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!
But lets say DK bought half a million pounds worth of shares (lets say 1m shares for ease). If he then lent the company £1m, why on earth would the other directors vote to allow him to convert a very small loan into a majority shareholding? You seem to be thinking that he would get shares at 1p. He wouldn’t; the item on the cancelled AGM agenda did not give RIFC directors permission to sell shares at a penny. ALL the shares are penny shares. The best he could hope for would be a discount to market value, maybe 35 pence, so his £1m would still not give him anything like a majority ownership.
Good Morning.
I am indebted to Hirsuite Pursuit for highlighting the following which now effectively forms part of “judicial opinion”.
” The Tribunal was nonetheless clear in its assessment of the evidence and in the inferences that it was entitled to draw from facts established on the evidence that beyond the identification principle the acts and omissions of directors and senior managers of Rangers FC between 6 May 2011 and 6 March 2012 were such as to prove on a balance of probabilities that certain directors and / or senior managers were entirely aware that Mr Craig Whyte, a director of Rangers FC was engaged in a deliberate programme of non payment of taxes, non-cooperation with and frustration of the attempts of the auditors appointed by Rangers FC to carry out the annual inspection of the books of account and preparation of the statutory annual accounts which required to be lodged by 31 December 2011, and non- cooperation with and frustration of the attempts by Ken Olverman the Financial Controller to be allowed to access and distribute information which was necessary for the preparation of briefings and periodic reports and management accounts. These matters all frustrated preparation of the annual accounts and prevented the holding of the annual general meeting which required to be held by 1 January 2012. From May 2011 Mr David King was aware that he was being excluded from the governance of the company and he appears to have done little about it except repeat his demands to Mr Olverman and Mr Craig Whyte for information.”
Note the significance of this finding in terms of the resolution put forward by Celtic Shareholders at their AGM, and in particular when compared to the alleged e-mails between those then in charge at Rangers and the SFA.
As has been pointed out before, in terms of rule 66 of the UEFA Licensing provisions, the club have to be able to confirm that it has no overdue payable taxes as at 30th June 2011. The SFA specifically made representation to UEFA on behalf of Rangers which resulted in UEFA writing back in September 2011 saying that as far as they were concerned all was ok with the UEFA licence and that they needed little more than a letter updating the position in terms of rule 67 later in the year.
So just what did the SFA say in that report?
It was their job to enquire into the tax position at Ibrox and to check that things were being handled properly. They must have been aware that there were tax issues beyond the big tax case, as the wee tax case had been made public prior to Whyte taking over the club.
Further, Regan stated that the licence had been granted because Rangers had paid all taxes due at 31st March which is the first key date— by that date Rangers knew of the wee tax case, had been advised by Thornhill QC to settle it in full, but had not done so. However, by that date the sum had not been formally demanded so technically they were up to date.
However, the second key date is 30th June in terms of the rules.
That date is there to stop or prevent precisely what happened here.
In other words, the SFA as the licensing body are duty bound to check and certify ( so to speak ) that they are satisfied that all is ok at 31st March and then to monitor the position for the next financial quarter so as to ensure that clubs do not suddenly stop paying their bills and so on immediately after getting the licence.
They have to be compliant on the first date– and they have to remain compliant– and demonstrably compliant— by the end of the next quarter.
As has been said before, while the SFA were assuring UEFA Rangers were compliant as at 30th June because of “discussions” with HMRC, the tax body themselves were demanding effective proof that Rangers PLC was not bust as by that time they had not been paid a sum which they had now formally demanded.
By 30th June the wee tax bill was overdue!
The tribunal quote above goes further:
It says that from May 2011 onwards, there was a deliberate and considered policy of not paying taxes. In other words, by 30th June the bill was not only due, it was being witheld as if Rangers paid the bill they would have no money to trade. Not only that, if they paid any tax at all– they would not be able to trade.
Accordingly, Rangers PLC decided to deliberately breach rule 66 as at May 2011 at the latest– according to the judicial finding quoted above.
This policy was known to a number of Directors within the club who did nothing and so suffered the tribunal’s wrath!.
So what then was said to the SFA to persuade them to write to UEFA in whatever terms they did re the position of 30th June?
However, also consider this.
It would appear that Stewart Regan was being asked about just why the licence was granted and that he chose to run his draft reply by the Directors of Rangers Football club. By the time he did that, Mark Daly had already gone public with his programme showing that Whyte had failed to disclose that he had been banned as a Director– and later Regan would announce that he was launching an enquiry into Whyte and Rangers.
Does it strike anyone else as odd, that the CEO of the SFA– the licensing body– should chose to run his draft reply past the Directors of a club they ( the SFA ) had licensed?
Is that decision made even more odd by the publicity which had already engulfed Craig Whyte by that time?
Finally, the reply from Ally Russel and the e-mails that allegedly surround that correspondence is even more odd.
Rangers– TELL— the CEO of the SFA not to release the pre-prepared statement as it will open up the issue again and it will only create problems for the SFA and “us”.
Eh– if that is correct– that is an astonishing e-mail– do the directors of Rangers PLC actually run the SFA because the e-mail would suggest they do! They appear to be able to stop the CEO from putting out a statement on why a licence was granted under the UEFA rules.
And why would such a statement be a problem for the SFA? What kind of problem?
However, the e-mail goes further — it says that all of this will be discussed at a private dinner to be held in the Hotel du Vin on 20th December 2011 when the licence issue– and other matters— will be discussed.
Furher, the e-mail states that those in attendance from the SFA will be Stewart Regan and Campbell Ogilvie!
Now why would the president come to any such private dinner? Surely he is only a figurehead?
What possible roll might he have? Why not get the PR guy to come with Regan? or the compliance guy? or any other member of the executive?
In fact does the CEO of the SFA make a habit of having private dinners with the directors of other clubs? Is that normal practice?
Why was Campbell there to discuss among other things the granting of a licence to Rangers and why Regan could not send out his proposed explanation as to why that licence was granted?
What did Campbell have to do with it?
Now, before all this is rubbished as mere speculation coming from Charlotte — I suppose the simple question to ask is just who had dinner in the private dinning suite at the Hotel du Vin on 20th December 2011?
And Why?
scottc says: (327)
October 22, 2013 at 8:57 am
But lets say DK bought half a million pounds worth of shares (lets say 1m shares for ease). If he then lent the company £1m, why on earth would the other directors vote to allow him to convert a very small loan into a majority shareholding? You seem to be thinking that he would get shares at 1p. He wouldn’t; the item on the cancelled AGM agenda did not give RIFC directors permission to sell shares at a penny. ALL the shares are penny shares. The best he could hope for would be a discount to market value, maybe 35 pence, so his £1m would still not give him anything like a majority ownership.
