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!
Some very interesting reading on here today. The story unfolds to, what looks like, its inevitable conclusion.
On a more upbeat note, I’ve settled down with a fine Cabernet to view the floodlights over my native East End on telly. I hope those on here who no longer attend their home stadium, on a point of principle, are watching from their chosen exile too.
The Danes have a nice rhyming phrase ‘tab og vind med samme sind’ — which could be loosely translated as ‘win and loose with the same spirit’. Hopefully, a win and a boost for Scottish football tonight. But no matter the result, in the reality of European football anno 2013 a triumph that a team from our nation mixes it with the current big boys of football.
Marc Overmars shows respect for tonight’s opponents by shopping at the Ibrox Megastore this afternoon.
(Perhaps he was negotiating a deal with TRFC along the lines of the existing ones with the Dallas Cowboys, that Australian team, Newcastle United, Apple, Hover Pitch Inc., etc etc.)
Eeramacaroonbar says: (36)
October 22, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Been asking @ScottishFA today whether Nicky Clark was booked
——
Did you remember to ask about Charlie Mulgrew as well? [runs away and hides]
This seems a quiet night so time to confess that while the pleasant hours spent on this site sometimes makes everything crystal clear to me but in a few seconds the fog returns. This can happen irrespective of alcoholic consumption.
So something with 2 directors is/ maybe going to have an AGM. But how does that relate to something with a familiar name from the past that fields a team in a lower Scottish division? Who is responsible for the ‘sporting’ organisation ? How is it governed? Is the AGM the AGM for the footballing exercise – or does it have some other controlling mechanism? If the director lead thing has massive debts, should it concern the football supporters of the ‘sporting’ thing?
When players have contracts is it with the sporting organisation or the organisation controlled by shareholders? If they are separate, could the sporting organisation screw the shareholder organisation by overspending?
These are not sophisticated questions and I could show equal ignorance in other aspects. Which one owns the stadium? How simple is that, but I find clarity absent.
By the way these are not cute, rhetorical questions but I simply cannot understand how one organisation is not the same as the other … Is it me? Thank goodness we have the professionalism of the SFA to ensure transparency… (Ok that WAS sarcastic.)
manandboy says: (296)
October 22, 2013 at 5:08 pm
6 0 Rate This
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’re kidding?
😳
iamacant says: (348)
October 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Billy goats gruff!!! Very gruff.
Tumbleweed blowing around in here tonight. I wonder why? And didn’t Barca let us down?
Hail Hail!
I have to laugh.
This place and RTC before were just Rangers haters and talking rubbish, as far as the likes of follow follow was concerned. In spite of so much being accurate obviosuly.
However some chap called buster has copied most of what has been said here over the last 24 hours in relation to Daniel Stewart, Shackleford, Betts, Merchant etc and suddenly it is genius investigation work.
For example.
—————————————————-
So watching phress…. Buster can go and dig up info but you prefer to sit on a well padded erse and await titbits from Joke Irvine…… Get out their and get this story..
When the stories were easy it was free range on Rangers and our finances…
When the going gets tough its “ah well we’re just sports reporters we know nothing about finance etc”
Top job Buster.
————————————————————-
It seems that what they admire is plagiarism, so long as it is from a Rangers man.
Oh and hello buster, I hope you are proud of yourself, taking the credit for other people’s research.
Couple of Startrek references tonight at the game. I heard the commentator ask if Celtic could cling on and then Nir Biton joined the fray and I though, shit a Vulcan !
100BJD says: (89)
October 22, 2013 at 11:58 am
“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…”
Thing is, they would get a 28pt deduction (1/3rd of the previous season’s total) should they go into administration this season. Last year they finished 24 points ahead of Peterhead. Obviously the playing budget overspend is looking even bigger this season and they are currently 10 pts ahead of Stenny with a game in hand (9 games played by Sevco), so at that rate they could even live with a 28pt deduction. But performance levels can go down. With maximum points thus far, they certainly can’t go up…..
Maybe Ally actually has a strategy based on expecting admin this season and knowing he will need the maximum amount of points to ensure being League 1 Champions. It would be funny if it transpired that they went into administration after winning League 1 with something approaching maximum points. A 36 point deduction for a Championship title race might prove too much even for a manager as good as Alistair…..
If Biton is no called Spock at training I’d be surprised 😀
briggsbhoy says: (731)
October 22, 2013 at 10:38 pm
Heard he was called Eire!
paulsatim says: (575)
October 22, 2013 at 10:52 pm
Heard he was called Eire!
————————————
as in Eera-macaroonbar?
Paulsatim: Eire! I don’t get it and Billy as fir eirethemacaroonbars 🙂
briggsbhoy says: (732)
October 22, 2013 at 10:34 pm
5 0 Rate This
Couple of Startrek references tonight at the game. I heard the commentator ask if Celtic could cling on and then Nir Biton joined the fray and I though, shit a Vulcan !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you chekov any other names from the list? How about de Forrest scoring the penalty? Alas Scotty was banned but at least we coped without too much tribble.
Billy Boyce says: (155)
October 22, 2013 at 11:04 pm
Heard he was called Eire!
briggsbhoy says: (732)
October 22, 2013 at 11:24 pm
===============================
as in Nir Britain 😳
Alex Ferguson recalling what an un-named Inter Milan official told him:
“Do you know the difference between the English and Italians? In England they don’t think a game can ever be corrupt. In Italy they don’t think a game cannot be corrupt”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having read that, the following quote from Nevio Scala in 2009, regarding his application for the Scotland job, suddenly takes on a different meaning:
“Why not with Scotland? I have coached in several European countries and I have always had no difficulties with language or settling in. We speak the universal language of football.”
manandboy says: (297)
October 22, 2013 at 5:08 pm
31 1 Rate This
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.
—————————————————-
Do you think that Ally would demand to know the names of the goats?
Long Time Lurker says: (652)
October 23, 2013 at 6:15 am
4 0 Rate This
manandboy says: (297)
October 22, 2013 at 5:08 pm
31 1 Rate This
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.
—————————————————-
Do you think that Ally would demand to know the names of the goats?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Possible inhabitants of Ibex?
Billy the Kid
Chengdu Brown (for their hide)
Ronald de Boer
Alan Mutton
Nachi Novo
Ally ‘ Massif Central’ McCoist
Fantastic article from the Herald..SMSM at it’s best……who was causing the trouble? hmmmmm
Herald Scotland
Home > News > Home News
Trouble mars Celtic’s Champions League win over Ajax
Published on 22 October 2013
Celtic’s Champions League victory against Ajax has been marred by disorder after seats were ripped out and thrown at stewards and police.
The disturbances took place in the immediate aftermath of the Dutch’s side’s 2-1 defeat to the Hoops.
One seat appeared to land on a line of stewards and police officers that were dividing the two sets of opposing fans.
Another showed around six ripped-out seats lying behind police officers after the final whistle in the match.
It came after “instances of disorder” were dealt with by police in Glasgow ahead of the big match.
Fans registered their disgust on Twitter and called for European football’s governing body UEFA to step in.
One said: “Throwing seats, destroying Glasgow, trying to fight with Celtic supporters, just a disgrace to their club.”
A Police Scotland spokeswoman described the scenes as “minor disorder”. They had no details of arrests or injuries.
Earlier Police Scotland confirmed that there had been some reports of unrest but were quick to reassure the public that officers had “quickly got the situation under control”.
