Readers may be aware that the group Fans Without Scarves have written to Celtic urging them to seek a review of Scottish football (See here)
On the back of that laudible effort, I have been persuaded to publish a letter I sent to that same board over a week ago (on 8 November)
At the time of publication, I have received no acknowledgment. Some organisations are like that, of course. (I put it down to the inferior quality of the social upbringing of their boards rather than concern for their postage bill)
The following is the text of that communication;
Mr I Bankier,
Chairman,
Celtic Football Club plc
Celtic Park, Glasgow G40 3RE
08/11/2018
Dear Mr Bankier,
“Resolution 12”
You will, of course, recall as clearly as I that, at the Celtic plc AGM in 2013, the Resolution bearing number 12 on the agenda was not formally debated and voted upon, but was adjourned indefinitely.
I understand that over the intervening years (!) a number of conversations and discussions have taken place between the Board and the immediate proposers of Resolution 12 (among whom, I should perhaps say, I was not numbered in 2013 and am not now numbered).
As an eventual outcome of those discussions and conversations, as again you will recall, Celtic plc in September 2017, shortly before that year’s AGM, entrusted to the Scottish Football Association [SFA] the task of undertaking a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which the Union of European Football Associations [UEFA] granted a UEFA-competitions licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011.
Unfathomably, it was not until May of this year that the Compliance Officer of the SFA referred the matter to the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal [JPDT]
In that same month of May 2018, evidence emerged that appeared to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the award of the UEFA licence to Rangers Football Club in 2011.
In late June 2018, and following careful consideration of that evidence, the legal representative of what is known as the ‘Res.12 Group’ informed both the SFA and Celtic plc of these doubts, passing to those bodies copies of the evidence which gave rise to those doubts.
In July 2018, The Rangers Football Club Ltd challenged the reference to the JPDT, arguing that the appropriate authority to which any such reference ought to have been made is the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS]
This challenge has apparently and inexplicably frozen all action by the JPDT.
To my eye, as a small shareholder, it appears that the Board of Celtic plc have been and continue to be at the very least dilatory and lukewarm if not yet totally remiss in looking after the interests of their shareholders.
It is now November: the reference by Celtic plc to the SFA was made over one year ago. Even by reference to the civil Courts let alone to the internal disciplinary body of a not very large sports governance body such as the SFA, that is an unconscionably long time for a reference not to have been acted upon. I now feel obliged to ask the following questions:
- Have the Celtic Board pressed the SFA to say what action they have taken vis-vis the challengemade to the legal powers of the JPDT to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of the licence ?
- If they have not done so, would they care to give their reasons why not?
- If the response from the SFA was that the matter of the jurisdiction of the JPDT has been referred elsewhere (to UEFA or to the CAS), are the Celtic Board content with that response and prepared to take such subsequent monitoring action as may be necessary?
- If the SFA have not referred the question of jurisdiction elsewhere, have the Celtic Board ascertained at what stage the JPDT’s investigation is at, or even whether it has yet begun?
- If the Board have been told that the JPDT has stalled, perhaps indefinitely, what does the Celtic Board propose doing to ensure that the investigation that they were assured would be undertaken will indeed be undertaken by the JPDT as a matter of priority, with a timetable for completion?
- Does the Celtic Board actually trust the SFA/JPDT to investigate thoroughly, honestly and deliver true judgement? Is it not time that a vote was taken to pass ‘Res 12’, based on what is now known by Celtic plc, and the matter formally referred by Celtic plc to UEFA to investigate as thoroughly as was done in the recently reported cases of the Albanian, Serbian and Kazakhstan national associations?
The Celtic Board must keep in mind their obligations to shareholders. This would be especially so where there may be grounds for suspecting chicanery on the part of others, in consequence of which Celtic plc might have been denied an actual, defined sum of money and the opportunity potentially to compete for much more in ‘prize’ money.
In such circumstances it would not be at all for the Board on its own authority simply to ignore the possibility of chicanery and dismiss the matter.
There are sufficient grounds for me to believe that the award of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011 may have been made in the knowledge that that club was absolutely not entitled to that award.
In my opinion, the granting of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers FC in 2011 is not merely a ‘sporting’ matter, but one which might conceivably, in the absence of acceptable responses from the SFA/JPDT, require reference to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
The failure to date of Celtic plc to insist that the SFA take urgent action to fulfil the commitment they made that a thorough, independent investigation would be undertaken urges me to make such reference on my own initiative as a citizen who suspects that a crime may have been committed.
However, before taking such a step, I think I will await your replies to the questions above if you would be good enough to provide such.
