Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.
http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss
Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.
There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections. Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:
- Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
- Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
- EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
- The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.
There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:
The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.
In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.
No Independent Enquiry?
SR No
AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.
SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven. There is an investigation going on
AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.
SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.
So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later.
AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially we need somebody from the outside or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.
SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..
AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.
SR No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.
Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred. Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.
The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body? Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?
AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT Never?
It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.
Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).
Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.
Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.
Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule
Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.
Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.
Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.
Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)
Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.
Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?
If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?
Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?
SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.
Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?
Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?
Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance
AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.
SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.
AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.
SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.
AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.
SR That is part of the process of governing football, we
AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.
SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.
AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free
SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.
AT This is extraordinary I say to you again you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.
SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.
AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that
SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.
(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier, Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)
AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?
SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic) of this year when the club entered administration.
AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.
SR We didn’t fail.
AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.
SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.
AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?
SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….
AT You need some new articles then don’t you?
SR Well I think the articles
AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.
SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.
AT ?? (Interrupted)
SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.
The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.
To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of those huge tax demands, might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?
Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.
The Nature of EBTS.
AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?
SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.
Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.
The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.
(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE of that documentation was provided when requested.
This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.
How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?
What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?
It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)
However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)
From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?
By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.
It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.
Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-
(i) the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;
(ii) the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;
(iv) the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.
The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. “
Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.
Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.
Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.
AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.
SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.
AT Sometimes
SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.
Mr Regan was not being accurate here. The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?
AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?
SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.
AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.
ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.
If Carlsberg did irony!
End of Interview.
The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions
There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results
- The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
- The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.
The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either
- there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
- or
- Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
- This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
- This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.
Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?
Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.
Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision
[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in
breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
Outline of the Scheme
[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)
[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:
“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”
He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.
However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.
[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.
[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.
[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
😉 SSB 😀
Just to be clear. I have never said that TRFC is “the same club”. It is simply something that does not interest me, because I have yet to see the word “club” clearly defined for the purposes of the discussion.
I have some knowledge of HMRC, tax law, company law, and business practice. I try to provide a bit of input on such matters to try to help the discussion on this forum.
So I’ll go back to my starting point for the very last time. HMRC (or any other creditor for that matter) cannot claim the sums they are owed by RFC from TRFC or RIFC, just because P Murray comes out with a load of garbage in a chairman’s statement. He can confuse club and company in his ramblings as much as he likes, that is between him and his company’s shareholders. It does not in any way change the legal basis of debt. HMRC’s claim is now against the liquidators of RIFC. That is where the debt now lies.
beatipacificiscotia says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:13 pm
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:07 pm
“Business is a word like club and many other words. It has many meanings, you have to consider it in context. So we really are into the minefield that is semantics.”
+++++++++++++
Is there nothing betting going on than arguing semantics? It is a pointless debate if you don’t have agreement on fundamental definitions.
=======================
I agree 100%.
Rate This
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:24 pm
===============
I agree with everything in that post but the key point is that had Sevco bought “the business” then they would be liable for all the debts. They bought the assets of the hopelessly insolvent business and set up a business of their own. The hopelessly insolvent business is in liquidation. It is beginning to look like the new business is heading for insolvency unless someone stumps up loadsamoney (copyright Harry Enfield) as a so called investment rather than loans. So called investment because at over 50 years of age there is more chance of me seeing the next total eclipse of the sun over the UK than there is of seeing a ROI on that particular investment
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Just to be clear. I have never said that TRFC is “the same club”. It is simply something that does not interest me, because I have yet to see the word “club” clearly defined for the purposes of the discussion.
I have some knowledge of HMRC, tax law, company law, and business practice. I try to provide a bit of input on such matters to try to help the discussion on this forum.
So I’ll go back to my starting point for the very last time. HMRC (or any other creditor for that matter) cannot claim the sums they are owed by RFC from TRFC or RIFC, just because P Murray comes out with a load of garbage in a chairman’s statement. He can confuse club and company in his ramblings as much as he likes, that is between him and his company’s shareholders. It does not in any way change the legal basis of debt. HMRC’s claim is now against the liquidators of RIFC. That is where the debt now lies.
==================================================================================
Neepheid…. “HMRC’s claim is now against the liquidators of RIFC. That is where the debt now lies.”…my parenthesis (brackets to most of us!)
Neepheid…such a succinct phrase..and so accurate…except for “RIFC”, you do of course refer to RFC(IL), I am sure ❗
Would all posters of this glorious blog please take note of this post from Neepheid…but do not hold your collective breath, since neither HMRC nor BDO will be taking any action, at least not in my lifetime!
Is that not the crucial distinction between admin and insolvency though. Under admin a la hearts the business can be passed on precisely because the creditors have accepted a p in the pound settlement whereas under liquidation they haven’t?
Genuine question, not a statement.
bfbpuzzled says:
and “…you did it for Randolph Scott” line…! 😎
April 1, 2015 at 6:42 pm
Paul Murrays statement reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the Sherrif holds himself hostage by holding a Gun to his own head -I do not know why ” mismanagement in recent years ” that was you and the glib one You can fool some of the people etc, do they believe this stuff themselves, if so thee is some potent form of self hypnosis to forget going on!
========================================================================
Bfbpuzzled…whilst having seen the movie more than a few times, the only scenes I can readily recall are the baked beans “aftermath”, aka farting scene, 😳 , the punching and felling of the horse
Maybe I need some self-hypnosis since this Barolo doesn’t seem to work any more!
Smugas says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:55 pm
Is that not the crucial distinction between admin and insolvency though. Under admin a la hearts the business can be passed on precisely because the creditors have accepted a p in the pound settlement whereas under liquidation they haven’t?
Genuine question, not a statement.
____________________________________________________
Yep, its about agreement – or – if you prefer – consent.