Social media websites were flooded with with reports of violence and rioting in the city centre and Glasgow’s east end ahead of kick-off.
Superintendent Brian McInulty said: “This game has been sold out, with thousands of fans attending the match. The area is busy but is being policed appropriately.
“Officers have dealt with some instances of disorder, however the police response has been immediate and officers have quickly got the situation under control.
“We are experienced in dealing with major events and there is a significant policing operation in place to deal with any issues which may arise both at the ground and in the city.”
On Monday a British Transport Police (BTP) officer was injured after a riot involving between 40 and 50 football fans in Glasgow’s Central Station at around 10.45pm.
A 17-year-old male Dutch national was arrested and appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
BTP said further arrests had been made and they were hunting other people in connection with the incident.
No one was seriously injured.
A spokesman from British Transport Police said: “One police officer was injured and one man was arrested at the scene after a serious disturbance at Glasgow Central Station.
“Around 40-50 youths were involved.
“It is believed to be linked to football fans.”
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (993)
Er…. I believe that would be your answer?
I acknowledge that the article could have been clearer about which set of fans was to blame, but I would say that it’s better to focus on articles that are more deserving (such as Hugh Keevins tissue of lies in the last few days), lest the site gets accused of crying wolf.
Glasgow Police have contacted me by email
to ask if the goats intend to play regularly,
and to tell me that without a safety certificate,
sitting on the fence will not be allowed.
I told them to contact Paulsatim about the fence
as without his contribution
the fence wouldn’t be there.
The Police added that as long as the fence remained,
the goats would only be able to play home games.
They then notified me, as part of their statutory duty,
that someone would be along soon to check on the welfare of the sheep.
I was happy to inform them that around half the sheep had in fact drifted away,
but that they had all been checked and none were found to have been affected
by the presence of large amounts of asbestos in the buildings
which , plainly, have since been demolished and removed from site.
Responsibility for the remaining sheep has been transferred to Althetim
because it was he who noticed them in the first place
and it was felt that this carried an element of obligation.
The Police commented finally in the email
saying that the disappearance of Ibrox was somewhat suspicious
but that the goats did have a familiar look about them
and no further action would be taken.
Jagsman, that rule died in infancy with the dissolution of the SPL
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf
Rule E1, page 37
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (993)
October 23, 2013 at 8.15am
Shooperb says: (318)
October 23, 2013 at 8:26 am
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
Sorry Shooperb, I’m with NTHM on this one.
The radio commentary was absolutely clear last night that the trouble was occurring in the Ajax fans section.
This article is written in such a way that it is far from clear who was causing the trouble – I accept the exception you mention though.
With the reputation for trouble that Ajax fans bring with them, and the clear evidence inside the stadium, it should have been perfectly simple to write a clear article pointing the finger at the section of fans who were causing the damage.
However, this is the SMSM and why would they miss a chance to suggest that Celtic fans were trouble?
In years gone by this could have been dismissed as “Celtic Paranoia”.
Now?
Don’t think so.
Would Rule E5 not apply?
How absurd is the fact that Sevco is deemed a sectarian term by Johnston Press (the Scotsman)?
Quite sinister really how ‘sectarianism’ can be manipulated to deflect the truth.
blu says: (399)
October 23, 2013 at 9:07 am
Would Rule E5 not apply?
Now there’s a question. My guess would be that it would, as the company plying their trade at Ibrox claim to be the same as the previous one. Maybe we shall find out before the Summer/Christmas/Easter*
*Delete as applicable
Zilch says: (91)
October 23, 2013 at 9:04 am
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (993)
October 23, 2013 at 8.15am
Shooperb says: (318)
October 23, 2013 at 8:26 am
================================================
I agree with Shooperb on this one – sloppy writing (but the first line refers to Ajax’s defeat and there was a photo of people who weren’t Celtic supporters). Enjoy the victory and take plod’s advice to move along as there’s no conspiracy to see here.
Kinda off-topic, but last night I watched the recent Panorama program on Hillsborough.
When I first got involved in this saga back in the RTC days, I remember the one thing that was repeated over and over again was that the judiciary were above this all. Slowly, we started to see decisions made, firstly by Lord Hodge, and then by Nimmo-Smith, which didn’t quite make sense. (Has Hodge ruled yet on the conflict between Whyte and D&P???)
All I could help thinking (aside from sorrow for the families affected) while watching the program, as they exposed how the story was agreed at the highest levels of the law and government in the hours following the tragedy was how eerily similar it was to the conspiracy theories on the Rangers scandal.
Hillsborough had:
– Legal decisions from Lords (twice) that didn’t seem to match the evidence.
– Investigations conducted by the body being investigated
– People involved promoted and given pay rises, while those that had differing opinions were silenced and careers destroyed
– if all else fails set the squirrels loose (The SUN were happy to oblige)
– Absolutely nothing would have been done had the fans not backed the government (20 years later) into a corner
For the 5 points above, with Rangers we’ve had:
1) LNS and Lord Hodge
2) Rangers investigating themselves. SFA/SPL agreeing nothing to see here…
3) Ogilve/Regan et al still in power.
4) Squirels galore
5) Nothing would have happened had the fans not backed the SPL into a corner by refusing to buy season tickets.
Really makes you wonder how far up the ladder this goes doesn’t it?
alexander276 says: (7)
October 22, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Since nobody else seems to have replied, I will do my best to answer your questions.
There are two separate companies involved here. The PLC, (RIFC PLC) is the one in which the public hold shares. Public includes the “spivs”, the fans, the institutions, and anyone else stupid enough to buy into this farce. That appears to include Kieran Prior, the world’s most intelligent man, whose IQ appears to be inversely related to his common sense. Because it is a public company, RIFC has to hold an AGM to which all shareholders are invited and where they can raise their concerns. RIFC has a board of directors, who look after the shareholders’ money.
RIFC does not have any business of its own. It is what is known as a holding company, It just holds shares in other companies. In this case, RIFC owns 100% of the shares in TRFC Ltd.
TFC Ltd is a private company, It has its own board of directors, who are responsible for running the football business, but who answer to the shareholder, in this case RIFC.. As a private company, it doesn’t hold an AGM. All its shares are owned by RIFC in any case, so a meeting of shareholders would be a bit pointless. TRFC owns (or did at 30 June) Ibrox, Murray Pak and a few other properties. It is a member of the SFA. It runs a football team. It pays the wages of the staff, all the expenses, etc. It is the legal employer, and holds the players’ contracts and registrations. It receives all the income from playing football. If you buy a ticket, you buy it from TRFC.
The problem is that the income only covers half the expenditure, so TRFC has to borrow the balance (to the tune of £18m or so last year) from its parent company, RIFC. Since RIFC has no business of its own, the only money it has is the money it got from shareholders when it issued shares last December. RIFC had £20m in the bank on 31/12/2012, and £10m in the bank at 30/6/2013. So the cash is rapidly running out.
There is nothing strange or sophisticated in this company structure, where a public company owns shares in a private company which actually runs a business. In fact it is an almost universal structure in the UK. Although usually the properties would be held in a separate private company owned by the PLC, and not in a trading company.
I hope this helps.
Allyjambo says: (614)
October 22, 2013 at 5:26 pm
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 🙂
__________________________________
Best of luck mate.
DAVE KING is expected to jet into Scotland within the next 48 hours for crucial Rangers talks — ahead of a club AGM now pencilled in for the third week in DECEMBER.