Yours sincerely,
name and address
There was a lot of football played yesterday and although I sat through the Sportscene Twilight edition I’m fairly sure there was no footage (not even the usual 5 minute highlights) shown of the League Cup Final. Did I miss it while making a cup of tea?
OttoKaiser@15.23
Paragraph 2 is interesting. “ Consents and approvals” required of the South African authorities. Anyone see a problem there?
Ex Ludo 15.31
Despite only watching the Rangers & Kilmarnock v Hibernian highlights i am pretty sure that there would be none shown as BT Sports own the rights to the competition.
Speedy recovery to GMS.
Allyjambo 3rd December 2018 at 14:29
==================================
Perhaps it's something e.g Alex Thomson of Channel 4 might be interested in. The chances of any Scottish news outlet going after it are zero.
I see BBC have wheeled out a former Ref (Steve Conroy) to criticise Craig Levein for his comments about Bobby Madden yesterday. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall them doing the same when Rangers savaged Willie Collum more than once recently.
A Referee's job is obviously difficult but the media don't help with their selective outrage, which seems to depend on who has benefited and who has lost out with the incorrect decision.
Slimjim@16.00
Contractual obligations aside, to show nothing of a major cup final highlights just how poor the BBC coverage is. Money talks but in this case it stayed silent.
Ex Ludo 17.52
Would have thought a highlights package of the secondary cup competition might have been within their budget.
They can't compete for the live coverage of the Premier League or Internationals but a deal similar to that of the Scottish cup would have sufficed.
Ex Ludo 3rd December 2018 at 15:40
8 0 Rate This
OttoKaiser@15.23
Paragraph 2 is interesting. “ Consents and approvals” required of the South African authorities. Anyone see a problem there?
………………
The South African authorities will know king well.
Could they scupper this deal? And if they do what then for king?
If king can’t move his money, that is not the UK courts problem.
ClusterOne@18.08
From the Big Book of Excuses page 14.
”I tried, I really did try but those pesky South Africans wouldn’t give me consent or approval. Oh and by the way I won’t be back in the UK.”
In December 2016, as part of discussions on processing Res12 ,Celtic were told that they were dealing with a criminal organisation at Ibrox and needed to up their game.
If they have, it is not evident, having been given more than enough information to do so.
Important Announcement :
It has come to my attention that Arbroath FC has been living off the proceeds of crime. Apparently some of the members of the club are criminals and have been using the club as a money laundering operation. One of them has been caught by the FBI in the USA engaging in various illegal activities.
This has been reported to the SFA and the local police. The SFA have suspended the club and barred the Board from any involvement in football. UEFA/FIFA have sent forensic football experts to assist the SFA in sorting out this blight on Scottish Football.
The police have called on Scotland Yard and Interpol and a major investigation is under way. Tomorrow's Courier and other SMSM will all carry four page exposes of the scandal.
Scottish Football needs a clean Arbroath.
Phil's latest.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/12/03/a-grenade-made-in-south-africa/
I am forced to wonder.
What do the Rangers' supporters think of the Chairman of the PLC making these revelations re the owners / funding.
Are you comfortable with this, do you think action should be taken. If so what.
I assume he just could not do it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1069659161489747968?p=v
Ex Ludo 3rd December 2018 at 18:22
9 0 Rate This
ClusterOne@18.08
From the Big Book of Excuses page 14.
”I tried, I really did try but those pesky South Africans wouldn’t give me consent or approval. Oh and by the way I won’t be back in the UK.”
………………..
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1069686001348603907?p=v
FWIW,I'd like to believe that highly paid,so called experts,will already know whether it's possible for King to get this money out of S.A. in the timescale allowed.
This doesn't of course mean that Glibby won't try & stall any such action.
You would imagine that the financial affairs of ALL investors and contributors at Ibrox will be forensically investigated after Mr King's revelation of the possibility of money laundering . I'd be affronted if I was included , but maybe they're made of stauncher stuff .
Homunculus 3rd December 2018 at 20:04
I am forced to wonder.
What do the Rangers' supporters think of the Chairman of the PLC making these revelations re the owners / funding.
Are you comfortable with this, do you think action should be taken. If so what.
========================
It appears to me, perhaps wrongly, that a succession of people since 2012 have convinced most Rangers fans that their club are nothing other than victims of vindictive haters. King has not only continued that, he has probably taken it to a new level. Therefore I don't think they will have paid much attention at all to King's statement. After all he has worked hard to convince them he himself is a victim of a vindictive Takeover Panel.
From what i can gather
The ibrox club are looking for a few million to see out the season.