The creditors get ‘screwed’ by the company in both cases (successful administration(CVA) or liquidation).
But in an administration which is exited via a CVA, they consent to it, whereas in liquidation, they do not!
The distinction is VERY important, morally I feel, and the ‘sexual’ parallel is pretty apt, albeit a bit distasteful.
I’ve just read Graham Spiers article in today’s Herald re Paul Murray. There is the predictable start that Murray is a good guy. To Spiers, all Rangers directors of that particular type are good guys. He never tires of telling us so. Then there are the usual soundbites about whether Murray did enough in his previous stint. Then he ends with Rangers just needing to get Derek McInnes or Billy Davies in place and the top league title and CL participation will follow as soon as 2018.
Spiers may be better educated than many WATP screaming tabloid hacks, but his thinking is clearly no different.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 1, 2015 at 8:16 pm
____________________________________________________
Yep, its about agreement – or – if you prefer – consent.
The creditors get ‘screwed’ by the company in both cases (successful administration(CVA) or liquidation).
But in an administration which is exited via a CVA, they consent to it, whereas in liquidation, they do not!
The distinction is VERY important, morally I feel, and the ‘sexual’ parallel is pretty apt, albeit a bit distasteful.
============================================================================
Resin_lap_dog…to quote the late Dick Emery…!Ooooh…you are awful, but I like you…!”
With the season end fast approaching, and with TRFC ‘likely’ to be involved in the play-offs in the Championship…
Does anyone seriously believe that TRFC will NOT gain promotion via the play-offs ?
We have been told umpteen times by the SMSM, assorted ex-players and managers, the SFA and SPFL itself that ‘Rangers’ must be in the top league – for the good of ALL Scottish football, [i.e. it’s not just for the good of TRFC only apparently. 🙄 ]
There is yet another big stink coming our way in these play-offs. Guaranteed.
Based purely on my own wild speculation, of course.
StevieBC says:
April 1, 2015 at 8:39 pm
=================================
I for one believe they will have enough momentum to get themselves through the play offs. What concerns me is if they MUST be in the top league, then clearly not doing well in that league is not acceptable either. So if they are in it, MUST they win it?
Is anyone aware of the terms of Mr Ashley first £5 million loan to the board, as in what is the time period for payback?
Taking on Mike Ashley the Rangers Way from 200%
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/766217836?-11344:801
From the footyblog
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/766200835?-11344:801
Essexbeancounter -it is on You Tube search “Don’t move or the (insert word which is racist and got Clarkson into bother ) gets it” it will comeback to you – I preferred The Producers – Again the opposite of TRFC Max Bialystock ” if you’ve got it baby flaunt it!”
Today’s article by Graham Speirs in the Herald demonstrates perfectly why a once-proud paper is now gasping for breath ;
In some respects a little like its subject matter of the Rangers football club.
Both,I fear, are busted flushes, dying on their feet.
Who, I wonder, will meet their Maker first?
Mr G. Suck v Mr M. Ashley
http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=26986
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on Rangers after rejecting CVA:
“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years.
“A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club.
“This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.
“So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route.
“Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox.
“It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA.
“Rangers can make a fresh start.”
—————————————————————-
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/hmrc-calls-administrators-rangers/524397
The Revenue issued the following statement: “Liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years.”
Placing the club in the hands of the liquidators is also expected to kick off a detailed investigation into the financial affairs of Rangers over the past two decades.
—————————————————————-
Here is a link from The national Archives
Feb 06 2014
It provides an insight to the views of HMRC, in particular page 2.
“It is important that our customers know that if they choose to engage in tax avoidance **we will be relentless in pursuing them**. ( my underline) Many promoters of tax avoidance schemes promise large tax savings, and will often say their scheme is completely legal and unlikely to be challenged by us. **But we will challenge tax avoidance and will take legal action against schemes whenever possible.** ( my underline) Instead of the tax savings they hoped to achieve, people who use tax avoidance schemes run the risk of wasting money on fees for a scheme that does not work, and will have to spend time dealing with an in-depth investigation by us into their tax affairs.”
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140206164515/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/briefings/briefing-avoidance.pdf
(Charles de Batz-Castelmore) d’Artagnan, if you are looking in see **.
😯
Of course you can use http://archive.tsfm.net/index.php/2012/08/26/the-rangers-saga-as-it-happened/comment-page-10/
Once again I shake my head at our SMSM’s grammar, you would think that Gary Ralston (DR) would know the difference between “duel” and “dual” when writing about influence at Ibrox. Three times he misspelt the word in his column. No doubt he’ll blame his App or Tablet thingy. On another topic, Roger Hannah was in fine Level 5 form tonight on SSB, his take on MA is that the SFA should kick the can so far down the road that they can say he no longer has any say in the running of TRFC and nothing to see here, let’s move on. What a pillock.
valentinesclown says: April 1, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Is anyone aware of the terms of Mr Ashley first £5 million loan to the board, as in what is the time period for payback?
===============================
Go back to the original RNS
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=RFC&ArticleCode=l9lz3bhr&ArticleHeadline=10m_Credit_Facility__associated_26_RRL_transfer
“There is no specified repayment period for the first tranche of the Facility.”
easyJambo says:
April 1, 2015 at 9:03 pm
valentinesclown says: April 1, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Is anyone aware of the terms of Mr Ashley first £5 million loan to the board, as in what is the time period for payback?
===============================
Go back to the original RNS
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=RFC&ArticleCode=l9lz3bhr&ArticleHeadline=10m_Credit_Facility__associated_26_RRL_transfer
“There is no specified repayment period for the first tranche of the Facility.”