SunSport can reveal the South Africa-based Scot has made plans to return home for a series of vital meetings with Ibrox power brokers.
It’s understood multi-millionaire King could even travel to East Fife on Saturday to watch Ally McCoist’s side in action.
King originally arranged his trip when Rangers scheduled their AGM for tomorrow. That’s been postponed but he’s opted to use the time for face-to-face talks with key players.
Logistics The AGM is now pencilled in for eight weeks time — much later than supporters anticipated.
Shareholders will quiz directors Brian Stockbridge and James Easdale.
It was expected to happen some time in November but the logistics involved in staging the event from the main stand have pushed the date back.
Home games next month make it almost impossible to organise any sooner.
———————-
The original AGM was scheduled for TOMORROW, a Thursday. So, why can’t the AGM be held on a none match day – or book a different venue to host it?
Squirrels everywhere!!
3rd week in december, oh, just in line with the tie in for shareholders to sell. How convenient.
stevensanph says: (184)
October 23, 2013 at 10:12 am
Britain has a long and inglorious history of the Establishment covering up wrong doing by either it’s own functions or those organisations deemed powerful enough to need state protection.
The Rangers story with its links to publicly funded bodies, rogue banking, inadequate company laws, tax avoidance before you even consider the possibility of social unrest or if you must religious favouritism or indeed the too big too fail argument, all collided with the commercial reality of another part of the establishment the press as well as that of Scottish football.
It was a perfect storm.
The only route out has been, as you describe, a series of frankly absurd legal and quasi legal footballing decisions that a blind man in a dark room could see were made to facilitate a footballing entity continuing at Ibrox at any cost.
As each one was made it became easier for opportunists like Green to tap into that favourable legal framework to create the impression that all was pretty much the same down Govan way, nothing bad happened and all will be well soon enough. This suited the SFA, the MSM and 000’s of fans down to the ground.
The problem however is that in the internet age as RTC, here and on other sites prove, is that the cover up (for that is what it is) is all too quickly exposed. Some sections of the press showed an interest but the revolving door of the Ibrox boardroom has meant the story has lacked a suitable target for long enough.
I am firmly of the belief that the focus of the effort to show this episode to be the grubby back room deal that it is should fall on the SFA, Campbell Ogilivie and Stewart Regan.
All it’s going to take is for Craig Whyte to be in the clear financially and legally. His trusty iPhone voice memo app will be used to bring AT or MD to Monaco for a wee chat and a glass of Chardonnay overlooking Port Hercules.
It will take some time, The Rangers will probably be in the top flight, Ogilivie may have retired and Regan moved on to some other unfortunate organisation but they will called to account for bringing the game to its knees and for their shabby disdain for the truth and doing the right thing.
I can wait.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
3rd week in december, oh, just in line with the tie in for shareholders to sell. How convenient.
=========================
The 1p share holders will be breathing a sigh of relief. I wonder how long it will take Super Swally to trade his million shares once the lock in period has elapsed in December.
Charlottes awake
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 14m
BPH – May 2013
Initial email may 2013 (1/2)
http://i.imgur.com/XNPrSUp.jpg
http:// i.imgur.com / HpXtFCh.jpg
http:// i.imgur.com/jh696Iq.jpg
http:// i.imgur.com/i52h9I0.jpg
———————————————————————————————————————-
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 13m
BPH – May 2013
Initial email may 2013 (2/2)
http:// i.imgur.com / DbInxMR.jpg (Sender)
http:// i.imgur.com/19ydMHu.jpg (check shareholding size)
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 54s
Non Execs 24/5/2013 (all since departed) – concerns raised Re Green and Stockbridge.
http://i.imgur.com/4KKQlnx.jpg
#Stinks #NotCleared
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 2m
Non Execs 24/5/2013 (all since departed) – concerns raised Re Green and Stockbridge.
http://i.imgur.com/4KKQlnx.jpg
#Stinks #NotCleared
The following was published in February 2013 by the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants. It provides a very good summary of Dave King’s attempts to defraud the South African tax authorities and how they traced his money.
2165. Piercing the corporate veil
(Published February 2013)
The decision of the Gauteng Tax Court in CSARS v Metlika Trading Limited [2010] ZAGPPHC 170 was handed down on 5 August 2010 and received wide coverage in the business press as the latest instalment in South Africa’s most protracted tax litigation.
Surprisingly, the presiding judge marked his judgment as “not reportable” – in other words that it was not of sufficiently wide interest or importance to warrant being included in the law reports.
It is true that the judgment did not lay down any new principles, but the core ruling that, on common-law principles, the corporate veil of one company, Metlika Trading Ltd, should be pierced in order to enable SARS to attach its assets to satisfy a tax liability of another company, Ben Nevis Holdings Ltd, is one of wide interest to tax professionals and the corporate world in general.
The actio Pauliana
It is, however, a pity that the court did not discuss – beyond a passing mention – the potential application of the common law actio Pauliana in the circumstances of this case. This Roman Law remedy, which is part of our common law heritage, is available where a debtor disposes of assets with the intent to defraud; in which event a court can set aside the disposition, provided that the alienee was a party to the fraud and had acquired the property, even if innocently, ex titulo lucrativa, that is to say gratuitously, for no consideration.
The most obvious situation in which the actio Pauliana can be invoked is where a person faced with imminent bankruptcy gives away his property to friends and family in order to defeat the claims of his creditors – including, of course, SARS.
Background
The background to the judgment is the interlocking web of companies and trusts established by the well-known entrepreneur, David King, the astronomical profits made from the sale of the shares in one of those companies, Specialised Outsourcing Ltd, which was listed on the JSE, and the convoluted stratagems that ensued to keep those profits beyond the reach of SARS. Specialised Outsourcing Limited, (SOL), was a subsidiary of Ben Nevis which held 71% of its shares. SOL was listed on the JSE on 29 October 1997 and the value of its shares rose from R1,20 to R80 a share within a year. All the shares in Ben Nevis were held by a Guernsey company which, in turn, held the shares as trustee for Glencoe Investments Trust, a Guernsey-based trust whose beneficiaries included David King, his wife and children. It has never been formally established (though there are grounds for suspicion) that King is de facto in control of Glencoe Investments Trust, and thereby of Ben Nevis, and is effectively the puppet-master for the interlocking web of companies and trusts.
In 1997, Ben Nevis authorised David King to sell nearly two million of SOL’s shares, and the sale yielded some R22 million. From March 1998, King marketed and sold most of the shares held by Ben Nevis in SOL for a profit exceeding R1 billion. Some of the proceeds of the sale were banked in King’s personal banking account in South Africa and were used to buy personal assets, such as cars, paintings and immovable property.
Predictably, SARS was interested in the taxability of the profits from the sale of the SOL shares and made inquiries of King in this regard, which included questions regarding assets that King had purchased with those funds and had then registered in his own name. SARS was not satisfied with the responses it received.
The section 74C inquiry
In 2002 an inquiry in terms of section 74C of the Income Tax Act was held to investigate King’s affairs. At this inquiry, King testified as to the circumstances in which SOL shares had been acquired and later sold by Ben Nevis. It came to light that Bermuda Trust, which controlled Ben Nevis, had purchased a shelf company (later known as Metlika Trading Ltd) in the British Virgin Islands as a new and ostensibly “clean” entity which could hold the Ben Nevis subsidiaries in South Africa and into which Ben Nevis and its subsidiaries could transfer their assets, leaving Ben Nevis’s cupboard virtually bare when SARS tried to recover tax that was due by this company from its sale of SOL shares.