Last year they got a loan from Close Brothers.
TRIFC had a share issue to help pay back this loan.
DCK's claim of criminal involvement and money laundering at RIFC?
Who would now give them a loan if there is
criminal involvement and money laundering at RIFC?
Has king passed the buck onto fellow Directors to come up with the cash.
Ie. No one will give us a loan, it is now on you my fellow Directors to come up with the cash to keep the lights on.
ClusterOne@20.14
I need to follow you on Twitter. You won’t recognise me as I use my real name on that platform but I’ll be there.
Cluster One
I follow your logic, but i don’t think that having organised criminals as shareholders would of itself be a disqualifying criteria for a bank loan.
I would imaging many of the worlds biggest companies have shareholders who are organised criminals. After all those types of individuals need somewhere to wash their money , and property now is coming under more scrutiny
The problem would be if any organised criminal was a person of significant control ( a PSC ) then bank funding wouldn’t be possible .
The bigger obstacle to a bank loan is the disastrous trading record and the fact that business is effectively insolvent if not for the revaluation of assets , which is what Murray kept on doing to enable him borrow even more .
Revaluing assets such as the value of the brand and property assets based on rebuild cost rather than market value is allowable , but any credit lending officer of any substance ignores it when the company concerned are running up huge losses and are cash paupers.
The question of how will you pay me back when asked by a financial institution isn’t going to be satisfied by “ Champions League money “ .
It isn’t going to be satisfied by offering assets as security at their claimed balance sheet value.
It isn’t going to be satisfied by trading losses year after year.
It isn’t going to be satisfied without a copper bottomed business plan showing trading profits with positive cash flow and even then any lender ,other than a lender of last resort , will want to see evidence in terms of actual results rather than forecasts
and even with all of that ,
a lender of last resort , is likely to run a mile when the guy providing the loans currently is constantly in court for refusing to abide by instruction from the Financial Conduct Authority which is the effective enforcement arm of the Takeover Panel
And as an uncomfortable little aside . The UK doesn’t have an extradition treaty with South Africa
Barcabhoy 3rd December 2018 at 23:17
I follow your logic, but i don’t think that having organised criminals as shareholders would of itself be a disqualifying criteria for a bank loan.
====================================
I beg to differ, of course it would.
Are you seriously suggesting that a bank would knowingly provide loans to organised crime groups.
Homunculus
I’d wager BP , Coca Cola, Apple and Microsoft are shares owned by the Russian Mafia.
The key isn’t whether a company has criminal shareholders but whether those shareholders have influence or can make decisions.
Rangers have 10,000 plus shareholders. Having 4 who control less than 10% wouldn’t automatically result in an underwriter refusing credit .
Especially when those shares were purchased when Rangers were a listed plc
Ex Ludo 3rd December 2018 at 22:47 ………… See you on the other side.
………………………………………
Barcabhoy 3rd December 2018 at 23:17 12 1 Rate This Cluster One I follow your logic, but i don’t think that having organised criminals as shareholders would of itself be a disqualifying criteria for a bank loan.
… and even with all of that , a lender of last resort , is likely to run a mile when the guy providing the loans currently is constantly in court for refusing to abide by instruction from the Financial Conduct Authority which is the effective enforcement arm of the Takeover Panel.
…………………….
Thanks for reply.
That was more my point that you put across much better than me.
Even after all that, and with kings claim. All they have left from ibrox are lenders of last resort. Even a lender of last resort, may after reading kings claims, may not want to have their name linked with such an ibrox organisation, and if they do they now have an even more better barganing chip when dealing with an ibrox organisation.
The terms of their loan by the lender of last resort could way heavy in their favour. Much more than usual
Time will probably tell exactly why Mr King put on record that there is dirty money behind the team playing out of Ibrox.
The only thing we can be sure is that it was not a chance remark made off the cuff.
It was done for a specific reason by a particular individual with much more experience in courts of law than your average, football club holding, company chairman.
I see in an explanation to a parliament select committee yesterday that Mike Ashley (discussing his recent HoF purchase explaining why cash negative stores couldn’t sustain the high street as is) exclaimed “who could keep 59 stores open and pay for it? Only God himself.”
Why does he have to bring Dave King into everything! Mans obsessed.
Following on from Barcabhoy 3rd December 2018 at 23:17
We are back in the situation of many hoping for a catastrophic event that will end the new club.
However, it will not be one event that does it but, as Barcabhoy implies, a series of events coming together over time that just makes the business model financially unsustainable.
It has been said many times before that nobody knows what King’s plan is or if he has some form of ulterior motive.