————————————————-
Thanks
So, MA is going to invest £60m in NUFC (various English rags)
With MA/NUFC “making” £100,000 per NU player at ibrox (IF promoted)
I can’t get the thought out of my head of several DS juggernauts arriving
and 600 NU loanees clambering out the back (some with no legs)
crawford says:
April 1, 2015 at 9:14 pm
So, MA is going to invest £60m in NUFC (various English rags)
With MA/NUFC “making” £100,000 per NU player at ibrox (IF promoted)
I can’t get the thought out of my head of several DS juggernauts arriving
and 600 NU loanees clambering out the back (some with no legs)
______________________________________________
– the intro bars to “Suicide is painless” tinkle out over Edmiston drive…
– A whirr of helicopter blades thrumms and a tannoy crackles into life…
– “Attention all Personnel. Incoming wounded…”
A whole new definition of ‘Helicopter Sunday’ is coined at Ibrox…
Courtesy of MASH…
😈
…And… CUT!
essexbeancounter says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:52 pm
I am agreeing with Essex again
Typo aside, Neepheid is spot on.
Can anyone enlighten me with regard to the club/membership licence to remain in the league; is there a requirement for audited accounts?
I know that there aren’t really rules, more guidelines, where some companies are required but just thought I’d ask. There used to be a deadline sometime in March or April.
I think there used to be under the SFL/SPL but not so sure now.
scapaflow says:
April 1, 2015 at 10:33 pm
essexbeancounter says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:52 pm
I am agreeing with Essex again
Typo aside, Neepheid is spot on.
========================================================================
Scapa…this concept of agreeing with a fellow blogger must cease…and immediately…I insist…or I will tell your wee brother…
justshatered says:
April 1, 2015 at 10:45 pm (Edit)
The Rules are found in National Club Licensing 8.11 and 8.12 on SFA Site Finance and Legislation but you can see tham at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2ReVVfeGlMaEZfWWs/view?usp=sharing
They are images and if font is not large enough use the magnifying glass symbol on the pageto r increase or the the zoom settings via the small gear symbol at top right of web browser if using Internet Explorer.
TRFC are at Entry level and accounts have to be submitted by 31st March.Note discretionary powers of the Licensing Committee at 8.12.
Edit note. Misread the doc forgetting that SPFL now inluded TRFC when the SPL as in earlier versions did not.
Not sure how many of you follow Ewan Murray on twitter. It can be hard going at times but he doesn’t hold back when it comes to sticking it to those in the Scottish media covering sport.
Among many other groans he’s quite miffed about the meagre coverage of the Hearts/Save the Children story. I sometimes think he’s a lurker or contributor on this blog as he reflects a lot of the sentiments expressed.
Would he do a podcast interview? Whatever, certainly my type of bawbag 🙂
Re neepheid’s comments yesterday (which I confess are starting to haze so I’ll have to reread) I agree too on the non liability for RFCold’s tax albeit they do seem keen to test Phoenix rules to the letter.
I’m still not comfortable with the ‘business out of liquidation’ bit. To accept that is to parcel up ‘the club’ as a simple asset that is distinct to the other assets like bricks and mortar and, crucially, the liabilities. You are essentially accepting the franchise model and, more importantly accepting debt shedding without the consent of the creditors. That will make it harder for other clubs to attain credit and opens the door wide to the CW’s and Brooks Milesons of this world.
Sorry to reopen and happy to be proved wrong.
Jim Spence reporting that Dundee Utd have paid out 25% of £6.3 in recent transfer fees to unnamed parties as commission fees. Interesting turn of events and fans groups are asking questions. Do our resident Arabs have any more info about this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32157589
scapaflow says:
April 1, 2015 at 10:33 pm
essexbeancounter says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:52 pm
I am agreeing with Essex again
Typo aside, Neepheid is spot on.
========================
Apologies to all for last night’s typo, and many thanks for pointing it out. What one of my teachers used to call a typical schoolboy error. They seem to be creeping back in, although I’m a very long way from being a schoolboy 😳 😳
Anyway, I placed myself on full Klaxon Jackson alert this morning, anticipating the ceremonial unveiling of the King’s new nomad. Nothing so far, but there’s still time. I’m far too naive to think that maybe King didn’t actually have a Nomad on 24 hour call on the day of the EGM. He surely wouldn’t mislead the shareholders on such an important matter- would he?
The people I feel sorry for are the medium sized shareholders, some of whom will take quite a hit if the shares are delisted. The fans who paid their £500 for a minimum allocation have their framed share certificate to pass on to baby bear, and a warm glow about having helped their team in its time of trouble.
McMurdo has an article up- http://www.rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.co – where he says-
Clearly the King effect has worn off very quickly in some quarters.
There will be people better positioned than me to comment, but the BBC article is misleading in that 25% of £6.3 million is almost £1.6 million, while the fans’ groups are wondering about a sum under one third of that, a still not unsubstantial half a million pounds.
I assume payments to players, agents or other clubs (such as Queens Park) would explain the other £1 million.
What the affair suggests to me is that, as ever, it is difficult for clubs with limited amounts of fans coming through the gates to compete for success in Scotland, and also that Stephen Thompson, who I understand has not always been held in high esteem by sections of Dundee United’s support, has lost the confidence of the biggest supporters’ groups.
Auldheid says:
April 2, 2015 at 1:26 am
justshatered says:
The Rules are found in National Club Licensing 8.11 and 8.12 on SFA Site Finance and Legislation but you can see tham at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2ReVVfeGlMaEZfWWs/view?usp=sharing
They are images and if font is not large enough use the magnifying glass symbol on the pageto r increase or the the zoom settings via the small gear symbol at top right of web browser if using Internet Explorer.
===========================================================
Alas Auldheid, the magnifying glass feature does not seem to work successfully.
I have turned it up to the absolute maximum but still cannot find any trace of sporting integrity anywhere in the document.
