about. If they have half a brain, they’ll stump up (assuming they haven’t run out of cash, obviously), simply because it bolsters their ‘same club’ charade, and, as pointed out earlier, if it’s settled before the appeal over the BTC is heard, then it gives both the SPFL and TRFC room to claim that they’ve ‘already been punished’ in the event of the conclusion actually being the one that every reasonable person would draw from the EBT scheme, and that the case against Rangers (the old club, obviously) can’t be revisited by the authorities.
=========================
And that is the whole story in a nutshell, same club, been punished, closed chapter, nothing to see move along!
RyanGosling says: (97)
November 21, 2013 at 11:16 am
Resin lab dog, to respond to your post:
Its hard to argue with a lot of what you said, and while I’d happily get into some of the nuances I don’t want to detract from the direction of the blog – happy to pick up with you via pm if you wish.
What I will say in response to your direct question, “was it worth it”, I will repeat what I’ve said on here previously. I wish Rangers had never even contemplated the tax dodging policies they used. I wholeheartedly wish it had never happened. And if you look at what has happened specifically to Rangers since then (liquidated), then the only possible conclusion that no, it was not worth it.
And for the little its worth, I regret and am sorry for the fallout caused by the actions of Rangers over the last decade and a half.
Actually, if I write that and leave it at that someone will be straight back on asking if I’m also sorry for the sectarian employment policies of the past, so yes, I am appalled by that disgusting policy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ryan
I posted yesterday that one of the major issues that stops football moving on is that in embarking on a course of ebts that required side letters to be hidden, Rangers, broke the trust on which much of the game’s governance is based.
It is apparent that there is a deal of reliance on self certification underpinning SFA rules. (As an aside the UEFA licence process is a self certifying one apparently which history will show an untrustworthy Rangers under CW drove a bus through after gaining a licence in 2011, although the SFA had a duty to check for veracity)
Rangers in embarking on ebts with hidden letters broke the trust with the SFA and with the rest of Scottish football and that broken trust continues to bedevil all attempts to move on. As I said yesterday why should an apparently uncorrected entity be allowed to carry on playing as if they were trustworthy when clearly they are not?
However on thinking things through further the Rangers support are part of the Scottish game and so when Sir David Murray and Campbell Ogilvie embarked on a policy of tax evasion (for sure in the wtc and probably in the btc) they also broke a trust with Ranger’s supporters by taking your club of which they were custodians, into the shameful territory that you now occupy and which you are having to apologise for.
Yet there is little or no mention of this factor in the media, indeed it seems that the last thing anyone on the establishment side of the house wants to come out is that SDM and CO betrayed the Rangers support and broke trust with them. We and you are being asked to believe nothing irregular took place
That is not surprising given that SDM is still a “Sir” and CO is President of the SFA, so you do not get much more establishment than that. Now SDM has gone to ground but the man equally responsible for starting EBTs, the ones that are illegal because of the way they were implemented, but which LNS confused with (loan) ebts that are still under judgement with huge consequences that have still to be realised never mind felt, that man Campbell Ogilvie is still President of the football governing body in Scotland. Make no mistake he was instrumental in taking Rangers on the ebt trail in 1999 but has hidden behind the loan ebts of which he has protested little knowledge.
Good Rangers men. like yourself should be asking questions of Campbell Ogilvie and his role in introducing the risky and trust breaking ebt culture into Rangers.
If trust is to be restored to our game, the untrustworthy must be removed and the process starts with Campbell Ogilvie. He either satisfactorily explains to Rangers supporters his innocence when he signed the first ebt letter in Sep1999 and his part in the Rangers employee remuneration policy ratifying committee a few weeks after that first letter and to you and the rest of Scottish football why he failed to alert LNS to the significance of the early ebts in 1999 and 2000 (the ones the SPL missed because D&P withheld details) when he gave testimony to LNS.
If he has a credible explanation, which by being credible would restore trust, he stays. If no credible explanation or none at all, Rangers supporters should be demanding he step down as one of the men responsible for taking you and your club (and our game) to where it now is and breaking trust with you.
If we want a clean game then the guilty need to come clean and as arguably the biggest victims of broken trust in terms of all that you have had to endure as a result of that brokenness, it is high time the Rangers support focussed on why you are now where you are and who really betrayed you.