Assessments were issued against Ben Nevis
The outcome of the inquiry was that SARS issued assessments against Ben Nevis in February 2002, by which time that company’s assets had, in a great measure, been siphoned off to Metlika in accordance with the plan devised by King’s advisers.
This, then, was the background to SARS’s decision to embark on legal proceedings in South Africa to try to secure a court order that would enable it to recover from Metlika the tax owing by Ben Nevis.
It was not disputed that, in December 2000 and January 2001, Ben Nevis Holdings Ltd had transferred most of its South African assets to Metlika Trading Ltd. Both of these companies were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and the shares were, in effect, held by David King, via his interest in and influence over Glencoe Investments Trust, which was based in Guernsey.
The contentious transfer of assets from Ben Nevis to Metlika
SARS contended that the transfer of its assets by Ben Nevis had been made with the intention, common to Metlika and Ben Nevis, of dissipating the Ben Nevis assets in order to defraud SARS by rendering Ben Nevis’s tax debt irrecoverable.
In the Tax Court proceedings, SARS sought an order for the piercing of the corporate veil of Metlika, alternatively, a reversal of the transfers in terms of the common law actio Pauliana.
It needs to be borne in mind that these proceedings were separate from SARS’s on-going attempts to attach King’s personal off-shore assets. SARS claims that, in his personal capacity, King owes tax of some R900 million. However, since those proceedings are still pending in the Tax Court, the particulars of this dispute are still covered by the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act.Ben Nevis argued that its controlling shareholder, Bermuda Trust, had no idea that SARS would raise assessments against Ben Nevis, given that the latter company was incorporated in the tax-free jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands.
The intention behind the transfer of Ben Nevis’s assets to Metlika
The judgment records (in para [42]) that the issue before the court was to “determine if the transfer of assets from Ben Nevis to Metlika was done with dishonesty or improper motive to frustrate SARS from getting tax monies due by Ben Nevis” and, if so, to determine the relief available to SARS.
A crucial question in this regard was whether Bermuda Trust knew that Ben Nevis would or might have a tax liability vis-à-vis SARS.
It was argued by the defendants that Bermuda Trust and its employees “had no idea” that SARS would raise an assessment against Ben Nevis. This proposition was scarcely convincing, given that the assets which were sold and gave rise to the tax liability (namely, the shares in SOL) were those of a South African-registered company that had made its profits in South Africa. Counsel for the defendants was forced to concede that the trustees of Bermuda Trust should have investigated whether Ben Nevis was a South African taxpayer.
Giving the judgment of the Tax Court, Ledwaba J held (at para [51]) that “The transfer of assets of Ben Nevis to Metlika, on King’s instruction, on an urgent basis was in my view, to create a ‘blind alley’”.
The court held that “the officials of Bermuda Trust knew or should have known that there were tax liabilities for the assets of Ben Nevis situated in other countries” and that King knew that SARS was investigating Ben Nevis. The court held (at para [54]) that Bermuda Trust knew that Ben Nevis had made huge profits from transactions carried out in South Africa.
The critical role of SARS’s information-gathering powers
The judgment illustrates the importance and effectiveness of SARS’s statutory information-gathering powers, for SARS needed to call no witnesses in the Tax Court proceedings and was able to base its case entirely on the documents it laid before the court.
Particularly significant in this regard were documents that had passed between the professional advisers of the King-controlled entities, which recorded that “we are re-structuring Ben Nevis, to stop the South African taxman in his tracks” and that once this was accomplished, Ben Nevis would become dormant or extinct.
The purpose of the transfer of the Ben Nevis assets
Ledwaba J held that the documents “clearly show that the transfer of assets was to stop SARS from tracing and attaching assets of Ben Nevis for tax purposes”.
The court concluded that “Metlika was based as a facade to hide the tax liability of Ben Nevis from SARS”.
Corporate law principles regarding the piercing of the corporate veil
On the basis of these factual findings, the court applied the corporate law principles laid down in Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1995 (4) SA 790 (A) in terms of which a court is empowered to pierce the corporate veil where there has been “fraud, dishonesty or other improper conduct”.
The court held that the way in which Bermuda Trust had conducted the affairs of Ben Nevis “was improper, to say the least” and that (see para [61] of the judgment) “Metlika was based as a façade to hide the tax liability of Ben Nevis from SARS”. The court held (at para [63]) that the facts of the matter before it justified piercing the corporate veil of Metlika in relation to the tax liability of Ben Nevis vis-à-vis SARS.
The court rejected the argument that, since Ben Nevis (allegedly) had assets of about £96 million, it was not necessary for the court to pierce the corporate veil, and pointed out that it had been held in the Cape Pacific decision that, where a person has several available legal remedies, he can select which to pursue. Thus, the fact that SARS had other remedies did not preclude it from seeking a piercing of the veil in this case.
In the result, the court handed down an order declaring that –
• the transfer of specified assets from Ben Nevis to Metlika was set aside,
• specified assets of Metlika were owned by Ben Nevis, and
• specified assets of Metlika, insofar, as the liability of Ben Nevis for income tax was concerned, could be attached and sold in execution to satisfy in whole, or in part, the liability of Ben Nevis to SARS.
The impact of the judgment
This judgment is a considerable victory for SARS, which takes the view that it will assist in bringing this protracted litigious saga to finality.
The document can be found here: http://www.saica.co.za/integritax/Archive/Integritax_February_2013_Issue_161.pdf
NB To any lurking journo’s. Remember this when you are reporting on the ‘Return of the Lying King’ this weekend.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (994)
October 23, 2013 at 10:55 am
…………..
Amazing – I had to read this twice – At Last the Sun are getting it right!
………….
DAVE KING the recently convicted tax felon is expected to jet into Scotland within the next 48 hours for what his media advisers have told us in a press release are crucial Rangers talks — ahead of a club AGM now pencilled in for the third week in DECEMBER or maybe not because nobody really knows.
SunSport can reveal the South Africa-based ex Scot has not learned from his recent convictions and still has the self belief to think he can return home to a key directorial role at Ibrox.
He plans a series of vital meetings with Ibrox power brokers some of whom are pretending not to be at the club right now. Mr King had met the key players last year in Zurich when the whole phoenix plan and the roles were agreed.
Fast Forward 16 months and now Mr King’s well paid advisers have told him South Africa is a long way away and has dodgy courts anyway so it will be easy to get everyone to ignore his recent convictions which technically render him as non suitable.
As a well known Rangers fan Mr King told us “I have only the club at heart and kiss the badge on my blue pyjamas each night”.
As an influential and active board member of the Sir David Murray team, Mr King is said to have played a seminal role in the roller coaster ride which bankrupted the club and set it up for the current asset realignment programme.
it is understood multi-millionaire King has also been convinced by his well paid media advisers that all he has to do now is to come across as the club’s only possible sugar daddy with wealth off the radar.
He plans to start immediately and travel to East Fife on Saturday to watch Ally McCoist’s side in action.
When asked before the press briefing where East Fife played he was said he didn’t know and didn’t care but the bus driver would have SATNAV.
King originally had arranged his trip when Rangers scheduled their AGM for tomorrow when he had been wrongly informed by his advisers that his status as a convicted tax fraudster in South Africa would be something that could be conveniently ignored by Campbell Ogilvie’s SFA.