Scottish Football needs a stronger Arbroath.
justshatered says:
April 1, 2015 at 10:45 pm
Re. Club Licensing – Rangers is classified at entry level in respect of the SFA’s Annual Financial Statements requirements.
(link here: http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/2015%20Club%20Licensing%20Manual%20-%20Parts%201%20&%202.pdf)
borussiabeefburg says:
April 2, 2015 at 8:48 am
___________________________________________________________
It’s an article by Jim Spence so I decided not to dismiss it like I do with most of the SMSM scribbles. It’s around £0.5m (of £6.3m) that’s gone to ‘unnamed parties’ which is a large sum of money for any Scottish club, especially when there isn’t much of the stuff around. I think Stephen Thompson comes across well in interviews and he does seem to genuinely love the club (from an outsiders point of view, anyway) but I know some fans are not always happy with him. I’m still curious to know where that amount of money would end up and for what reasons.
Red Lichtie
Blu
See my edit. SPFL clubs includes TRFC. So their accounts had to be with SFA by 31st which explains the timing of those interims.
I note from CQN that Deloitte are still auditors which suggests they employed the barge pole approach.
The SFA must have concerns and I read amongst the documents that they have powers to set conditions on granting a licence.
If that applies to TRFC then can insist on a plan showing costs are being brought under control or evidence that more money can be brought in.
Apologies for brain fart on previous post. I think old rules said SPL which TRFC were not in.
neepheid
Thanks for confronting the tedious idea that New Rangers should pay Old Rangers debts. It’s never going to happen, and if anyone spends a second thinking about insolvency and what the best outcomes from it are, it should never happen.
Going on and on about it, just because it involves the word “Rangers”, is a terrible waste of time.
But Rangers is going nowhere
To be an expert, I always thought you needed to not only ask all the right questions but ALSO to have some of, if not all of, the right answers. It seems that is not required of the newest go-to-expert of Scottish football and fiscal wisdom: David Bick, the chairman (no less) of Square 1 Consulting.
These pearls before swine sum up the dire situation at RIFC and the dearth of sensible thinking about real world solutions: “You can’t run a top flight club these days on the numbers. The disparity with the Premier League in England is now enormous. Yes, Rangers needs serious investment. Yes, Rangers needs to get back up into the Premiership. But Rangers is going nowhere. If they are confined to Scottish football are they able to make a case for serious investment?”
David, let me add to your wealth of wisdom. English football points and laughs at The Rangers and their ridiculous pompous claims of greatness and their inability to arrange a piss-up in a brewery. English football is more likely to invite the Gibraltar national side to join the EPL/EFL than The Rangers because they have more to offer. As for your “needs serious investment” – where is that to come from David? How is that to work David? Back to square one I guess eh David?
Btw I may have “But Rangers is going nowhere.” printed on a T Shirt if I can’t get one at Sports Direct.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/struggling-rangers-urged-to-leave-scottish-football-to-fulfil-massive-202199n.122210871
blu:
April 2, 2015 at 9:20 am
“Part 2 Section 8
For a Limited Company:
The club shall be required to provide a copy of its annual financial statements which have been approved by the Directors. The financial statements shall consist of, as a minimum, a Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet. Approval shall be evidenced by the appropriate signatures on the face of
the financial statements.
For an Unincorporated body:
The club shall be required to provide a copy of its annual financial statements which have been approved by the club
members at a General Meeting. The financial statements shall consist of, as a minimum, a Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet. Approval by members shall be evidenced by the appropriate signatures on the face of the financial statements, or the appropriate Extract of Minutes. The statements shall refer to the period ended 2014.”
….. there’s that word again… “UNINCORPORATED”….. a very important word when considering which “BUSINESS” was purchased from the *Rangers FC PLC (In Liquidation)…
RIFC PLC will be delisted! There is a cats chance in hell that “un-audited” accounts for the incorporated Football Club will be accepted by any potential NOMAD……. unless of course Craig Whyte has a NOMAD Company 😉
I’m sure King knew this already……. “BIG” PR drive coming soon!
Firstly let me recognise the success and democratic nature of Rangers First. They are clearly commited Rangers supporters and have collectively invested a significant sum to try and influence events at Rangers for the better.
The long term nature of the investment ( hopefully from their point of view there is no event that threatens this ) means that they will be a strong voice on a permanent basis. As long as reasonableness is part of their influence they can only be a force for good at Rangers.
I have had a number of conversations on twitter with Richard Atkinson ( Ex St Mirren director) regarding RF and he has been courteous and informative. Thats also an encouraging sign and a recognition that all influential bodies within Scottish Football are better served by engaging with other clubs and other supporters.
I would suggest though that the easy part has been achieved by RF. Thats not to underplay their achievements, but I believe the more difficult part of their brief starts from here on in. RF played a significant part of removing a board which was unpopular with a section ( although not all) of the support. As supporters of other clubs have learned boards are at their most vulnerable when on field results are poor and finances are precarious. It is much harder to hold boards to account when results are good and finances robust. Whilst Rangers are still miles away from good health on and off the field there seems to be a reluctance within RF to be as active in questioning the actions and statements of the new board. There may be valid reasons for this , but it is a concern that there has been silence on many issues.
RF have a responsibility, I believe, to publicly question the Rangers board on recent events. They then have a responsibilty to inform members on their findings and on their concerns if they have any. Should RF have no concerns on what has happened at and surrounding Rangers since the EGM I would suggest they are not fulfilling their remit.
1 What happens if Rangers delist from AIM. Richard Atkinson suggested there would still be a market for buyers and sellers of shares, whilst acknowledging it would be much more burdensome on time to have to contact shareholders individually via the shareholder register.