We know how the SA courts viewed the man, we know he likes to kick cans down the road and seems to like a costly day (or many) in court.
However, at the end of the day he has channelled some millions into the new club and somehow convinced others to do the same.
Maybe he genuinely is happy to put some of his cash into the club but clearly only on his terms. After all he didn’t gain his millions from splashing cash willy-nilly.
The problem for T’Rangers fans, is that while they currently sit top of the league, are still in Europe and have the Scottish Cup to come, the recent accounts show things aren’t getting any better behind the scenes.
I know in posts with Easyjambo, he thought things might improve with increased revenue and this season euro income from gates and prize money may help towards sustainability. However, every time you think a sustainable operation may be achievable there appears to be additional outgoings that just increase the losses year on year.
The recent statements following the AGM appear to show no change in the business model of living on borrowed cash and time.
Like the oldco, like the sugar daddy model run by Gretna and like the long term debt being carried by Hearts under Robertson and then Vlad, if serious attention isn’t taken to turning things round we all know how it ends up. It really is just a matter of time.
While clearly there are some budget buys and loan players as opposed to instead of big money signings down Govan way, King’s rhetoric and hubris doesn’t seem to be different from that of the oldco and we know that even when they were ‘at the top’ they still buggered it up.
If you want to brighten up your day, given Allan McGregor's tremendous form of late have a wee look at this.
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topic/272015-allan-mcgregor/
From the SPFL website (desktop mode) AIRDRIEONIANS FOOTBALL CLUB
Founded 1878
Billydug 4th December 2018 at 14:36
So they were . From Wikipedia .
For the 1878−2002 club, see Airdrieonians F.C. (1878).
Airdrieonians
Airdrie, North LanarkshireCapacity10,101[1]ChairmanBobby WatsonManagerIan MurrayLeagueScottish League One2017–18Scottish League One, 7th of 10WebsiteClub website
Home colours
Away colours
Airdrieonians Football Club are a Scottish semi-professional football team based in Airdrie who are members of the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) and play in the SPFL Scottish League One. They were formed in 2002 as Airdrie United Football Club following the liquidation of the original club. The club's official name was changed in 2013 with the approval of the SFAto the traditional name of Airdrieonians. As with the earlier team of the same name, this is often colloquially shortened to simply "Airdrie".
From a personal viewpoint, I believe the reactions to King's comments on criminality and money laundering have been taken a bit out of context.
King was being taken through the RIFC shareholder list by his QC, who noted that there were a few marked with a status of "restricted" He explained that the RIFC Board had taken decisions for two different groups and reasons.
Firstly the frozen shares held by BPH, Margarita, Norne Ansalt and Putney. That was due to the non disclosure of the beneficial owners of these shares, and a belief that there may be links to money laundering. The restriction was renewed at every RIFC Board Meeting.
The second restriction applied to Beaufort Nominees Limited (BNL), who had effectively been put into administration by the FBI on suspicion of criminal activity. When King mentioned that those shares were restricted for criminal reasons, it was not down to RIFC's decision, it was the FBI.
The administrators (PWC) subsequently put restrictions on trading in the shares they held on behalf of their clients, pending further investigations. You have to remember that BNL's primary function is to act as a nominee share and asset holder for multiple clients. They seldom have investments of their own. In their latest statement, PWC advised that 85% of the investments previously held by BNL had been returned to the individual clients, or to another nominee company.
I don't know if the RIFC shares held by BNL are part of the 85% or the 15% that remain restricted. It may be that the FBI has identified specific shareholdings held by BNL that are suspect and there is a possibility that they would fall into the same category as the frozen shares above.
King believed that he wouldn't have to buy any of those restricted shares and could thus exclude them from any offer. Lady Wolffe quickly knocked back that notion saying that he would have to make the offer to all shareholders, and that it would be the "third party" that held the cash who would be handing over the cash, so such a decision would not be King's.
I don't know what would happen if the third party chose not to pay out.
Edit: I can’t recall precisely what was said about the size of the BNL shareholding, although I think it was stated to be either 8% or alternatively 8M shares. Either way, it is a significant block, for which Sandy Easdale held a proxy for voting purposes. I’m sure I heard King intimate that their shares hadn’t been voted at the last AGM (for the first time ever).