And after hearing Chic Young had undertaken some key prep work on his behalf on BBC Scotland radio on his behalf he committed to the first class seats.
He will land in Glasgow by plane and not by French boat on a beach in Eriskay.
The AGM has since been postponed but he’s opted to use the time for face-to-face talks with key players because while he may be a “glib and shameless liar” in South Africa he confirms that he is still a Rangers supporter and doesn’t tell lies in Scotland.
To confirm this he did admit to The Sun that he had not actually invested £20 Million as stated in other newspapers.
Mr King confirmed what the Internet Bampots had been saying was correct. His original £20 million as copied from his original press releases in this newspaper and others was nothing other than convenient and highly effective tax planning.
Stewart Regan the highly respected SFA chief said “Dave King is wasting his time” and went on to say “After the recent departure of Mr Ogilvie, the SFA is a different place”.
………………………….
OK Maybe someone changed some of the words so there was no spin and just truth and honest comment…
And Campbell hasn’t left the SFA and Stewart is not highly regarded…
But imagine a few SFA changes coupled with an honest and free press in our country…
Just what could we achieve?
stevensanph says: (184)
October 23, 2013 at 10:12 am
45
1
Rate This
Kinda off-topic, but last night I watched the recent Panorama program on Hillsborough.
When I first got involved in this saga back in the RTC days, I remember the one thing that was repeated over and over again was that the judiciary were above this all. Slowly, we started to see decisions made, firstly by Lord Hodge, and then by Nimmo-Smith, which didn’t quite make sense. (Has Hodge ruled yet on the conflict between Whyte and D&P???)
All I could help thinking (aside from sorrow for the families affected) while watching the program, as they exposed how the story was agreed at the highest levels of the law and government in the hours following the tragedy was how eerily similar it was to the conspiracy theories on the Rangers scandal.
Hillsborough had:
– Legal decisions from Lords (twice) that didn’t seem to match the evidence.
– Investigations conducted by the body being investigated
– People involved promoted and given pay rises, while those that had differing opinions were silenced and careers destroyed
– if all else fails set the squirrels loose (The SUN were happy to oblige)
– Absolutely nothing would have been done had the fans not backed the government (20 years later) into a corner
For the 5 points above, with Rangers we’ve had:
1) LNS and Lord Hodge
2) Rangers investigating themselves. SFA/SPL agreeing nothing to see here…
3) Ogilve/Regan et al still in power.
4) Squirels galore
5) Nothing would have happened had the fans not backed the SPL into a corner by refusing to buy season tickets.
Really makes you wonder how far up the ladder this goes doesn’t it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What also strikes me about both cases is the sheer number of people involved and the huge amount of time spent subverting the true account of events.
Zilch,
I appreciate that it’s badly written, and as mentioned, it could have made it very much clearer who was to blame, but to me it’s almost like a trap, designed to encourage screams of ‘bias!’, when there is actually enough in the article for the author to legitimately claim ‘Well, I did point out that it was the Dutch fans that were to blame’.
I just think there needs to be a bit of calmness when it comes to stuff like this, because it will allow detractors of this blog to point at it as evidence of how out of touch and ‘guided by the unseen fenian hand’ this place is – in much the same way that the biggest nuggets on RM etc. are used to portray how out of touch TRFC and their fans are. Not that I’m inferring that you and NTHM are nuggets, you understand! 😀
Just to be clear, I’m not claiming that this blog is so important and influential that the media are indeed laying traps for it! It’s just that such a trivial mis-representation needs to be looked at in the context of the bigger stuff going on at the moment. All it does in it’s own little way is put another nail in the coffin of the Herald. Would you continue to buy a paper (a broadsheet, no less!) that was so poorly written?
Shooperb says: (319)
October 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm
actually, in the article, the author makes no statement saying who was to blame for the trouble, instead, he refers to fans complaining on twitter and quotes one fans comments.
We are often told that the story writer is not responsible for the headline or photo’s accompanying a piece, so, we have an article going on about trouble in glasgow at a celtic v ajax game without stating either way who was to blame.
given all that we know about the SMSM and sports hacks in particular, this was clearly a bitter sevconian who simply couldn’t bring himself to write a remotely positive article in the light of Celtic (perhaps fortunate) win last night. Doing his best to take the shine off the result and what it could mean for the club and allowing the club name to be tarnished by insinuation.
but, even if it wasn’t an anti-celtic piece, then it’s a pretty poor attempt to cover a period of 24 hours of trouble and violence in the city. Pretty much leaving out any detail allowing the reader to assume who/what/why.
more lamb anyone?
neepheid says: (864)
October 23, 2013 at 10:18 am
alexander276 says: (7)
October 22, 2013 at 7:41 pm
….TRFC owns (or did at 30 June) Ibrox, Murray Pak and a few other properties. It is a member of the SFA….
==============================================================================
Neepheid,
Whilst I bow to your excellent summation of the position I don’t share your certainty about the ownership of the property assets with this being something I have posted about previously.
The nature of the Annual Report – a Group report – seemed to me to nicely mask the exact performance of individual companies and also the exact ownership of assets. Is there something I have missed regarding ownership of the assets?
I am unsure if any transfer of assets from TRFC to RIC would have had to be noted in 28. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS (P.45). There does not appear to be any mention of such a transfer.
To my mind such a transfer would logically take place BEFORE the revaluation exercise so that RIFC was left in the most financially advantageous position when the TRFC meltdown eventually occurs.
Otherwise TRFC have revalued assets ‘in-house’ that they themselves can sell and lease-back to fund their black hole with this then being to the overall financial detriment of RIFC, the Group and obviously the various shareholders afflicted with ‘Rangersitis’.
Scottish Football needs forensic investigation skills! 😉
Shooperb says: (319)
October 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
Hi Shooperb
I hear what you are saying. And to be honest, I can see both sides of this argument.
What got me about this article was the contrast with the live reporting the evening before.
The commentators in the stadium gave a very clear account of the trouble, as it occurred, and it was unambiguously a group of the Ajax fans kicking off.
Next morning, having had time to arrange thoughts and work out what he wants to say, a Herald reporter publishes what can only be described as a pretty misleading article that casts a shadow on the behaviour of fans (in general) at last night’s game.
I conclude that the intent is there. Others may disagree.
The question then is: sit back and take it as a lesser grievance, or point out that it is part of a continuing and pervasive media strategy?
Well I think part of the role of TSFM is to do the latter.
I appreciate that this means that there will be those that attempt to pigeon hole us in the manner you describe.
However, experience also suggests that faced with the onslaught from an establishment seeking to protect its own vested interests, a zero tolerance approach is another strategy worthy of consideration.
The posts today on comparison with the Hillsborough disaster are relevant here.
Ultimately we win or lose on the strength of our own arguments. Same is true for the Detractors.
PS You are dead right about the Herald. It is a tabloid in all but the dimension of the paper it is printed on.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (995)
October 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Shooperb says: (319)
October 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm
actually, in the article, the author makes no statement saying who was to blame for the trouble, instead, he refers to fans complaining on twitter and quotes one fans comments.
We are often told that the story writer is not responsible for the headline or photo’s accompanying a piece, so, we have an article going on about trouble in glasgow at a celtic v ajax game without stating either way who was to blame.
given all that we know about the SMSM and sports hacks in particular, this was clearly a bitter sevconian who simply couldn’t bring himself to write a remotely positive article in the light of Celtic (perhaps fortunate) win last night. Doing his best to take the shine off the result and what it could mean for the club and allowing the club name to be tarnished by insinuation.
but, even if it wasn’t an anti-celtic piece, then it’s a pretty poor attempt to cover a period of 24 hours of trouble and violence in the city. Pretty much leaving out any detail allowing the reader to assume who/what/why.
more lamb anyone?