I would go much further than Richard . It will be incredibly time consuming for a potential buyer to purchase shares. There will be no market maker , as in a listed plc. Time and cost will be spent approaching many who have no interest in selling . This will take the opportunity away from many potential small shareholders and larger potential shareholders will likely look elsewhere for investment opportunity.
How would RF reconcile this with the aims of an engaged shareholder body . However even this process could potentially be under significant threat . Sports Direct have recently refused to provide a copy of their shareholders register to a shareholder. Further they have threatened the shareholder with court action.
What guarantee is there that RIFC will provide public access to their shareholders register ?
What happens if they refuse ? How will buyers and sellers find each other.
What happens if RIFC only make the register available to selected shareholders ? What is RF’s view on this ?
I have asked Richard this question a couple of times on twitter without response. It is an important area for those who wish to invest in their club. Individuals should be able to buy and sell on a basis that does not involve RF should they choose.
2 The recently produced interim accounts included consolidated figures from Rangers Retail. There is a question on whether this was appropriate given the voting control on financial matters has always rested with Sports Direct and not RIFC. This is the type of question RF are ideally placed to ask and to inform all members of the response
3 Paul Murray’s statement about mismanagement of recent boards was quite rightly ridiculed by Graham Spiers and Tom English , given Murrays own role in irresponsible and ineffective boards . Not to mention the inaction he personally took over tax and registration issues which have caused so much conflict with other clubs.
4 Paul Murray’s statement regarding Deloitte’s was misleading at best. It was incomplete and provided no context for either shareholders or fans.
5 Paul Murray’s disingenuous statement about Dave King waiting for SFA approval before he invests. There is nothing to stop King investing and King had already made public statements that he would invest regardless of approval.
Points 3, 4 and 5 are exactly the type of issues a fan group should be raising. I am certain that should Llambias have made any of these statements then RF would have been extremely quick to comment and to condemn. A fan investor group should not be in the business of silence on important issues . Equally they should not be influenced in their actions by who is in charge of the board.
Finally there was silence over the embarrassment caused when one of their own was appointed to the board and then was forced to resign within days. RF have played an important role in trying to rehabilitate Rangers. However it seems as if they view the job as having been done with the removal of the board. That would be disappointing as their role should be to hold all Directors accountable at all times.
I love a big reveal and this one is going to be a doozy!
I can see it now, Murray (P) is smiling one hell of a smile as banjaxes all them bampots and doubters late this he very afternoon when he announces the new Nomad.
Them MSM boys had better have the right filters on their cameras because that smile will eclipse the Sonic hairstyle and burn retinas half a mile from Ibrox. Small children will be swept off their feet as the wave of smugness radiates at the speed of sound. And Ibrox summer time will last a thousand years.
You heard it here first!
Barcabhoy says:
April 2, 2015 at 10:37 am
“How will buyers and sellers find each other”
If I can take the case of Aberdeen FC, the process is relatively simple. (I bought shares for my son a few years ago.)
Aberdeen has a nominated stockbroker who operate a matched bargain service that gets buyers and sellers together.
I think a bigger question will be around the share price. De-listing allows revaluation of the shares. As I have asked before, where is the value that supports the RFC share price?
Part 2 Section 8
For a Limited Company:
The club shall be required to provide a copy of its annual financial statements which have been approved by the Directors. The financial statements shall consist of, as a minimum, a Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet. Approval shall be evidenced by the appropriate signatures on the face of
the financial statements.
For an Unincorporated body:
The club shall be required to provide a copy of its annual financial statements which have been approved by the club
members at a General Meeting. The financial statements shall consist of, as a minimum, a Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet. Approval by members shall be evidenced by the appropriate signatures on the face of the financial statements, or the appropriate Extract of Minutes. The statements shall refer to the period ended 2014.
Clubs will provide this information as follows –
SPFL clubs – by 31 March 2015
All other clubs – by 30 April 2015blockquote>
Appendix 3 of The Rules of the Scottish Professional Football League also refer:
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthescottishprofessionalfootballleagueasat19january2015_1422995033.pdf
……………………………………………………….
From the above excerpt is it correct to deduce that a “club” must be either incorporated as in a limited company, or unincorporated, i.e. a club with members.
Is this therefore verification that the SFA believe the incorporated club and the company (with the accounts, balance sheet and directors) is one and the same? Shirley no!!!!
Also from the McMurdo quote above
“Lastly it is likely that if no Nomad is in place by close of business Thursday the club will face permanent delisting”
Can a “club” be delisted? Is McMurdo also saying the club and the company are the same entity, even though in this case the company facing possible de-listing (RIFC) doesn’t even run a football club, although one of it’s subsidiaries does.
What is it they say about the problem of perpetuating a lie?????
redetin :
April 2, 2015 at 11:02 am
Barcabhoy :
April 2, 2015 at 10:37 am
Its very easy to purchase shares in a PLC via a broker. (Aberdeen FC are a PLC)
What is more difficult is finding buyers for “shares” in a delisted company with no credit line and a Company that appears to deliberately confuses itself with a Club /Holding Company…. Remember TRFC LTD are the “Football Company” ….. The PLC was merely a Company for raising funds… (no laughing at the back)….. What exactly would fans be purchasing?
A recently disgraced *Rangers board member made a big issue of them phoning around to get proxy votes. The same could be done for shares I presume.
Only, in that instance, you have to have a willing buyer. You also have to have a willing seller.
I believe cool headed “investors” may offload but at a price that still makes them a modest profit. Otherwise, why sell? This could be costly (to those with a real interest in *Rangers) if no-one panics or blinks… The only real purchasers in this scenario are the so called (or daubed) RRM.
Fans (stakeholders) have proven before they just do not have the cash to invest. Their input will be Season Books. Only that (outside of a Sarver type billionaire investor) IMO, will steady the listing ship. But for how long……?