++++++++++++
Agreed. Moreover this debate seems to ignore the fact that RIFC is a listed company. King (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot acquire more than a 30% stake without offering formally to buy out every other shareholder. At the current share price, that would cost King potentially over £30m. Even to acquire 30% will cost £10 million. And of course neither scenario puts a penny into the company bank account. It just gives the spivs a big pay day. No wonder McCall won’t go near it.
It has been said that the company could issue new shares to King. As a PLC, that is not a straightforward operation, and I believe it would require shareholder approval, since everyone else would have their shares diluted.
It has been said elsewhere, and I agree, that being a listed company was a great idea to get money in via the IPO, but that status now severely constrains what can be done by King, the Blue Knights, or anyone else.
And even if someone is prepared to buy out the spivs, they are then faced with a company which has no money left, bills of £2.5m per month, and minimal income until the ST renewals come around. Rangers Retail appears to be under the effective control of Sports Direct, as Ecobhoy has pointed out, so money from that source cannot be relied on. The new owners would have to pump in over £10m just to keep the ship afloat, in addition to what they paid to the spivs.
I still believe that the most likely outcome is for the football side (TRFC Ltd) to be sold to King or the Knights or whoever for a pound, but minus the properties, of course. Rent will have to be paid to RIFC PLC, still under the control of the spivs, on top of existing expenses. Which will mean extreme cost cutting to get expenses in line with total income. Nobody is going to win any popularity contests with that agenda, but there is no alternative. I think it is far too late now for a further share issue, which could never raise enough cash anyway.,
The PLC is potentially a good investment- but if, and only if, it dumps the money pit known as TRFC. The mystery to me is why the PLC hasn’t done it already.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (210)
October 22, 2013 at 9:22 am
Now, before all this is rubbished as mere speculation coming from Charlotte — I suppose the simple question to ask is just who had dinner in the private dinning suite at the Hotel du Vin on 20th December 2011?
+++++++++++++++++++++
As you say, a simple question. So here’s another simple question. Why is not one single journalist in the whole of bonny Scotland prepared to put that question to Regan? And report his answer, even if it’s “no comment”, as I strongly suspect it would be?
I have said before that the MSM are covering such things up as a matter of deliberate policy. There could hardly be a clearer example of that policy in operation. In my opinion.
I think, if they were to issue new shares, they could not just offer them to King, even with shareholder approval (which would hardly be unanimous). They would have to issue them under a Rights Issue, offering them first and foremost to existing shareholders and almost certainly at a discounted rate so the potential income from any issue is probably only about £10m at todays prices.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (210)
October 22, 2013 at 9:22 am
=================================================
Brilliant forensic analysis of the e-mail chaln BRTH. One’s mind boggles however, as to what “bigger issues” Craig, Campbell and the gang were going to be discussing?
From:Ali RussellDate: 7 December 2011 Subject: RE: PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (210)
October 22, 2013 at 9:22 am
To: Craig Whyte , Andrew Dickson , Fiona Goodall Cc: Craig Whyte , Ramsay@mediahouse.co.uk, StephenKerr@rangers.co.uk, Gary Withey
All sorted -Held until further notice and I have agreed we will meet Stewart and Campbell for dinner in the next couple of weeks to discuss bigger issues.
I also made it clear we were very unhappy with the approach the SFA took last week! Hopefully we can move forward now.
Kind Regards,
Ali
No one needs a PhD in their native language to watch football.
To interact with events on the park and more generally at the ground, or even in front of the telly,
a relatively small number of well chosen words are necessary. These are well known.
There is however a word rarely uttered at a football match, but which, here in reality-suspended Scotland, should be part of every fan’s vocabulary. And although it’s meaning is easy enough to understand and that is already widely the case, the word itself remains just a tad neglected.
Time for a change.
(This will require patience, so please, just skip to the end if your short on time).
Ladies & Gentlemen,
AN INTRODUCTION TO ‘ S Y M B I O S I S ‘
Symbiosis (from Ancient Greek σύν “together” and βίωσις “living”)
is a close and often long-term interaction between two or more different biological species to their mutual benefit
(Wikipedia)
In Nature, we see some excellent examples of symbiosis, from cleaner fish to oxpeckers.
(http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/the-best-examples-symbiosis-nature/)
CLEANER FISH
Fish don’t go to the health centre. Instead, they frequent ‘cleaning stations’ – neutral zones where small cleaner fish – including wrasses, catfish and gobies – wait for larger clients. When visiting a station, client fish – such as parrotfish, damselfish and sharks – adopt a distinctive pose, signalling they want to be cleaned (and won’t eat the cleaner).
Cleaner fish then gorge themselves on parasites, mucous and dead tissues from the surface of their client. In addition to a spick and span skin, client fish enjoy a good tickle. It’s partly this rewarding sensation that stops the client fish gobbling up the cleaner fish.
AFRICAN OXPECKERS
African oxpeckers feed on the backs of zebra, elephants, hippopotamuses and other large African animals. Once thought to be friendly tick-eating helpers, they’re actually vampire birds, sucking blood out of open tick-wounds. This shows how the line between symbiotic assistant and parasite can be blurred. Oxpeckers do eat ticks as well, and some animals may be happy to sacrifice a bit of blood for this service. Oxpeckers may also be tolerated because they produce a hissing scream when startled – like a personal danger alarm.
ANTS AND FUNGI
Did you think we invented agriculture? Think again. Ants have been farming fungi for around 50 million years – weeding, mulching and fertilising their crops. Fungus-farming ants originated in South America, spreading throughout the New World tropics, from Argentina to southern USA. One well-known example is the leafcutter ant (species in the Acromyrmex and Atta genera).
They build their fungus farms in sheltered underground nests, feeding them on chewed-up leaves. The fungi is the ant’s only food. Although benefiting from free food and protection, these species of fungi occasionally escape enslavement and become free-living.
. . and a rather unusual example, though still in character,
SEVCO AND THE SFA
At a time and date not recorded, but experts in the field believe it was probably a short time after 1872,
this unusual symbiosis was formed and it has remained intact till the present time.
In fact, more recently, it has come into prominence
due to the extraordinary lengths these two bodies have gone to, in order to maintain the survival of the host.
Just why the SFA and the Ibrox club should have this symbiotic relationship has never been fully investigated,
though some do say it is for the establishment of social order and stability.
However, sadly, their efforts were in vain and the host, RFC(IL), died.
Despite the SFA’s unprecedented attempts to keep the criminal club from a date with the executioner,
the host club, RFC, was simply too far gone and couldn’t be saved.
But, a new body was somehow created and the SFA migrated to it with the minimum of fuss and so the symbiosis was established anew.