===================================================================
It is a poorly written piece. What it lacks are facts and sometimes I think MSM journalists in this country are not too bothered or don’t have the time or resources to research and publish a proper story. They believe their job is to reprint PR or re hash press association/reuters feeds just to fill the space.
It is a real concern for the well being of our democracy. Luckily the Bampots are taking up the mantle.
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 40s
With less than a week to go till end inquiry, Duff and Phelps had still not replied to Pinsents. Paul Murray interviewed though.
redlichtie says: (263)
October 23, 2013 at 1:11 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Page 25 of the Annual Report shows the Company Balance sheet (ie only what RIFC owns and owes). At 30 June 2013 it’s only assets were investment in subsidiaries (£13M) and Amounts due from subsidiary undertakings (£16M)
neepheid says:
==============================
Can I just say, for what it’s worth, well put.
From Harry Brady,something in the wind ?
40m
OK – Anyone recall the previous last resort plan of Green if Ibrox and Rangers name and licensing wasn’t forthcoming
Harry Brady @HarryBradyCU 41m
Are Ticketus still involved and expecting £19m repayment?
Retweeted by Up Yours De Boer
Harry Brady @HarryBradyCU 41m
OK – So is could legal action shortly result in freezing of use of Ibrox and name of Rangers until resolved?!
Retweeted by Up Yours De Boer
redlichtie says: (263)
October 23, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Firstly let me say- Scotland (never mind Scottish football) needs a strong Arbroath. I saw Celtic play there, once, mid 60’s? Great place. Plus the source of a declaration that everyone on here should read before even thinking about voting next year. (sorry TSFM, off topic, I know )
I based my comment on the Land Registry researches done by other posters on this forum, which established that all the properties were registered as belonging to Sevco Scotland (TRFC). Of course all that can change in the blink of an eye, Plus the fact that no real property appears in the balance sheet of “the company” at page 25 of the accounts for the year to 30/6/2013. It seems clear that at 30/6/21013 the properties were registered to TRFC. Whether they still are now? Who knows.
The predictable delay of the AGM to the very last possible minute tells me that big things are going to happen in the next 8 weeks. I think Babybear might be looking at another share cerificate for Chrirstmas. Assuming Daddybear is stupid enough to get shafted yet again- oh, wait a minute, where’s that Wonga phone number.
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 2m
Old fashioned leaks.
http://i.imgur.com/kSj6muP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VDhE5oL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2pWgomR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/naLEX0c.jpg
Zilch says: (92)
October 23, 2013 at 1:11 pm
———————————–
The question then is: sit back and take it as a lesser grievance, or point out that it is part of a continuing and pervasive media strategy?
Well I think part of the role of TSFM is to do the latter.
———————————-
I agree. There was a quote from Gary Player “The more I practice the luckier I get”. Well the more the Scottish press write about this stuff, the more “incompetent/sloppy” they seem to get, but the sloppiness seems to only apply in one direction by an apparent coincidence.
This type of article is indeed pervasive and reflects an editorial line that goes back a very long time. From the point of view of non-Celtic fans, they – quite understandably – don;t pay particular attention to this kind of reportage as they don’t have an emotional stake in it, other than perhaps being pleased to see a Scottish team get a good result in a high profile European competition. It may seem petty to to feel aggrieved by this kind of thing, but it does become rather wearing when almost every good achievement is detracted to some degree or another.
After all the article itself is titled ‘Trouble MARS Celtic Champions League win over Ajax’ and the first line of the article states ‘Celtic’s Champions League victory against Ajax has been MARRED by disorder after seats were ripped out and thrown at stewards and police.’ Why would Celtic’s win be marred by the actions of opposing fans? The lack of factual accuracy re the perpetrators seems to represent an unecessary ambiguity that is unlikely to be unintentional:
“after seats were ripped out and thrown at stewards and police.’ – by whom?
“One seat appeared to land on a line of stewards and police officers that were dividing the two sets of opposing fans.” – thrown by whom? after all you’ve gone to the trouble of describing the location where this took place and made reference to “opposing sets of fans”…
“Another showed around six ripped-out seats lying behind police officers after the final whistle in the match”. – thrown by whom?
“It came after “instances of disorder” were dealt with by police in Glasgow ahead of the big match.” – who was involved?
That’s several opportunities to set the record straight we are expected to believe are missed purely through “sloppiness” rather than intent. It doesn’t seem credible to me.
Then of course we have a reference to “trying to fight with Celtic supporters” slipped in halfway through the article – which is a third party quote, not the words of the writer, and stops short of explicitly saying the Ajax fans were responsible. It also refers to “trying” to fight – nothing about throwing seats at police and stewards so remains ambiguous to the extent of involvement of Celtic fans.
Seems an unecessarily subtle and frankly inadequate way of establishing the identity of those involved – from a partisan source – and smacks more of a clever way of establishing plausible deniability re accusations of editorial bias. I’m all for impartiality of the press, but one might reasonably have expected a Scottish newspaper to defend the good name of Scottish football supporters. It’s strange that they didn’t feel the need to on this occasion, far less to resorting to the customary excuse of infiltration by English Chelsea/Millwall/West Ham casuals that was regularly trotted out in defence of the antics of fans of one particular former club.
By way of another contrast – back in 2002 when Feyenoord played Rangers in the UEFA Cup, there were violent scenes in and around the stadium that the Daily Record – which admittedly is another rung up/down the succulent lamb ladder from the Herald; only one mind you – described as FEYENOORD THUG RAMPAGE, including photo caption of one aforementioned ‘Feyenoord Thug’ being led away by police resplendent in royal blue sports jacket. No ambiguity re ID of perpetrators in the Scottish press on that occasion, although it must have been the work of thugs from the Govan Feyenoord Supporters Clubs as it was also reported that of the 34 arrests in and around the ground – 24 were from Glasgow – the inclusion of this fact rendering the rest of the sensationalist balderdash as acceptable on the grounds of “sloppiness” rather than malice.
For good measure, the Daily Record cranked up the hype for what lay ahead in the return leg in Rotterdam, with a front page splash explainiing that the Dutch fans were preparing a combat division which would have made the D-Day landing crews think twice – nothing like exonerating yourself in advance for the forthcoming inevitable embarrassment – accompanied by the CELTIC badge. The logic here being that some Feyenoord fans were planning to wear Celtic tops according to Mr. Source.
In all honesty I can’t bring myself to belief that the consistent difference in editorial tack on such stories is explained away as mere “sloppiness” rather than a deliberate agenda for whatever reason. Especialyl as we know Jack is so adept and motivated to look for negative angles and stories regarding deid club’s “rivals”.
scottc says: (334)
October 23, 2013 at 9:37 am
8 1 Rate This
blu says: (399)
October 23, 2013 at 9:07 am
Would Rule E5 not apply?
E5 Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event suffers or is subject to a further Insolvency Event which is not part of the same Insolvency Process as the Insolvency Event then suffered, the points deduction applicable in terms of Rules E1 in respect of that second or further Insolvency Event, shall be 25 points with the 15 points in Rules E2 and E3 being 25 Points.