We will soon witness a “hearts & minds” operation as we have never seen the like before……. ROLLUP ROLLUP!
Re PMG’s latest
Journalist involved in ‘asks probing valid and relevant question and gets (presumably) honest answer’ shocker.
Response From Deloitte
So this auditor malarky was all dead simple all along. But after all these years Murray (P) is having difficulty adjustibng to: “The one thing I would say on that is you can rely on us to give you total transparency, total honesty and total openness.”
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/response-from-deloitte/
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/response-from-deloitte/
I have just received this response from a spokesperson on behalf of Deloitte
“We confirmed to the Rangers board in November last year that, following the completion of our duties as statutory auditors for the year end 30 June 2014, we would not be seeking to be the group’s auditors for the 30 June 2015 year end.
“The audits of all the group’s companies were completed in January 2015. We understand that the board is in the process of appointing new auditors and we will work to ensure a smooth transition to the new firm.”
Perhaps one of the questions PMacG could ask is, why did the old board not notify AIM or the shareholders?. Or why did Deloitte not notify AIM or Companies House?
Deloitte claim that the audit was complete to January 2015. Therefore appear to have still been in the employ of RIFC, despite claiming “we would not be seeking to be the group’s auditors for the 30 June 2015 year end.”
So why are the accounts not released as “audited”?. What has happened in the period from January 2015 to 31st March 2015? and more importantly why have Deloitte not stayed on for the remaining few months to qualify or audit the year end……..?
Phils follow up to Deloittes response.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/more-questions-for-deloitte/#more-6099
Morning all.
Wrt Phil, I seem to recall one of his posts from January where he informed us that the £278k monthly “rental” payment had risen to £500k.Indeed it was the non – payment of this sum that caused the panic just before Xmas.
I’m only mentioning this as,if Phils info is correct,then that could mean another £2.6m p.a. Disappearing out the door.
Deloitte completed the audit work for the 13/14 accounts in January 2015. The interims to end December 2014 are a separate matter. They is no requirement for a formal audit. The issue really is around Paul Murray’s presentation of this and the fact that auditors don’t appear to have been appointed at the AGM in December, something directors have an obligation to do (and presumably the NOMAD to verify).
RIFC Articles of Association clause 13 – General meetings:
TBK says:
April 2, 2015 at 12:07 pm
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/response-from-deloitte/
I have just received this response from a spokesperson on behalf of Deloitte
“We confirmed to the Rangers board in November last year that, following the completion of our duties as statutory auditors for the year end 30 June 2014, we would not be seeking to be the group’s auditors for the 30 June 2015 year end.
“The audits of all the group’s companies were completed in January 2015. We understand that the board is in the process of appointing new auditors and we will work to ensure a smooth transition to the new firm.”
______________________________________________________
Guessing this hangs on the semantic difference between ‘resigning’ and ‘not seeking reappointment’.
Deloitte did not ‘resign’ the contract it seems. They fulfilled all their contractual obligations, but gave notice of non renewal, along the lines of ‘We aren’t going to go through this rigmarole again. Get some other mug to do it next year!’
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 2, 2015 at 12:51 pm
Have Deloitte not just followed the lead of the likes of McCoist and McDowell.
It seems to be T’Rangers way these days 🙂
Someone mentioned the other day that ‘resigning’ auditors have to provide a reason (to AIM?) for doing so. If that’s correct how does someone find out what they stated?
nawlite says:
April 2, 2015 at 1:01 pm
They haven’t resigned. They are still, as Mini Murray said, the existing auditors and will remain such until someone new is found. They do however appear to be auditor in name only and have taken their foot of the gas and are leaving the company to freewheel.
When to they officially resign then I doubt the reasons why will be made public.
Mr Bick in the interview quoted in the Evening Times made many many preposterous claims. I am very worried that he said the sun is going to rise again, do we have any Astronomers here who can allay my fears that the end of the world is as they say nigh?
The handling of Deloitte’s handing in of their notice, for that is what it was, graphically illustrates the chaos that reigned in RIFC, and from the statements of the Virtual Chairman, still does.
The previous board has serious questions to answer, and so does W H Ireland, this chaos will not help AIM to look kindly on any request for an extension, any more than the current chaos implied by the complete lack of any functioning executive directors. Who is in day to day command at RIFC?
Barca’s post about Rangers First is a thoughtful one. But, Rangers First must first work out what their role is, was it simply about seeking regime change, or are they serious about fan ownership, with all the responsibilities that brings? If it is the latter, then I wish them well, and, would hope all the other supports across Scottish Football would as well.
incredibleadamspark says: April 2, 2015 at 9:41 am
borussiabeefburg says: April 2, 2015 at 8:48 am
___________________________________________________________
It’s an article by Jim Spence so I decided not to dismiss it like I do with most of the SMSM scribbles. It’s around £0.5m (of £6.3m) that’s gone to ‘unnamed parties’ which is a large sum of money for any Scottish club, especially when there isn’t much of the stuff around. I think Stephen Thompson comes across well in interviews and he does seem to genuinely love the club (from an outsiders point of view, anyway) but I know some fans are not always happy with him. I’m still curious to know where that amount of money would end up and for what reasons.
=================================
The Dundee United accounts just published reveal a bit more of the settlement with BOS and the transfer fees received for Robertson and Gauld.
The settlement with BOS involved an initial payment of £1.45M plus a cut of transfer fees up to 31/08/15 which could have been as much as £2.65M. That would take the total outlay to £4.1M for what started out as a debt of £4.8M.
However, on receipt of the transfer fees for Robertson and Gauld, the United Board renegotiated the contingent element of the settlement with BOS and agreed a final instalment of £1.4M taking the total to £2.85M which represents a saving of almost £2M on what was owed to BOS.