EasyJambo
Thank you for the explanation. I think that's consistent with my comments on organised crime shareholders
King is a convicted criminal. It's not surprising other criminals were also attracted to becoming Rangers shareholders
The reality is that lending institutions don't go through a shareholders register before making underwriting decisions. They do receive Intel from financial bodies and if they have flagged up concerns over ownership , that would factor in lending decisions
However the fundamentals at Rangers are so bad that they wouldn't even look at Shareholders before Red flagging any application
Personal guarantees from credible stakeholders would be the only way that a loan of any substance would be approved on normal terms
If a loan was sought for say £1M and security was offered that was genuinely worth far more , a lender of last resort might take a punt on penal terms , but security of that nature is limited, does not include the Stadium, and is a real desperate measure
easyJambo 4th December 2018 at 18:18
………………..
On thinking about this share offering by king, will there be a prospectus?
If so that will cost a few quid, and when would it have to be put out? i don’t believe he has time for one.
Or in this strange case, does he need one?
A prospectus would shine a light in a dark corner, then who knows who would want to sell.
Barcabhoy 4th December 2018 at 00:47
Homunculus
I’d wager BP , Coca Cola, Apple and Microsoft are shares owned by the Russian Mafia.
The key isn’t whether a company has criminal shareholders but whether those shareholders have influence or can make decisions.
Rangers have 10,000 plus shareholders. Having 4 who control less than 10% wouldn’t automatically result in an underwriter refusing credit .
Especially when those shares were purchased when Rangers were a listed plc
==============================================
Wager what you want, the point is the the Chairman of the PLC, and largest shareholder, has said that he and the board suspect specific shareholders of being involved in organised crime. It follows that if they used the funds to buy shares in the PLC (during a share issue as opposed to private trades) then the PLC is at least partly funded by the proceeds of crime.
Any bank, or institution knowing this and then still doing business, for example providing loans, is leaving themselves open to accusations of money laundering. Particularly if there is any possibility of a future dividend, share purchase, or anything else which leads to these people receiving money from the PLC. Their criminal property will have been converted to what at first appear to be legitimate funds.
The point is not whether they exist, the point is that Dave King has said that they do, in Court, under oath. He has provided the PLC, and by extension anyone they do business with it the requisite knowledge (or suspicion) with regards these people. Bearing in mind that money laundering offences are based on " … know or suspects …" rather the person having to have specific knowledge.
You can find the interpretations of "criminal conduct", "criminal property, " etc here
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/340
As I said earlier Dave King has potentially thrown the PLC under a bus to serve his own purposes.
easyJambo
4th December 2018 at 18:18
=====================================
Just a couple of points, forgive me if I get them wrong.
Was it not Beaufort Securities who were placed into administration.
Did Beaufort Nominees not sell a load of shares to one of the fan groups.
Mibbees King's disclosure in court could also be viewed as an advert to any dodgy person who wishes to 'invest' some of their cash through RIFC/TRFC?
I know, but anything is possible at Ibrox.
I still think that whilst RIFC/TRFC are posting significant losses 'at the front door', someone or some people are carting off cash, or cleaning cash, through the back door.
Allegedly.
Speculation aside, the only certainty, IMO, is that King will most certainly NOT be transferring £19M to the UK.
[Well, certainly not his own money that is.]
Homunculus
That’s not the way lending institutions operate. They aren’t sensitive to local chitter chatter, in most cases they aren’t aware of it . The authorities only take action if organised crime is affecting or controlling the activities of the business. The business’ themselves have obligations not to facilitate money laundering if they suspect their shares are held by organised crime groups
You are ignoring reality if you think this isn’t widespread. The attached report details the extent of infiltration of business by organised crime
http://www.transcrime.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Project-ARIEL_Final-report.pdf
In the UK 5% of all business’ infiltrated by organised crime were plc’s
In parts of Scotland greater than 14% of all business’ have been infiltrated by organised crime. I’d attach images to back this up if I knew how to
Barcabhoy
4th December 2018 at 23:29
=============================================
The chairman of a PLC giving evidence under oath in the highest civil Court in Scotland is not "…local chitter chatter…" I don't really know where you are coming from with that one.
"The authorities only take action if organised crime is affecting or controlling the activities of the business." … which particular "authorities" are you talking about because that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
"You are ignoring reality if you think this isn’t widespread." totally misses the point.
It's not about how widespread it is, its about how often the Chairman of a PLC says it. I would venture that is very much the exception.
King has done it in open Court, that is a total game changer, for everyone involved. They now "know or suspect" that people are using the PLC to launder criminal property. I am surprised that you dismiss this so readily.