Now there’s a question. My guess would be that it would, as the company plying their trade at Ibrox claim to be the same as the previous one. Maybe we shall find out before the Summer/Christmas/Easter*
*Delete as applicable
========================================
It should be remembered that for SPFL purposes (as with the SPL before it) the word “Club” does not refer to the generic and previously well understood meaning of association football club. The football club currently a full member of the SFA and called The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd) and operating as “Rangers” has not previously suffered an insolvency event.
Secondly, [and realistically the get-out they will use] the insolvency suffered by the former football club, The Rangers Football Club plc (now called RFC 2012 plc) which resulted in a deduction of points, came from the now defunct SPL rulebook. It did not come from THESE RULES.
If Sevco’s Rangers is subject to an insolvency event, the only sanction available to the SPFL is a 15 points deduction under Rule E1.
Stephen Keys of Cenkos getting grief from AIM in CF III latest….
Leaked Board Minutes in the possession of AIM appear to contradict what they have apparently just been told by Cenkos on behalf of RIFC – that there HAD been a vote of no confidence in MM passed – actually he was sacked – and that there HAD been leaks. The fact that such a confidential document was now in the hands of AIM evidenced this.
As the leaked minutes say :
“5.3 Given the concerns about confidentiality, credibility and professional conduct and the impact on regulators, a motion was proposed to remove Malcolm from the position of Chairman and as a director of the Company following the completion of the investigation. It was decided that Malcolm should not attend to any Non-Executive duties in the meantime and would not be involved in the direction or detail of the investigation.
The resolution was passed by a majority of directors.
The meeting then ended.”
How did Cenkos respond to AIM? Is this why they walked?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Craigy in court:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/craig-whyte-in-housekeeper-poison-threat-claim-1-3153337#.UmfabzOAGKw.twitter
I hope you all remember my posts mentioning Craig Whyte’s floating charge from a few weeks back? And the movement on the supposedly irrelevant The Rangers FC Group at Companies House in August of this year?
Now obviously this is completely unrelated 😛 but as far as I’m aware BDO’s six monthly report is due on the 31st October. They then have to release that report to creditors within 6 weeks of the aforementioned date.
I wonder what will be in said report?
The 12th December is shaping up to be quite the key date (6 weeks after 31st October).
However something else is supposed to be happening around this time- namely the announcement of the AGM (which must take place by the 31st December, and must be announced at least 21 days beforehand).
Can’t see it happening, can you?
Bartin
BartinMain says: (100)
October 23, 2013 at 3:26 pm
However something else is supposed to be happening around this time- namely the announcement of the AGM (which must take place by the 31st December, and must be announced at least 21 days beforehand).
Can’t see it happening, can you?
+++++++++++
According to our free and fearless press, the AGM will be rescheduled for the end of December. The spivs would just love to hold it sooner – but the Big Hoose is too busy between now and then- honest!
Just as well they’re dealing with idiots, otherwise questions would be asked.
HP, I actually think that the rule, as is, should apply to Rangers if there is another insolvency event and the club would be subject to a 25 point deduction. But then, I use common sense and learned gentlemen chairing SPL tribunals and FTT tribunals manage to arrive at decisions that fly in the face of logic and common sense.
Nicky Clark booked for goal celebration against Brechin. Confirmed after phone call to SFA. Will not bore you with this again. Felt it needed clearing up – conflicting views on what happened
BartinMain says: (100)
October 23, 2013 at 3:26 pm
I hope you all remember my posts mentioning Craig Whyte’s floating charge from a few weeks back? And the movement on the supposedly irrelevant The Rangers FC Group at Companies House in August of this year?
==============
Sorry, remind me. The Rangers FC Group. that was Craigy’s vehicle – Worthington or something?
And “the movement”?
Sorry too many plates spinning to keep up at the moment.
Smugas says:
========================
If I remember correctly The Rangers Group was the new name for Wavetower.
That is the business which bought the shares from MIH making it Rangers’ owner, but also bought the debt from Lloyds (along with the floating charge) making it the biggest creditor.
Presumably they are listed as a creditor with the liquidator and if there are any assets to divide up they will be near the head of the queue. Behind anyone with a fixed charge presumably. Again if I remember correctly there were certain things excepted from the floating charge.
The Big Tax Case still lives!
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/has-the-court-of-session-today-made-a-decision-which-will-win-hmrc-the-big-tax-case/
I wonder if The Herald will comment further on the Champions League violence and vandalism in Glasgow after reading police reports. Maybe the reporter could have made a quick phone call to Pitt Street before embarking on his Mediahouse cut & paste job?
Ajax football fans are being investigated by police over their behaviour during the Champions League tie against Celtic. Police Scotland confirmed no Dutch fans were arrested during the group stage game at Parkhead on Tuesday night. After the home side scored the opening, members of the away support were seen tearing up seats at Celtic Park and appeared to clash with nearby stewards.
On Wednesday, the force said it was reviewing CCTV images from the match and would share information with their Dutch counterparts to identify the individuals involved. It followed from an incident in Glasgow Central Station involving the Ajax supporters at around 10.45pm on the night before the game.
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “An investigation is under way into the behaviour of a number of Dutch supporters at the match on Tuesday. “CCTV images are being reviewed and any information gleamed will be shared with our Dutch colleagues in an attempt to identify the individuals involved.”
During the Central Station disturbance on Monday around 50 fans of the Amsterdam club clashed with police. As a result of it two arrests were made, the British Transport Police confirmed. A force spokesman said: “A 17-year-old man from the Netherlands was arrested and detained in police custody following a disturbance, involving a large group of men, at Glasgow Central station around 10.45pm on Monday. He appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Tuesday.
“On Tuesday, a second man, a 40-year-old Dutch national, was arrested and is presently detained in police custody. He is expected to appear at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday. “Enquiries are ongoing to establish the identity of others involved in the incident.”
Ahead of the game, Dutch police had flown over to Scotland to liaise with their Glasgow counterparts in preparation for the arrival of around 3000 Ajax fans.
neepheid says: (867)
October 23, 2013 at 3:36 pm
+++++++++++
According to our free and fearless press, the AGM will be rescheduled for the end of December. The spivs would just love to hold it sooner – but the Big Hoose is too busy between now and then- honest!
Just as well they’re dealing with idiots, otherwise questions would be asked.
__________
Fixtures at Ibrox
Rangers v Airdrieonians Sat 9 November 15:00
Rangers v Forfar Sat 16 Nov 15:00
Rangers v Ayr Sat 7 Dec 15:00
I know it’s their first AGM so there’s not really any form for Rangers.
However looking at other PLCs in Scotland, whish own football clubs, past and present, how often have any of them had an AGM on a Saturday.
I’m pretty sure Celtic for example have them on a weekday but I stand to be corrected on that.
Tif Finn says: (586)
October 23, 2013 at 4:43 pm
2 0 Rate This
I know it’s their first AGM so there’s not really any form for Rangers.
However looking at other PLCs in Scotland, whish own football clubs, past and present, how often have any of them had an AGM on a Saturday.
I’m pretty sure Celtic for example have them on a weekday but I stand to be corrected on that.
——————————
Celtic won’t have 500,000,000 fans attending
Celtic don’t need a 10 foot stage with hundreds of security guards and a “quick escape” route off the back of the stage – in fact, the podium for the 2 man board will probably rival the stage set of the Rolling Stones/U2, so it’s unlikely to be put up and taken down in a single day, hence teh need for 3 or 4 weeks clear of football requirements.