However, the host is again in a very vulnerable and weakened condition and the general prognosis is not good, to say the least.
Should the inevitable come to pass,
then perhaps we may see an end to what has been the most durable, but ultimately unsustainable
symbiosis in World Football.
Symbiosis – coming soon to a football ground near you.
Morning all,
Would a share issue be successful?.
Unless there’s a plan that we don’t know about,why even bother issuing new shares.
Investors normally want a return.the only return available from RIFC in the next few years looks like it’ll come from the property assets,either rental or sell on value.Assuming the spivs already have control of these or will have sooner rather than later,then the only point of raising more cash is to p*ss it against a wall by subsidising TRFC.
That to me would be giving the spivs more hassle that they really don’t need.
Why not just take control of Ibrox etc,dump TRFC, and let them pay rent.£3m p.a. would give a nice wee return on investment which the spivs could make long term,or more likely,in a year or two,sell Ibrox to a real property company and walk away with the readies.Murray Park and the Car Park would add a nice wee top up to the pot.
If TRFC don’t want to pay rent then whilst they find another place to play,the spivs just sell up all the properties and leave.
And all without the hassle of another share issue.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (210)
October 22, 2013 at 9:22 am
That finding with regard to the RFC board, by the LNS tribunal, which specifically highlighted Dave King’s tacit acceptance of RFC’s tax position, must surely be enough to ban him, or any other member of that board, from entering the board of any member club of the SFA, regardless of their own ‘fit and proper’ requirements. The SFA have been only too happy to concur with every aspect of the LNS adjudication that, at the time, made life easy/easier for them than it might have been expected. The SFA can have no doubt that Dave King was a major part of the wrongdoings at Ibrox.
Dave King is known to be keen on not paying tax (actually, he’s a very aggressive tax evader), his attitude to not paying his own tax liabilities must surely take it beyond the realms of possibility that his efforts to find out what was going on were much more than just a token effort to, as he probably believed, remove the taint from him personally, rather than to see that the club ran itself within a proper fiscal model.
LNS, the legal mind behind the most contentious decision ever in Scottish (perhaps World) football ever, saw him as complicit in RFC’s lies, dishonesty and blatant tax evasion. He won’t suddenly become an honest man just because he’s been made to pay, part, of his dues. He is still the same tainted individual that, at least, two leading judges, in two separate countries, found him to be!
History seems to have a habit of repeating itself between RFC and TRFC; people like King will only maintain that habit.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
October 22, 2013 at 9:22 am
——-
More excellent stuff from BRTH, especially this telling observation:
“It says that from May 2011 onwards, there was a deliberate and considered policy of not paying taxes. In other words, by 30th June the bill was not only due, it was being witheld as if Rangers paid the bill they would have no money to trade.”
I had a chuckle at this typo:
“Now why would the president come to any such private dinner? Surely he is only a figurehead?
What possible roll might he have?”
At such a posh dinner there would certainly be a choice of rolls, eg white or brown.
Or perhaps even ‘well-fired’, which is what CO deserves to be. 😆
No1 Bob says: (17)
October 21, 2013 at 10:49 pm
From The Scotsman 22nd October…
He, (King) added: “It was also made clear by Mr Mather and Mr Stockbridge that Rangers are not in need of an immediate financial injection but we agreed that now is the time to commence a new round of funding to ensure that it is available in an orderly and cost-effective manner when required. I wish to lead that fund-raising exercise and being on the board will greatly assist me in that regard.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
…” I wish to lead that fund-raising exercise and being on the board will greatly assist me in that regard”, doesn’t sound like he personally will pump millions of £££s into the club.
More like he will try to persuade others to do so.
Another share issue perhaps?
neepheid says: (860)
October 22, 2013 at 9:49 am
‘The PLC is potentially a good investment- but if, and only if, it dumps the money pit known as TRFC. The mystery to me is why the PLC hasn’t done it already.’
___________________________________________________
I think it’s because they’ve had to wait until someone with the morals of a Craig Whyte comes along with a pound – and a plan!
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 17m
Small world. John Lutterloch – former chief executive of merchant house finance meets some friends. http://i.imgur.com/QNuGVYb.jpg
BigGav says: (52)
October 22, 2013 at 10:54 am
That made me laugh. Perhaps the slip was Freudian and tells us something about BRTH’s favourite food. 🙂
douglas reynholm
scottc
This is possibly completely wrong, but I’m sure I saw a post about company directors being able to loan money to the company which can then be redeemed in the form of 1p shares – meaning the loan will buy shares at a value of 1p. I think Stockbridge was asked questions about it.
I don’t know what the constraints may be in terms of how many shares someone would be allowed to create this way, but if such wording was in the original IPO then existing shareholders have no basis for complaint. Theoretically a director can dilute his way to a controlling interest.
Even if it needs approval from other directors, a company with £1m in the bank might choose to see such a dilution as in the shareholders long term interests if it comes with a promise of a significant cash investment / staves of insolvency.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1088)
October 22, 2013 at 10:58 am
————–
oohhhh . 😆 are we about to see NOMAD no3 walk away ?
manandboy says: (293)
October 22, 2013 at 10:34 am
=========================
Nice one,so the gist of it is……..
Rangers (IL) and the SFA,
Married 1873.
Rangers(IL) died 2012.
SFA married what some are claiming to be a First cousin in 2012.
Because of various queries there has been a DNA test.
The results are expected to show no relationship to the dead spouse.
BRTH
Re one of the points about SFA responsibilities to prove no overdue payable. Did Rangers sign up to Article 43 of UEFA FFP (see below) and did the SFA use the power such an agreement gave them to ask HMRC questions see (h)?
UEFA FFP 2010*
IV. LEGAL CRITERIA
Article 43 – Declaration in respect of participation in UEFA club competitions 1 The licence applicant must submit a legally valid declaration confirming the following:
a) It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and, if any, the national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes;
b) At national level it will play in competitions recognised and endorsed by the UEFA member association (e.g. national championship, national cup); c) At international level it will participate in competitions recognised by UEFA or FIFA (to avoid any doubt, this provision does not relate to friendly matches);
d) It will promptly inform the licensor about any significant change, event or condition of major economic importance;
e) It will abide by and observe the club licensing regulations of the UEFA member association;
f) It will abide by and observe the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations;
g) All submitted documents are complete and correct;
h) It authorises the competent national club licensing administration and national club licensing bodies, the UEFA administration, the Club Financial Control Panel and the UEFA Organs for the Administration of Justice to examine any relevant document and seek information from any relevant public authority or private body in accordance with national law; i) It acknowledges that UEFA reserves the right to execute compliance audits at national level in accordance with Article 71. 2 The declaration must be executed by an authorised signatory of the licence applicant no more than three months prior to the deadline for its submission to the licensor.