Homunculus
I don’t know what background you have in underwriting . I have long experience of working with financial institutions, including underwriting my own clients when providing financial agreements dor them
I’m telling you for an absolute fact that lending institutions DO NOT underwrite based on the background of minor shareholders who have no control or influence
Easy Jambo explained the circumstances of the suspected organised crime shareholders . They are not controlling shareholders and don’t have influence. They don’t tell Douglas Park or the Morgan Stanley partner what to do
Kicking Rangers just because it’s Rangers isn’t credible , especially when the real reason that Rangers are not creditworthy is much more significant . King stating it in open court has to be put into the context of why the question was asked and the explanation provided
The law may be interested in what happens to the proceeds of any shares sold , but that is an entirely different matter . A business with 4 non controlling, non influential shareholders who potentially are organised criminals out of a shareholder base of 12,000 isn’t setting any alarms off .
Kings’s cold shouldering if he doesn’t comply , or if he gets found guilty of contempt , those are matters that have significant implications for Rangers
I believe king is just jealous, and in once again trying to match celtic he has come out with all this gangster stuff. But the ibrox outfit are so skint they can’t even attract the best (if there is such a thing) Gangsters.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1070036098326388738?p=v
…………………
Ok i’ll get my coat, but not the one he is wearing.
I note that Barcabhoy and Homunculus are locking horns over Organised Crimegate.
The matter may be resolved, up to a point, if the restricted shareholders, who may or may not be crims, sell to Mr King.
That way the Authorities would only have to deal with one crim, with the bonus that they know who he is, they know where he lives and all relevant information about him is easily found in the many glowing reports about him in South African court decisions.
My reading of GASH's evidence was he was saying that because RIFC had decided to shut down the voting rights etc. of a number of shareholders they didn't feature in any calculation because either the Offer to Buy wouldn't be made to them or an acceptance by them would be rejected.
I think Lady Wolffe shot this bit of wishful thinking down by pointing out this would be beyond GASH's control.
This is all subject to the timetabling laid out being kept to. Stranger things have happened but not many
Not wanting to stir it up by I agree with Barcabhoy when he say that , I quote, "Kicking Rangers just because it’s Rangers isn’t credible , especially when the real reason that Rangers are not creditworthy is much more significant". It is wishful thinking that we in SFM often indulge in to dive in looking for scandal when it comes to TRFC. HOWEVER (apologies for shouting) the SMSM also dive in looking for scandal on regular basis so I also agree with Homunculus (I think it was him) when he postulated the outcome if some other chairman had said similar. I remember a BBC crew chasing after a Celtic bloke (?) because a company he was associated with was in the Panama papers for example?
I couldn’t provide the link but the online version of the Scotsman showing TRFC on top of another” league”. The stadium has been filled to 97% so far this season. Reasons to be cheerful I suppose.
Barcabhoy
5th December 2018 at 03:27
===========================================
I do not even really know what underwriting means, so I think that probably gives you an idea what my background is.
However that is not my point. My point is that the Chairman of a PLC admitting what King has admitted, under oath is a significant event (whether you describe it as "local chitter chatter" or not).
I would suggets it is also a very rare event and that banks and institutions will factor it into any decision they make, to protect themselves. Bearing in mind main street banks and institution are hardly flocking to provide loans anyway. Do you really think the shareholders and their friends are putting in millions, maybe even tens of millions because they fancy it.
My point is not about the influence or otherwise of fairly minor shareholders. It is purely about what King has said. It is significant because of the peculiarities of money laundering offences, which I have gone into before. He has provided knowledge or suspicion that the PLC is partly funded and owned by organised criminals. I genuinely find it astonishing that so many people are playing this down.
Anyway, I think we are at or fast approaching the circular argument point, so I will leave it.
BREAKING: Rangers charged by UEFA for pitch invasion and the throwing of objects during their Europa League tie with Villarreal Case will be heard on 13th of December.
………………..
Not Breaking.
The Rangers charged by SFA for pitch invasion and the throwing of objects during their Home game at ibrox against Celtic last season.Case will be heard on ??????
Cluster One 4th December 2018 at 20:29
easyJambo 4th December 2018 at 18:18
………………..
On thinking about this share offering by king, will there be a prospectus?
If so that will cost a few quid, and when would it have to be put out? i don’t believe he has time for one.
Or in this strange case, does he need one?
A prospectus would shine a light in a dark corner, then who knows who would want to sell.
=====================================
I'm unsure on the rules. I recall looking them up before the share placing, but found that one wasn't required because of the low number of people involved. I think the rough guide was that a prospectus was required if the sum involved was > €5m (may have gone up to €8m), and the number of people involved is in excess of 150.
That said, I doubt very much is we will see a prospectus. It certainly wasn't mentioned by TOP or King's QC.