The transfer fees received for Gauld and Robertson will only be reflected in the accounts for 2014/15 and the club expects that the initial benefit will amount to £3.3M. United are set to receive further sums based on appearances and the also have a sell on clause for each player.
The Arab Trust’s figures may relate to any number of things, including the 2nd payment to BOS and a possible sell on clause in favour of Queen’s Park, so I wouldn’t jump to any quick conclusions about “commission” payments
@STVGrant: Rangers announce they have been unable to find a new Nomad and will delist from the Alternative Investment Market.
And so it begins again.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB00B90T9Z75GBGBXASQ1&lang=en
Nomad, I wanna give you devotion or not
I have to say that since Hearts slipped into and exited administration via a CVA virtually every step they’ve taken in and off the field has been admirable.
They made a very difficult choice in not retaining Gary Locke but their on-field success this season fully vindicates their decision.
They have not jumped and moaned and looked to play the poor-us victim card. Instead they have engaged with their fans, sponsors and Ann Budge has shown tremendous leadership in taking the club onto the next level. Apartt from her “rightful place” comment about regaining their place in the premiership she has been virtually faultless and not expressed any of the “entitlement” views we have seen elsewhere.
The partnership arrangement they have made with Save the Children is a wonderful initiative and her comments in today’s Scotsman articulate seem to sum up the new Hearts magnificently.
————-
“Budge’s principal aim is to continue mending the club’s reputation after several torrid years under the ownership of controversial Russian-born Lithuanian businessman Vladimir Romanov.
“It’s definitely been one of our objectives because in the business world in particular we had lost a lot of goodwill,” she said. “A number of businesses didn’t like what was going on at the club and had withdrawn support. So we had to work really hard to re-establish relationships with the business community. To a certain extent, the same was true of supporters.
“A lot of supporters had not bought season tickets or stopped coming and it was because of what they saw the club standing for at that time. It was a very important priority for us to create new values and let people appreciate what we are trying to do.”
———-
Together with their living wage commitment there is much to admire round Tynecastle just now.
I’m not a Jambo but I doff my cap to Ms Budge and her team and can’t help but finding myself wishing them every success going forward.
http://t.co/9JYGdW0Tyk
STV article re delisting
Rangers de-listed from AIM confirmed.
night terror @ 9.51 a.m
______________
It’s perfectly correct that TRFC/RIFCplc as a new legal entity founded and set up as Sevco Scotland hasno legal liability for the debts of the liquidated
club that was RFC.
It necessarily follows that it can have no legal
entitlement to claim to be RFC.
It is this simple fact of law and commerce and
common sense that makes our Football Authorities liars and sporting
cheats .They literally sold their
integrity for a lousy few thousand, and attempted
to sanction the ‘same club’ ‘lie in the 5way
agreement.
I think they felt they had Sevco by the short and curlies: pay your
football debts and you can pretend to be RFC and we’ll give that
pretence our lying support. Say ‘no’and we might not , ( as if!).
CG played it safe, and coughed up.
Tedious is as tedious does.
But Sevco/TrFC/RIFC plc are NOT RFC , even if in acknowledging that
we have to let the cheating sods off the debt-to-creditors rap.
And not being RFC means that they have No sporting title to the genuine honours of RFC.
And, of course, the dead RFC have no title tosu h ho ours as they dishonourably’ ‘won’ through the sporting cheating of SDM.
Regulatory Story
Go to market news section View chart Print
RNS Rangers Int. Football Club PLC – RFC
Cessation of listing on AIM & move to new Exchange
Released 14:00 02-Apr-2015
RNS Number : 3529J
Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
02 April 2015
2 April 2015
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers”, “The Group” or the “Company”)
Cessation of listing on AIM and transition to a new Exchange
On 4 March 2015 the Company announced the suspension of trading on AIM following the resignation of its Nominated Adviser (“Nomad”), WH Ireland. The resignation was unexpected, as WH Ireland had previously indicated that it would assist the Company in effecting a smooth handover to a new Nomad following the General Meeting on 6 March.
During the course of the last month, the new Board of Directors has been working hard, to a tight timescale, with a prospective new Nomad to complete an appointment.
Unfortunately, it has become apparent that this will not be possible.
There are two aspects to the due diligence that Nomads have to carry out before they accept appointment. Firstly, they have to be satisfied with the “fit and proper” status of the Board of Directors of the Company seeking to make the appointment. Secondly, they have to be satisfied that there are no reputational and / or historical issues with the profile and nature of the Company seeking to appoint which might adversely impact on the Nomad.
The prospective Nomad completed its checks on the “fit and proper” status of the existing and the proposed additional director of the Company and confirmed to the Company that it was satisfied on both fronts.
It then carried out its own assessment of the Company’s profile over the last several years and the issues which had been encountered. We understand this process involved discussions with the Exchange. We were advised that, following this process, the prospective Nomad was unable to take up appointment. We also understand that any alternative Nomad is liable to encounter similar difficulties and therefore the Company requires to terminate its listing on AIM. This is no reflection on the current Board or on the financial condition or prospects of the Company. It is simply the result of the well documented failings in corporate governance and management of those who previously controlled the Company. The Company understands that this resulted in AIM receiving more complaints about the Company than any other company on its Exchange over the last year. We appreciate and understand the difficulties this presented for AIM.
It is expected that cessation of the listing of the Company’s shares on AIM will become effective from opening of business on 7 April 2015.
The Company would wish to advise shareholders of the effect of the withdrawal of its listing on AIM (“delisting”)
There is no reason why delisting should adversely impact on the value of the Company’s shares or on the Company’s financial condition or prospects.
Indeed, we set out below a number of reasons why delisting may improve the Company’s financial performance, delivering additional value to Shareholders. Nor does the cessation of listing on AIM prevent shareholders transferring shares to each other privately. What it does effect is the ability of shareholders to transfer shares on a public platform.