You couldn’t make it up, could you? 😆
aenmac75 says: (33)
October 22, 2013 at 11:03 am
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1088)
October 22, 2013 at 10:58 am
————–
oohhhh . 😆 are we about to see NOMAD no3 walk away ?
==============================
Is it No3 or No4?.
Rumour was that when Cenkos walked away another company was offered the gig then replaced by,was it Stroud Hanson?.
In the RIFC case though,NOMADs seems to be the perfect description.Stop for a wee while then wander off again
You did see such a report. It was after the meeting between Stockbridge & Mather and the fans groups. However, the question and answer were based on a complete misunderstanding. The shares were described as ‘shares of nominal value of one penny’ or some such. That however, is a proper description of all the shares. They would not be issued at that price. (I don’t actually think they legally could be, unless they were offered to all the other shareholders at the same price). The biggest surprise to me was that Brian Stockbridge was completely flummoxed and unable to answer the questioner with a suitable answer.
@johnbhoy1958
“Is it No3 or No4?.
Rumour was that when Cenkos walked away another company was offered the gig then replaced by,was it Stroud Hanson?”
It wasn’t a rumour-I broke the story of Cenkos walking and Daniel Stewart (initially) being lined up.
At the 11th hour STRAND Hanson was brought in DS was put in as broker then SH walked.
Ah Auldheid, I see the flaw in this.
h) It authorises the competent national club licensing administration and national club licensing bodies,
The SFA cannot be considered as competent in any shape or form.
scottc says:
=======================
Forgive me but this is very much from memory.
Was there not a special resolution proposed for the AGM (10 as I recall). Basically that the board would be allowed to accept loans for directors, but with those loans repaid as shares, at the rate of 1p per share.
So they wouldn’t be buying shares per se, just being repaid loans they had made but with shares other than money.
Again forgive me if I misread or misunderstood that.
upthehoops says: (579)
October 21, 2013 at 10:20 pm
What they expect, or at least expected was:
1. A complete shedding of all financial liabilities (they got that)
——
A little addendum:
1.b. A complete shredding of evidence of financial liabilities (they did their best).
ptd1978 says: (94)
October 21, 2013 at 10:57 pm
douglas reynholm
Dave King’s involvement:
Plan A
Dave King buys just enough shares to become a director – (under £500k should cover it).
King makes a loan to the company (not club) of between £500,000 and £1m.
King converts his loan to 1p shares using the loophole the MSM seem to be ignoring, doubling the number of shares in the company, diluting everyone else’s holding by at least half and giving him control of the whole shebang.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Douglas you cannot actually buy a seat on the board of a PLC…have a look at Arsenal. I do accept, however, that Rangers seem to operate from a different set of rules most of the time. However your theory regarding converting a loan into equity at 1p per share is not going to happen. This would have to be approved by the existing shareholders and would be in the same genre as “turkeys voting for Christmas”. IE why would the existing shareholders agree to a deal that deprives them of their equity value in the company. Another point is that any new fund raising programmes must be offered to existing shareholders at the offer price to ensure they are not diluted if they do not want to be.
I must confess that I was surprised at the institutional support for the original floatation and I assume the EIS tax position on AIM attracted a few who fancied a punt. To explain this roughly there is no capital gains tax on any profits you make on AIM shares provided you have had them one year. Could you do it all again? I think not although I certainly forecast that bit of the deal wrongly the last time.
So what do I think is happening. Well I think Paul Murray, Mc Coll etc are very much of the opinion of most of the bloggers on TSFM. They realise that a club they undoubtedly care about has been used and abused. They cannot take control because they have to buy shares and Mc Coll is on record that he does not want to enrich the existing shareholders, especially the 1p share types! Therefore they need to get on the board to understand the real financial information. They need a full due diligence report to understand their options. I could guess that the only way to “cleanse” the club to quote Walter and Ally is to immediately declare that the £2.5m “credit line” is flawed and declare the company insolvent. At this point an administrator would be appointed by the “Rangers”men. The administrator would have actual cash to play with and could work to do what normal ( non Duffers) administrators do……and sort out a business plan that actually works without the attendant restructuring costs. The existing shareholders also exit stage left with this plan for nothing!. The company would probably, depending on their tax position, achieve a CVA. The team on the park would get a fifteen point deduction and still win promotion. Now that sounds like a plan although I have not mentioned any new investment yet….well my post in june this year might have some substance -:
“May 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm
A bit off topic……Just checked out a company called Vicast for parmahamster. Interesting as it contains some serious ex Rangers directors notably Bain, Mc Clellan and Paul Murray. Professionally I was most interested in RES11 11/02/2013 DISAPPLICATION OF PRE-EMPTION RIGHTS. This is one of the neccessary steps to turn this company into a funded SPV (Special purpose vehicle)……….just like Sevco 5088! Presumably they are trying to sell shares in the SPV to fund a tilt at Rangers. Maybe The Blue Knights ride again!
Maybe Murray and company have it covered! I could be wrong here although I am struggling to come up with a deal schematic other than this that actually works. As ever we will see…
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (153)
October 22, 2013 at 11:26 am
johnbhoy1958
“Is it No3 or No4?.
Rumour was that when Cenkos walked away another company was offered the gig then replaced by,was it Stroud Hanson?”
It wasn’t a rumour-I broke the story of Cenkos walking and Daniel Stewart (initially) being lined up.
At the 11th hour STRAND Hanson was brought in DS was put in as broker then SH walked.
———————————————————
Cheers,Phil.
Knew I’d read it somewhere.
@johnbhoy1958
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/sevco-and-cenkos/
July 7th-another scoop that wasn’t acknowledged by the SMSM
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (154)
October 22, 2013 at 12:03 pm
johnbhoy1958
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/sevco-and-cenkos/
July 7th-another scoop that wasn’t acknowledged by the SMSM
==================================================
So they tried to bring in DS before but had to change.
I wonder if that caused an unexpected alteration to their plans.
DS are also linked,as we know,to Nova,Orlit etc and therefore to Charles Green.
Charlottes revelation this morning that DS have been mailing Craig Whyte(and Phil Betts)provides,I suppose a tenuous link between Whyte,Green and Nova,Orlit etc and maybe by association,Ritzvi.
Auldheid says: (978)
October 22, 2013 at 11:07 am
I asked the SFA this question last year, as ever with this association, my correspondence was acknowledged though I never got a reply.
My interest in this issue came after I had read about Derry City in the League of Ireland. They almost went out of business due to owing money to the tax authorities. The club has been beset by financial problems and was on the verge of bankruptcy due to an unpaid tax bill in 2000.