Homunculus 4th December 2018 at 22:00
easyJambo
4th December 2018 at 18:18
=====================================
Just a couple of points, forgive me if I get them wrong.
Was it not Beaufort Securities who were placed into administration.
Did Beaufort Nominees not sell a load of shares to one of the fan groups.
=====================================
I'm aware of the "name" anomaly but I think we are still talking about the same entity. King was supposedly looking at an up to date list of shareholders supplied by their registrar (obtained by James Blair). It wouldn't surprise me to find that the name on the register is different from the trading name.
I think that Beaufort sold around 310k shares that were bought by Club 1872 in June 2016. (my recollection could be wrong and I may have the wrong transaction)
http://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-share-announcement/
From today's court rolls
A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green – Jones Whyte Law
It's just an unopposed motion, but will no doubt be a precursor to a hearing in the not too distant future.
easyJambo 5th December 2018 at 18:16
…………..
Thanks for reply
easyJambo 5th December 2018 at 18:30
3 0 Rate This
From today’s court rolls
A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green – Jones Whyte Law
It’s just an unopposed motion, but will no doubt be a precursor to a hearing in the not too distant future.
…………………..
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1070405211221622785?p=v
easyJambo 5th December 2018 at 18:25
I'm aware of the "name" anomaly but I think we are still talking about the same entity.
=============================================
From companies house
BEAUFORT SECURITIES LIMITED
Company number 02693942
Company status
In Administration
BEAUFORT NOMINEES LIMITED
Company number 07220936
Company status
Active
With regards the shares, there was certainly an earlier sale by Beaufort Nominees to the RST.
http://www.supporters-direct.scot/rangers-supporters-trust-increase-stake-in-club/
The Rangers Supporters Trust yesterday announced that they had increased their shareholding in the Ibrox club to over 2%, after purchasing 450,000 shares from Beaufort Nominees, previously controlled by Sandy Easdale. Rangers EGM is scheduled for March 6th at Ibrox Stadium.
Yesterday’s news means that the RST are now the 12th largest shareholder at the club and with proxy over additional shareholdings, currently control 3.8% of the voting power going into next months meeting.
Homunculus 5th December 2018 at 20:10
Thanks for doing the research for me.
I note that they both share the same London address on the Companies House register.
I have busy on my computer doing other stuff for most of today.
easyJambo
5th December 2018 at 20:56
Thanks for doing the research for me.
I have busy on my computer doing other stuff for most of today.
————————————————-
No problem, as ever a pleasure doing business with you.
Is the blog broken or is everybody hiding?
Not even any squirrels around?
ThomTheThim 6th December 2018 at 16:00
Was about to ask the same question pal!! ??????
https://twitter.com/scotsmansport/status/1070679958660505602?s=21
Quelle surpris !
Ex Ludo 6th December 2018 at 17:35
I wonder if the SFA suits are aware! This must have come as quite a shock for them
Barcabhoy/Homunculus various
I believe that the latter knows quite a lot about the bad men who go in for organised crime…
Ex Ludo 6th December 2018 at 17:35
https://twitter.com/scotsmansport/status/1070679958660505602?s=21
Quelle surpris !
===================
Excellent example of a simple, copy/paste effort, with absolutely no journalistic input required.
…and with the "Comments" facility switched off for good measure!
But, this Scotsman headline needs clarification, [plus a basic grammar correction];
"Revealed to Scottish journalists: Rangers has [sic] the highest borrowings in Scottish football."
As the informed Internet Bampots would laugh:
"No sh!t, Sherlock!"
The Scotsman's front page splash tomorrow… mibbees;
"Revealed: Christmas Day is on the 25th of this month!"
Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:
1. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can be wholly or partly owned by a third party?
2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?
3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?
Asking for a friend!
upthehoops 6th December 2018 at 20:09
Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:
1. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can be wholly or partly owned by a third party?
2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?
3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?
Asking for a friend!
===========================
Without checking the rules:
1. Don't know
2. Don't see why there should be any issue as long as the transaction is reflected in the club's accounts
3. Already happens with sell on clauses.
Ally and Easy could possibly help here.
i seem to remember when Gordon Durie signed for us (Hearts) there was some talk of him being "owned" by an outside group (possibly involving Gordon Smith).
Higgy's Shoes 6th December 2018 at 20:27
================================
I can't recall much about it, but found this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/978794.stm
upthehoops 6th December 2018 at 20:09
Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:
…
========================
Hmm, I think I see the problem right there UTH.
"rules" in Scottish football?
As we have observed over the years, they can be more like "flexible guidelines" than rigid rules…depending on the club in question.