Celtic don’t intend to fleece the club, shareholders, fans by stripping all value out of the company, emptying the piggy bank and selling it off for £1 to the next spiv.
the AGM won’t be on a saturday………it’s a giant squirrel (remember, the original AGM was planned for tomorrow – not a saturday)
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 2m
Old fashioned leaks.
http://i.imgur.com/kSj6muP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VDhE5oL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2pWgomR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/naLEX0c.jpg
The second and third images are from the RIFC Plc board minutes of Saturday 6th May 2013. The meeting was held at Murray Park at 11am. This was the day of the final league games for SFL3. The directors must have piled on the team bus up to Ibrox for the game.
Malcolm Murray phone in but he was at Ibrox later to sulk about not being on the pitch to see the trophy being presented.
Hugh Keevins reported it all in the Record
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-title-celebrations-raise-questions-1872119
The fourth image must be from the board meeting immediately following the end of the season. Edit. On reflection it would appear that 5.2.h in the minutes occurred at the game after the board meeting took place.
Found out. Malcolm has been a naughty boy, crying to Keevins!
So on the 30 May 2013 Rangers International Football Club plc (“Rangers”, the “Company” or “Club”) announced a Board Change to the stock market:
“The Rangers International Football Club plc today announced that Walter Smith has been appointed Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Walter Smith is widely acknowledged as the Club’s most successful manager. Under his leadership, the Club enjoyed two immensely productive spells and he is one of the most highly regarded figures in British football.
He succeeds Malcolm Murray, who agreed to step down as chairman, and Walter Smith’s appointment was a unanimous decision of the Board.
The Board believes that the new chairman will bring stability, experience and a wealth of knowledge to the Club.” All nice and cosy.
Except, according to Charlotte, things were not alright down Ibrox way:
http://imgur.com/7FVpx8m
Walter only agreed to be Interim Chairman!
Question is: Who changed his mind and what incentives were offered?
Ajax charged by UEFA
@Pmacgiollabhain: I’m not surprised that Disciplinary proceedings have been opened against Ajax for last night. Case to be heard on November 21st
😳 what needs to be revealed for someone, anyone! To start to take notice ? Does any of what has been revealed on here today get back to the sevco support? Someone should tell them 😉
Brenda,
There are plenty taking notice. The Bears are starting to take notice, as noted here earlier they are even starting to lift material from this site. (unacknowledged)
That is a huge change in their thinking. Personally I welcome it
For those of you who like me can’t read the blurry picture, section 5 of the minutes follows:
5. POST OF CHAIRMAN
5.1 It was pointed out that Charles had sent a letter giving Malcolm Murray one notice on 20 February but that this had been withdrawn as the Chairman agreed to step down at the end of the season.
5.2 The conduct of Malcolm Murray was discussed and the following matters were brought to the attention of the Board:
(a) The Chairman attended a meeting at the SFA alone without informing the acting CEO. The SFA was expecting Walter and the acting CEO to attend and was told by the Chairman that he did not know where they were. The SFA expressed their dissatisfaction to the acting CEO
(b) SFA mentioned to the Acting CEO that the Rangers Board situation needed addressing as the SFA understood that information was leaking from the Chairman to Paul Murray who was then speaking to Keith Jackson at the Daily Record
(c) A meeting between Bryan Smart, the acting CEO and the Finance Director, Malcolm Murray was asked a number of times if he had met with Paul Murray. After denying it, eventually Malcolm admitted to having met with him on two occasions and spoken to him on several others
(d) The HR Manager was concerned at the ethical nature of Malcolm’s visit to obtain the Finance Director’s contract of employment to find a way to get rid of him. Malcolm denied this
(e) Staff had reported that Malcolm had been revealing details of the investigation following some drinks at the Player of the Year awards
(f) Ian Hart reported that he had received communication from fans alleging that Malcolm had breached confidentiality by speaking to Paul Murray and also revealing detail about the investigation
(g) The acting CEO reported that the staff at the hotel where he and Malcolm had stayed knew intimate details about the acting CEO’s remuneration discussions because Malcolm had discussed it. In addition, staff had heard Malcolm listening to voicemails on speakerphone whilst at the public breakfast table
(h) The acting CEO reported that, in line with custom and practice, he had not allowed the Chairman to attend the podium for the trophy celebrations at the final game of the season. The Chairman was not happy and the Chairman attended the pitch afterwards. However, the following day an article appeared in the Daily Record criticising the acting CEO for not allowing the Chairman on the podium.
5.3 Given the concerns about confidentiality, credibility and professional conduct and the impact on regulators, a motion was proposed to remove Malcolm from the position of Chairman and as a director of the Company following the completion of the investigation. It was decided that Malcolm should not attend to any Non-Executive duties in the meantime
Previously posted here as TW and tartanwulver, I must have changed my password and its recovery seems to have gone to some long forgotten email addy. Nevertheless, reconstituted and reinvigorated after a recent holiday, the urge to read and comment on here will not be daunted by such trifles, so new name, same old opinions!
I just checked out how the websites of the broadsheet papers in Englandshire had covered Scottish football’s latest triumph from last night’s Celtic v Ajax game. I found
Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/ Had two preview articles about the game posted yesterday, was not updated to a match report until half an hour or so ago, although the English teams’ games had full reports.
Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/ Reviews of matches featuring English teams and Barca v Milan in main section. Celtic v Ajax under ‘Scottish football’ down the page
Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/football Main section gives reports on last night’s English games in CL, previews of tonight’s matches, highlights of Milan and Marseilles v Napoli. The Celtic game is mentioned, but a long way down the page, and only under the heading ‘Messi earns Barcelona draw…’, and below reports of Porto v Zenit…and Marseilles v Napoli… and Steaua Bucharest v Basel!
I’m not someone who gauges his Scottishness by such measures, but in the absence of a halfway decent Scottish media, it is sad that to the English media, Scottish football is an almost complete irrelevance, even when mixing it with (and holding its own with) the big boys of Euro football
Bangordub says: (295)
October 23, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Brenda,
There are plenty taking notice. The Bears are starting to take notice, as noted here earlier they are even starting to lift material from this site. (unacknowledged)
That is a huge change in their thinking. Personally I welcome it
====================
If they are really lifting material from here you should be able to hear wailing and gnashing very soon when they read JL Hooker’s post.
Hector will not be denied.
For all Sevco fans who are looking in……
Who’s that coming over the hill ………
It’s the man who will finally put to bed the same club nonsense.
I wonder if the man who would be King bought a return ticket.
Eeramacaroonbar says: (38)
October 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm
20 2 Rate This
Nicky Clark booked for goal celebration against Brechin. Confirmed after phone call to SFA. Will not bore you with this again. Felt it needed clearing up – conflicting views on what happened
=============================================================
On that subject another issue needing cleared up is the allegation I’ve read on here that Charlie Mulgrew escaped a booking against Aberdeen a couple of years ago for goal celebrations. Firstly I was near the corner of the ground Mulgrew ran to and I clearly saw the Referee book him. What then set the hares running was the spurious claim made by Craig Brown on Sportscene the next night that no booking had been issued. That then prompted a number of calls to Radio Clyde the next night, who checked with the SFA the following day who confirmed Mulgrew had been yellow carded.
It is also worth pointing out in the same season Celtic had as many players booked for goal celebrations than every other team put together. Now that IS worthy of debate.