As a result of the tax issue the Irish football authorities made it a condition of License to play in their league that every club had to permission for LOI to contact Tax authority and be able to get detailed info on current liabilities etc.
100BJD says: (84)
October 22, 2013 at 11:58 am
I appreciate why the Requistitioners need to see the books to get the true picture.
However as a qualified accountant with previous experience of sitting within the Blue Room, Paul Murray must know, as does Jim McColl, that regardless of what league you are in it is always going to take ‘x’ amount to run T’Rangers on the basis you want to keep Ibrox operational at 40K per home game along with Murray Park, a certain quality of travel and accommodation for away games etc etc
From all the past information and the latest accounts that there seems to be general operating cost of circa £13m per annum.
Add to that you have the playing staff or let’s say ‘y’.
‘x’ plus ‘y’ should ideally be less than income ‘z’.
With or without the ‘up to date’ figures then you can ‘do the math’ and work up spreadsheets as a number of people on here have done.
Regardless of how you do it everything points to
-major cost cutting in all departments and having to accept that the team on the park may have limited success and therefore face possible reduction on ‘z’ and thus further and constant rebalancing of costs will be required or face potential financial collapse in the future).
OR
-pump more Sugar Daddy cash in to keep the Big Time Charlie Image and put out a competitive side but still with no guarentee of success and therefore face possible reduction on ‘z’ and potential financial collapse in the future.
Or in other words just be like nearly every other club in Scotland.
The ‘size’ of the club doesn’t really make any difference.
Due to mismangement a similar fate nearly befell Celtic and they were lucky to have people with vision come in and get them where they are today. However any sensible Bhoy knows that there are limits to where the club can go and what it can achieve in the current Scottish and Euro set ups.
Until the Bears accept the reality of what went before, how they got where thay are today and what is required to take ‘the club’ forward in the future (along with the timescales for such a project) they are always going to be a dissatisfied angry bunch.
eddie rice says: (43)
October 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
Auldheid says: (978)
October 22, 2013 at 11:07 am
I asked the SFA this question last year, as ever with this association, my correspondence was acknowledged though I never got a reply.
=========================================================================
Lucky you mate………..I have sent letters and e-mails to both the SFA and SPL, never had even a peep back, it’s a disgrace.
Other than at Rangers, have CW and Phil Betts a known business history working or planning projects together ?
BOOM!! Wee Craigie Whyte’s link to FC Spivco is finally revealed.
His Merchant House Group of companies have worked with John Lutterloch at IIG down the years.
Lutterloch and fellow director Phil Betts (yup!) set up DS Finance and Leasing and took over Merchant House Finance.
And they are based at, and “co-operating with”, Daniel Stewart, the nominated advisers of FC Spivco.
Charlotte’s latest tweet reveals that Lutterloch arranged to meet Whyte and Betts at a London hotel last November. Ooooofffft!
It seems every spiv in London is getting a slice of this pie.
Talk your way out of that one, Jack.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1091)
October 22, 2013 at 12:18 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (154)
October 22, 2013 at 12:03 pm
johnbhoy1958
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/sevco-and-cenkos/
July 7th-another scoop that wasn’t acknowledged by the SMSM
==================================================
So they tried to bring in DS before but had to change.
I wonder if that caused an unexpected alteration to their plans.
DS are also linked,as we know,to Nova,Orlit etc and therefore to Charles Green.
Charlottes revelation this morning that DS have been mailing Craig Whyte(and Phil Betts)provides,I suppose a tenuous link between Whyte,Green and Nova,Orlit etc and maybe by association,Ritzvi
————————————————————————————————————————————
Quite correct and Charlies “point man” on many of his city deals has been Martin Lampshire………now of course….” Head of Corporate Broking of Daniel Stewart Securities since December 2008. Mr. Lampshire joined Daniel Stewart from Religare Hichens Harrison, Plc where he was Head of Corporate Broking and Sales. Mr. Lampshire has significant and wide ranging transactional experience in smaller to mid-cap quoted companies.” Charlie of course used to work for Hichens in their Dubai offices.
Fact
Hichens Harrison & Co PLC: Middle East Office – Update – InvestEgate
http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=20061221071520P9C99
21 Dec 2006 – Further to these developments Hichens, Harrison (Middle East) Ltd is delighted to appoint Charles Green as its Managing Director
22 Dec 2004 – Medical Solutions PLC 22 December 2004 Not for release, … Charles Stanley & Company Limited Mark Taylor/Martin Lampshire Tel: 020 7739 …Charliebhoy was chief exec! Martin was there!
Kingsbridge PLC ..all their placing etc done by Teather and Greenwood. Charliebhoy was CEO and Martin worked at….Teather and Greenwood!
Fact
Martin Lampshire worked in companies TEATHER & GREENWOOD NOMINEES LIMITED, CAMOMILE WOOD NOMINEES LIMITED as Stockbroker.
Charliebhoy was also behind the ill fated Panceltica PLC
Quote
“But Mr Green believes the main objective behind the float – to help Panceltica attract high-class employees by enhancing its profile – will be unaffected by this lack of liquidity.
Panceltica is confident it can profit from the rapidly-expanding construction market in the Gulf States and house brokers Hichens Harrison are forecasting that pre-tax profits will rise from $27.7m (£13.8m) this year to $59.1m next year and $93m in 2009.”
Panceltica bombed big time! Broker contact…yes..Martin Lampshire.
I am sure Charliebhoy could not wait to get Cenkos off the case to be replaced by somebody he has a long and close relationship with!
wottpi says: (1229)
October 22, 2013 at 12:35 pm
2
0
Rate This
Quantcast
100BJD says: (84)
October 22, 2013 at 11:58 am
I appreciate why the Requistitioners need to see the books to get the true picture.
However as a qualified accountant with previous experience of sitting within the Blue Room, Paul Murray must know, as does Jim McColl, that regardless of what league you are in it is always going to take ‘x’ amount to run T’Rangers on the basis you want to keep Ibrox operational at 40K per home game along with Murray Park, a certain quality of travel and accommodation for away games etc etc
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
Cant argue…………they will be on the same business principles as everybody else.. with a huge down side risk if their attendances decrease. Not looking that good really!
Trade Date Action Notifier Price Currency Amount Holding
Charles still showing on the LSE Site as a major player (shareholder) despite the announcement of him selling his holding to Easdale. Did he sell the whole lot to Easdale?
I think I saw that someone on here (or another place?) have written to AIM regards this.