Accordingly the Directors of the Company are in discussions designed to secure an alternative trading facility for the Company’s shareholders. One option would be for the Company to list its shares on ISDX. ISDX is the successor to the Plus platform (where The Rangers Football Club plc’s shares were traded in the past) and offers a quotes driven market for shares. The shares of Arsenal are listed on ISDX. The discussions are proceeding positively and both of the platforms with which the Company is in discussion have indicated that they are keen to see the Company admitted.
The Board is in the process of evaluating the merits of each platform and anticipates reaching a decision and commencing arrangements for a listing over the next few weeks. Both of these platforms will allow shareholders to trade their Ordinary Shares in a transparent manner.
Until a listing on one of these platforms can be achieved, the Company has put in place arrangements to allow shareholders access to a matched bargain trading facility with JP Jenkins. JP Jenkins was a founding member of the AIM and Ofex markets. JP Jenkins already has a football connection, as Millwall’s shares are traded through their facility. Further information on the JP Jenkins service is set out below.
We recognise that a number of shareholders value the benefits of an AIM listing. That is why the Board put so much effort into the appointment of a new Nomad. We regret that, because of the past actions of those with control of the Company, this has not been possible but would hope that the vast majority of shareholders will have their requirements satisfied by the trading platforms that the Company will offer.
We also believe that there are significant benefits to the Company of not being listed on AIM.
These include:
· The removal of the disproportionate amount of senior management time spent on maintaining the listing.
· the saving of significant professional fees associated with the Admission (legal, accounting, LSE and nominated adviser)
Crucially, it is the Board’s view that the Company’s future capital requirements can be met by shareholders who are not concerned about the absence of an AIM listing.
Upon the delisting the Board will ensure that the highest levels of corporate governance are maintained. It will also ensure that the Company’s CREST facility continues.
The Board will update shareholders regularly in the press and on the Company’s website at http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com on arrangements for the transition to a new Exchange.
JP Jenkins
The Company is pleased to announce that, in order to allow the trading of ordinary shares in Rangers after delisting, the Company has appointed JP Jenkins to provide a matched bargain dealing facility.
JP Jenkins is a trading division of Peterhouse Corporate Finance Limited, which is authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, a Member of the London Stock Exchange and an ISDX Growth Market Corporate Adviser and a GXG Adviser.
Shareholders who wish to buy or sell ordinary shares in the Company through JP Jenkins must do so via a stockbroker; JP Jenkins is unable to deal directly with members of the public.
Further information about the matched bargain dealing facility, including indicated prices and a history of transactions, will be available on the J P Jenkins website which is located at http://www.jpjenkins.ltd.uk
Ends
For further information please contact:
Rangers International Football Club plc
Tel: 020 7148 6143
Paul Murray
Newgate
Tel: 020 7148 6143
Roddy Watt
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END
MSCITMTTMBIMBAA
De listing it is then
http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/477
my post of a few minutes ago: have NO sporting title to the genuine honours…..
“Someone once told me, ‘Time is a flat circle.’ Everything we’ve ever done or will do, we’re gonna do over and over and over again.” – Rust Cohle, True Detective.
A perfect metaphor for why chaos continually descends on Ibrox and why some of their fans and the media don’t seem able to deal with reality.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-seven-year-itch/
I’m sure we’re going to see some excellent analysis of this development on the various TRFC forums. A contributor to Rangers Media has already come up with this gem:
“You would have thought AIM would have wiped the slate clean for a new and independent set of directors. King and Co have nothing to do with the criminals that preceded them.”
easyJambo says:
April 2, 2015 at 1:49 pm
________________________________________________
Thanks easyJambo. The world of finance occupies a space way, way above my head so I had drawn no conclusions whatsoever. It was an interesting article and I hoped someone a bit more clued up than me might possibly have some thoughts on it.
5 March 2015 – Dave King
“All I have done is, in advance of the change of board, ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. The club has to appoint them so that process can only happen after the general meeting.
“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.
“Nomads are concerned about the financial affairs of the club. It’s the one area where I’ve been able to give no more input than what I’ve read in the newspapers.
“If we succeed tomorrow, and I think we will, then we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.”
Can we take it as read that the requisitioners plan was perhaps slightly flawed and Plan B is now in operation – whatever that may be.
It was aw thae big boards fault and then they ran away. Poor us. Poor poor us!
scapaflow says:
April 2, 2015 at 2:19 pm
____________________________________________________________
Interesting wording in that statement:
“The prospective Nomad completed its checks on the “fit and proper” status of the existing and the proposed additional director of the Company and confirmed to the Company that it was satisfied on both fronts.”
Good to see that the prospective NOMAD cleared Chris Graham as Fit and Proper (nonchalant whistle)
Any evidence to support WHICH Nomad advised there were no concerns, and that this ‘no concern’ was about ‘DCK’?
Was it IA’s lot? Or was it that other lot …Brigadoon,Nessie & Yeti LLP?
Some documentary evidence would carry some weight here I feel.
If de-listing is going ahead, its only the SFA standing in DKs way now…
…that and the small matter of pumping in a diminishing number of millions.
Just a cynical thought to throw in there.
If you were going to pump in your grand kids inheritance would delisting first not give you more shares, and willing sellers of shares?
Jake Cantona says:
April 2, 2015 at 2:32 pm
______________________________________________________________
Bears need to be careful I think.
“criminals that preceded them.” is actionable falsehood, surely?
I am Not aware of any outstanding convictions (criminal or otherwise) relating to L&L et al. And Easedale minor’s is long since spent.
*There is the small matter that the current lot are trying to appoint a convicted fraudster, however I don’t think that falls within the remit of this bears statement.
*note how I can say this WITHOUT fear of being sued.