So, I suppose 'your friend' needs to provide more context in order to initially determine whether guidelines or rules should be applied.
Thanks for the replies already. I remember a huge row in English football when Carlos Teves (I think) was part owned by a third party when playing for West Ham. Anyway, I will tell my friend to come back with some more hard details…
easyJambo
6th December 2018 at 20:39
=====================================
There's an interesting group.
Gordon Durie – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.
John Viola – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.
Gordon Smith – Bankrupt.
Murdo MacKay – Is that the one jailed for fraud.
Homunculus 6th December 2018 at 21:21
easyJambo
6th December 2018 at 20:39
=====================================
There's an interesting group.
Gordon Durie – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.
John Viola – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.
Gordon Smith – Bankrupt.
Murdo MacKay – Is that the one jailed for fraud.
=================================
Therein lies why I have no sympathy for anyone who goes bankrupt as a result of avoiding tax. If they subsequently suffer a mental illness, then I hope that they can make a full recovery, but it doesn't take away the fact that they willingly participated in tax avoidance schemes that didn't work.
They were all highly paid individuals that no doubt enjoyed a better lifestyle that of the majority of football fans who directly and indirectly subsidised their income. However, they clearly felt that paying a maximum of 40% tax on their income was too much to bear, therefore were all too willing to accept the advice of some financial wizard who thought their scheme was untouchable.
If those who go bankrupt want someone to blame, then go after the person who sold you the scheme. Then again I suspect that there will be something in the small print that indemnifies the vendor from such restitution.
Homunculus@21.21
Sounds like the same guy. The Gaurdian in 2009 made reference to how the Derby County fraud exposed the inadequacy of the FA’s “fit and proper” test. Ahem…
Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:
1. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can be wholly or partly owned by a third party?
2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?
3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?
——————————————————————————————–
It's interesting insomuch as a player contracted to a club and wholly owned by that club might be less prone to external influences on his game play and attitude. I accept that agents can still agigtate and speak to 'their' player but this is less binding than ownership per se.I think the EPL are dead against it but how effectively it is policed I dont know.You might try contacting the SFA at registrations@scottishfa.co.uk..I understand they are striving for transparency at every level.
Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:
2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?
3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?
——————————————————————————————–
Would not players who are on loan from their parent club meet the terms of 1&2 above?
Will TRFC be sanctioned as a new club for their European indiscretions ? Is there a distinction in the rules ? Asking for an idiot .
Homunculus 6th December 2018 at 21:21
=================================
I have to say agents underwriting deals does not sit well with me at all. You could have two clubs neck and neck for the title / avoiding the drop who want to sign the same player, but neither can meet his terms. The agents could then simply choose to finance the player towards the club they would rather won the title / avoided the drop.
paddy malarkey 7th December 2018 at 00:34
…………………..
The case will be dealt with by the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on 13 December.
https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/disciplinary/disciplinary-cases/index.html
……………….
Agents are employed by the player, albeit the terms may be onerous, and take a percentage and possibly a retainer. Third party ownership (a la Tevez) is vastly different. The third party own the commercial rights of the player. The signing club lease the player from the third party and also pay his wages, bonuses etc. Manyoo paid 3-4 million a year apparently. If the player changes club there is no transfer fee, although there may be early close out rebates, and the new club leases from the third party. Loads of complications around development fees and all the other intricacies and , of course, exploitation of players, integrity etc.
Now here in Brisbane ( brought some heavy rain with us!) I bethought myself of the fact that the Ministerial Correspondence Team of HMRC had written (after a reminder) to acknowledge my letter about Rangers living on after Liquidation.
In that acknowledgement, they said that their aim was to send me a substantive response by 29 November.
Such response had not been received by 3 December. And, of course, me now being here in Oz for the next couple of months, if the reply has been posted or will be posted soon, then I won't see it till February.
Accordingly, I have emailed as follows:
7 Dec at 21:56
Dear 'signatory of the Ministerial Correspondence Team's letter to which the ref number cited above relates'
Thank you for your acknowledgement of receipt on 8 November 2018 of my earlier letter
I was hoping that you might have been able to have met your aim of sending a substantive response by 29 November, and indeed understand that you may well have done.
Unfortunately, I had to travel furth of the UK very early on 3 December and am required to be away from home for some two months, with no one at home whom I could ask to let me know when the reply comes.
If you have already sent a reply by snail-mail, could I trouble you to email that reply as an attachment?
And, of course, if the reply has not already been sent by Royal Mail, may I ask that it simply be emailed?
Yours with thanks,
(me)