19-Jul-13 Notification of Holding James Andrew Easdale held the position of Non-Executive Director at Rangers International Football Club at the time of this trade. James Andrew Easdale 0 0 357143
19-Dec-12 Notification of Holding Charles A Green held the position of CEO at Rangers International Football Club at the time of this trade. Charles A Green 0 0 5071629
19-Dec-12 Buy Phil Cartmell held the position of Non-Executive Director at Rangers International Football Club at the time of this trade. Phil Cartmell 76.5 GBX 25,800 25800
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (210)
October 22, 2013 at 9:22 am
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I recall from the propoganda that was emanating from Media House etc at the time Whyte was “buying in” that the WTC was only uncovered late in the process. In fact it hadn’t been disclosed by MIH. Does the S&P agreement say much about the WTC about being payable?
I think this is the same misunderstnading the fans representatives had. They iuse the phrase “sale of treasury shares up to an aggregate nominal value equal to £66,000” which has been taken to mean the shares would be sold at 1p, but hat is just the NOMINAL value, not the share price. They specifically state that any offer would be by way of a right issue to ordinary shareholders.
I think any ‘loans’ would be covered by (B) but any conversion could only be to the value of the security plus any agreed interest.
My thoughts anyway.
Greenock Jack says: (82)
October 22, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Rate This
Quantcast
Other than at Rangers, have CW and Phil Betts a known business history working or planning projects together ?
From an old post on Celtic View…..I think this will answer your question
Phil Betts runs a company called Primary Asset Finance, who provide funding and refinancing to businesses. PAS’ website is “sponsored” by State Securities, Davenham (now in administration) and Close Brothers.
PAF were involved in joint ventures in Countryliner Group Limited and LM Logistics (currently in administration) with Merchant Corporate Recovery plc, of which Craig Whyte was then a director. Betts was and remains a director of Merchant Turnaround plc. Both MCR and MT are under the umbrella of Merchant House with whom Whyte is still involved as a director of some of its subsidies.
Isn’t it odd/fortuitous that CF III should today release an indication of a link between CW/Phil Betts and the current, as I write, NOMAD organisation Daniel Stewart? Especially as we hear rumours of DS about to actually become ‘nomadic’.
Almost as if she knew something was afoot….
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
scottc says:
————————————-
Thanks, but as I recall and as ever I am happy to be corrected, there was a part which specifically spoke about directors loans.
My memory is getting pretty bad though. Old age and so forth.
100BJD @ 1:07
Thank’s.
Were or could any of those potential direct links you mention have been on-going on the 22nd of November 2012 ?
redlichtie says: (261)
October 22, 2013 at 1:09 pm
3
0
Rate This
Isn’t it odd/fortuitous that CF III should today release an indication of a link between CW/Phil Betts and the current, as I write, NOMAD organisation Daniel Stewart? Especially as we hear rumours of DS about to actually become ‘nomadic’.
Almost as if she knew something was afoot….
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And with another NOMAD gone walkies, only two Directors and numerous violations of AIM rules regarding price sensitive information a suspension of the shares can’t be far away now. It shouldn’t cost much to buy shed loads of shares that are worth around their nominal value.If only there was a willing buyer.
GeronimosCadillac says: (3)
October 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm
…It shouldn’t cost much to buy shed loads of shares that are worth around their nominal value.If only there was a willing buyer.
========================================
A TSFM consortium? Celtic Supporters Club? Oh, what mischief! 🙂
Would be fun having TRFC pay us to use Ibrokes!
Scottish Football needs a strong AIM.
I will only be interested in investing my money in RIFC PLC if the loss making footballing subsidiary is disposed of. Give it away for all I care.
There a perfectly good property company there, with a captive tenant. It’s just being spoiled by a loss making indulgence. Strip that away and it’s a good thing.
Greenock Jack says: (83)
October 22, 2013 at 1:15 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
100BJD @ 1:07
Thank’s.
Were or could any of those potential direct links you mention have been on-going on the 22nd of November 2012 ?
—————————————————————————————————————————–
6th June 2012
Rangers Football Club Plc (RFC)
.
Rangers Football Club Plc
.
Statement re purchase of shares by Wavetower Li…
The Rangers Football Club plc (the `Company’)
Holding in Company
Information on Wavetower
Further information on the Acquisition and Strategy
Dispensation from obligations under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code to make a
general offer in cash
Appointment of Directors
Resignation of Directors
Holding in Company
The Company announces that it has been informed that Wavetower Limited
(`Wavetower’) has an interest over 92,842,388 ordinary shares in the Company,
representing approximately 85.3 per cent. of the Company’s issued share
capital. Wavetower acquired its interest in the Company (the `Acquisition’)
from Murray MHL Limited (the `Vendor’).
The Company’s issued share capital comprises 108,791,499 ordinary shares of 10p
each.
Information on Wavetower
Wavetower is a newly incorporated company formed for the purpose of the
Acquisition. The directors of Wavetower are Craig Whyte and Phil Betts, all of
whom have been appointed directors of the Company. Further details on Craig
Whyte and Phil Betts are set out below (see `Appointment of Directors’).
Further information on the Acquisition and Strategy
Pursuant to an agreement made between Wavetower and the Vendor, Wavetower has
agreed to provide £5 million for investment in the playing squad together with
further money available for the infrastructure of the stadium and working
capital. In addition, Wavetower has stated its intention to invest a further £
20 million over a four year period. Wavetower has also committed to maintain
the Company’s PLUS Markets listing.
Craig Whyte, stated “After more than six months of negotiations, I am delighted
to confirm that agreement has been reached between myself, Sir David Murray and
Rangers FC, and that Wavetower now holds the controlling stake in Rangers.
`As a keen Rangers supporter, the directors and I now look forward to helping
the club secure its future as a leading force in Scottish and European
football.
‘My pledge to the manager, his backroom team, the players and, most
importantly, the loyal supporters that I’ll do all I can to ensure further
success in the weeks, months and years to come.
`Rangers is a great club with a great future. It has the best supporters in the
world and I will do all can to protect and enhance the club’s standing going
forward”
Dispensation from obligations under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code to make a
general offer in cash
Under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code, if any person acquires an interest in shares
which, when taken together with shares in which he and persons acting in
concert with him are already interested, carry 30 per cent. or more of the
voting rights of a company which is subject to the Code, that person is
normally required to make a general offer in cash to all shareholders in the
company at the highest price paid by him, or any person acting in concert with
him, for an interest in such shares within the preceding 12 months.
As a consequence of the consideration for the Acquisition being £1, and
following consultation with the Company and its financial adviser, Noble
Grossart Limited, the Panel has waived the obligation under Rule 9 for
Wavetower to make a general offer in cash to all shareholders. As a condition
of this dispensation, Wavetower is required to send to shareholders, no later
than 16 May 2011, a circular providing further details on Wavetower and further
disclosure in relation to the terms of the acquisition.
Appointment of Directors
The Company announces that Craig Whyte and Phil Betts have been appointed as
directors of the Company with immediate effect.
Craig Whyte
Craig is a Scottish entrepreneur and investor born in Motherwell in 1971.
Craig has built his career on his expertise as a turnaround specialist
financing and managing established businesses experiencing cashflow
difficulties.
He is founder and chief executive of Liberty Capital which currently has
investments across several market sectors including technology, financial
services, ticketing and commodities trading, with operations in the UK, the
Netherlands, Switzerland and France.
He also holds interests in a large number of other companies specialising in
areas such as finance, corporate recovery, investment and stockbroking.
Current Directorships: Directorships in last 5 years:
Cairnwell Investments Limited Countryliner Group Limited
Merchant Corporate Recovery Plc LM Logistics Group Limited^
Merchant Interactive Limited Merchant House Financial Services
Merchant Strategic Renewal Plc Limited
Tixway UK Limited Merchant Turnaround Plc
Zemfill Plc
Phil Betts, Finance Director
Phil, aged 48, has over 30 years’ experience in the banking and finance
industry with particular expertise in asset finance. He started his career with
Midland Bank before moving to Royscot Trust Plc as a hire purchase and leasing
specialist, arranging funding facilities for SMEs across a number of different
industries. Phil then moved to Fraser Russell chartered accountants (now Baker
Tilly) as their in-house asset finance specialist advising clients on fixed
asset purchases and suitable funding mechanisms. In 2005, Phil formed Primary
Asset Finance LLP, which specialises in refinancing and restructuring
companies, and has helped many businesses to raise funding and worked closely
with them to support their turnaround.
Current Directorships: Directorships in last 5 years:
Countryliner Group Limited Countryside & Suburban Ltd
Merchant House Finance Limited LM Logistics Group Ltd^
Merchant Turnaround Plc
Obsideo Investments Limited
Primary Asset Finance LLP
^ On 18 August 2010 an administrator was appointed to LM Logistics Group Ltd,
Craig Whyte and Phil Betts were directors of the company within the year prior
to appointment. The deficit to creditors was estimated at £3 million although
the administration is continuing.
No further disclosure pursuant to Rule 71 and paragraph 18 of Appendix 1 of the
PLUS Rules is required in relation to the appointment of directors.
Resignation of Directors
Michael McGill, and Donald Muir have each resigned as directors of the Company
with immediate effect. Alastair Johnston has confirmed that he will resign as
director and Chairman of the Company on 16 May 2011.
The directors of The Rangers Football Club plc, accept responsibility for the
information contained in this announcement and, to the best of their knowledge
and belief (having taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case)
the information contained in this announcement is in accordance with the facts
and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information.
Noble Grossart Limited is acting exclusively for The Rangers Football Club
plc and no-one else in connection with the Acquisition, and will not be
responsible to anyone other than the Company for providing the protections
afforded to clients of Noble Grossart Limited or for providing advice in
relation to the Acquisition.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Jack,
I take it this answers your question fully. Countryliner, incidentally, were a failed bus company with a flawed business plan…………..a lot of it around apparently!
For Greenock Jack……………………Oor Phil isnae huving much luck the noo !
06479585
Company Name: OBSIDEO INVESTMENTS LIMITED
——————————————————————————–
Document GAZ2(A) 04/06/2013 FINAL GAZETTE: DISSOLVED VIA VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF
Document GAZ1(A) 19/02/2013 FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE FOR VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF
Document DS01 07/02/2013 APPLICATION FOR STRIKING-OFF
Document AA 14/09/2012 31/01/12 TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL
Folder AR01 27/02/2012 22/01/12 FULL LIST
Capital Statement Icon LATEST SOC 27/02/2012 27/02/12 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL;GBP 100
Document CH01 27/02/2012 DIRECTOR’S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR PHILIP JOHN BETTS / 27/02/2012
Here’s a random thought.
If the spivco splits into a property company and a football company.
Won’t the property company be financially liable for all repairs and upgrades to the grounds. I thought I heard reports somewhere that there is an asbestos problem at ibrox. Also other structural and maintenance problems with the facilities. Wouldn’t the football company as tenant be within their rights to demand that the grounds be upgraded in line with current standards? And thence the property company comes with it’s own overheads. When McCann took over at celtic, one of the first things he did was to overhaul and upgrade the facilities. Isn’t this long overdue at Ibrox?
Down the line (way down the line!) if rangers qualify for european competition, wouldn’t they be within their rights to lease a sepearte ground for european competitions hampden or god forbid parkhead?
Is the ibrox property worth anything without the tenant? I’ve heard that the site isn’t really suitable for redevelopment as the faceade is listed? Also that govan isn’t the most logical place for a hypermarket?
A big well done to the Heart’s fans, compare and contrast with another lot…
STV Sport @STVSport 3m
Ukio Bankas administrators to accept Foundation of Hearts CVA offer. More to follow.
Away with the kids last week – still trying to catch up – hard when the acceleration towards oblivion is ramping up so fast.
I have to say that I was delighted to read that the Celtic Board had already been pursuing the issue of the licence to play in Europe. From BRTH’s post earlier, it looks like there is still much more to be done on that, so I really hope that the motion going to the Celtic AGM gets carried.
I understand that the Board may not have wanted to have the issue aired in public.
However, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the big issue here is not only that we need to get rid of the corruption at the SFA, we need to have transparency so that we can see that it goes and can never take root again.
It is clear that the business men running our clubs are, for whatever reason, not very keen on conducting their business in the view of their paying customers.
It is equally clear that their ability to hide it all away is becoming severely constrained by the availablility of information on the web and by the doggedness of fans for whom football is so much more than a business.
Some of the reading here on the last couple of days has just been awesome. Thanks to all the folks on here putting in the effort to expose the corruption – you continue to give me hope for a better future for our game.
scapaflow says: (1056)
October 22, 2013 at 3:39 pm
2 0 Rate This
A big well done to the Heart’s fans, compare and contrast with another lot…
STV Sport @STVSport 3m
Ukio Bankas administrators to accept Foundation of Hearts CVA offer. More to follow.
++++++++++++++++++++
Brilliant news, a superb effort by the fans. That’s real dignity- compare and contrast.
jerfeelgood says:
———————————
That would really depend on the contract / agreement in place between the landlord and tenant.
I would imagine that agreement would form part of any deal between the property company and whoever was buying the football club from them.
I do not imagine that the football club would be viable if it was not playing at Ibrox, that really is the crux of the identity. Playing football in the traditional home.
Just a wee “well done” to CFC under 19’s who have beaten Ajax 4-1 at Almondvale.
It’d be great to see some of these youngsters coming through,not just at CFC but at all clubs.Long term,it’s good for the game.
Tif Finn says: (581)
October 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm
jerfeelgood says:
———————————
That would really depend on the contract / agreement in place between the landlord and tenant.
I would imagine that agreement would form part of any deal between the property company and whoever was buying the football club from them.
I do not imagine that the football club would be viable if it was not playing at Ibrox, that really is the crux of the identity. Playing football in the traditional home.
=============================================
They don’t seem to be viable whilst playing at Ibrox.even with CL cash and the success? under Murray,they very rarely made a profit.
Catch 22.
Fancy a brick or a paving stone?.
Now’s your chance.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/club-news/item/5332-new-bricks-on-sale-now
Jerfeelgood, I’d have thought any lease would look like this:
jerfeelgood says: (70)
October 22, 2013 at 3:28 pm
1 1 Rate This
Here’s a random thought.
If the spivco splits into a property company and a football company.
Won’t the property company be financially liable for all repairs and upgrades to the grounds.
+++++++++++++
Any lease will be a commercial lease. These are normally full tenant’s repairing leases, where the tenant pays for all repairs required during the term of the lease. It is for the tenant to satisfy themselves regarding condition of the property before moving in, and negotiate any issues with the landlord. Similarly with improvements, but why should the landlord bother, unless improvements are paid for through higher rent.
You are right about Ibrox, I can’t see it being much use for anything except a football stadium. On the other hand, it is difficult to see the football side surviving without playing at Ibrox. So landlord and tenant will need each other, if it comes to that.
neepheid says: (862)
October 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm
I don’t know about that – I think it would make for a fine bus garage for the Easdales 😉
Been asking @ScottishFA today whether Nicky Clark was booked – still no reply. Interestingly asked @STVGrant who said OPTA(who do the offical stats for SPFL) have him as not being booked. Checked both clubs website’s today and both have him down as not being booked.
It may be much ado about nothing, but seems very strange that certain reports mention him being booked but other (more reliable) site don’t. Have asked Grant to chase up with SFA as he says it will be in referee’s match report.
Fully prepared to look foolish over this, but these are the very things we need to be vigilant of, as the corruption continues to get played out in front of us.
When thinking about Sevco/SFA, the following is probably true –
Stewart Regan CANNOT tell us the truth about RFC(IL) and Sevco – probably because his (edit) career depends on it.
Campbell Ogilvie WILL NOT tell us the truth about RFC(IL) and Sevco.- because of loyalty.
.
We ought not to expect these men to contribute to any solution to Scottish footballs’ ills.
And, rather than run the (serious) risk of being misinformed by them,
It might be better to completely ignore them altogether.
If I had the money to buy Ibrox
I’d level it, clear it and put grass on it.
Then, with the grass suitably grown –
I’d put goats on it
and keep them there
as a reminder.
manandboy says: (295)
October 22, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Great idea, but would the goats feel safe?
If I had the money to buy Ibrox
I’d level it, clear it and put grass on it.
Then, with the grass suitably grown –
and a big fence round it
I’d put goats on it
and keep them there
as a reminder.
scapaflow says: (1056)
October 22, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Great news but sadly not even halfway right. UBIG still haven’t appointed administrators yet, maybe this Thursday will see it ratified, and it’s the usual media overstatement in that Ukio Bankas have only agreed to consider the FoH CVA proposals, though they do sound receptive and keen to progress it. A more accurate update can be found here:
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20131022/boost-as-cva-process-moves-forward_2241384_3506146
It’s by Bryan Jackson, Hearts administrator, and if there was ever any doubt that the Scottish MSM tend to exaggerate, then doubt no more! More confirmation that we should never believe anything we read from the MSM until confirmed by someone with a brain!
Still a massive step forward though 🙂
Allyjambo says: (614)
October 22, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Serves me right! Still fingers crossed….
manandboy says: (296)
October 22, 2013 at 5:08 pm
If I had the money to buy Ibrox
I’d level it, clear it and put grass on it.
Then, with the grass suitably grown –
and a big fence round it
I’d put goats on it
and keep them there
as a reminder.
——————————————————————–
Billy goats?
With regards to the loans for shares, if I recall my research correctly Craig Whyte ‘invested’ £750k in Merchant House Group to provide working capital, and got that value of shares. In addition he was granted warrants for shares at 5p per share I can’t recall the total value of the warrants, however at the time the deal was made the share price was around 25p. Over the next few month you would see a combination of Whyte selling say 400k shares to release £100k, then exercising warrant for 400k shares @5p. Net gain £80k and although exercising his warrants put more shares into the market, because it was so diluted at this point, his overall % ownership remained almost static.
I’ll try and dig up some of the RNSs to confirm that MO. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happening somewhere local very soon.
manandboy says: (296)
October 22, 2013 at 5:08 pm
“If I had the money to buy Ibrox
I’d level it, clear it and put grass on it.
Then, with the grass suitably grown –
and a big fence round it
I’d put goats on it
and keep them there
as a reminder.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’ll get it for a quid next year, but what will you do with the 36,000 sheep that are already there?
Althetim says: (70)
October 22, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Beat me to it! £1
Althetim says: (70)
October 22, 2013 at 5:33 pm
9 0 Rate This
You’ll get it for a quid next year, but what will you do with the 36,000 sheep that are already there?
________________________________________________________________________________
Check them for disease.
Good luck with the asbestos disposal costs!
Knowing what a rip-off asbestos disposal contractors are for the average man, I hate to think what sort of bill they’d put in if they saw “Ibrox” on the job sheet.
Angus1983 says:
October 22, 2013 at 6:08 pm
Good luck with the asbestos disposal costs!
Knowing what a rip-off asbestos disposal contractors are for the average man, I hate to think what sort of bill they’d put in if they saw “Ibrox” on the job sheet.
————————————————————————————-
The poor sheep would get fleeced again.
manandboy says: (297)
October 22, 2013 at 6:01 pm
4 0 Rate This
Althetim says: (70)
October 22, 2013 at 5:33 pm
9 0 Rate This
You’ll get it for a quid next year, but what will you do with the 36,000 sheep that are already there?
________________________________________________________________________________
Check them for disease.
‘tics?
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
================================
Agreed
I was only answering a specific point with regard who would be responsible for any repairs and upkeep.
I doubt Rangers can cut costs enough to be viable, whilst still attracting enough money for the upkeep of Ibrox and Murray Park.
That is based on domestic income obviously. In the past they have relied on European income, hence all of the corruption to get them the European licence.
A McCoist saw to that though with his incredible incompetence in both the CL and the EL. He must take his place beside Murray and Whyte in the people who saw to the death of the previosu club. At the very least he sped up the process.