Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

ByAuldheid

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

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.

Auldheid  Feb 2015

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

5,190 Comments so far

wottpiPosted on2:50 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Smugas says:
April 2, 2015 at 2:40 pm

What you mean like crash the bus and get what is left for next to nothing?

Eh yup. Sounds like the ‘You are Sevco’ plan in another guise to me

The trouble is does DCK have deep enough pockets to not only buy up shares but also to put in the necessary ‘investment’.

Lets face it this could be the type of thing Brian Kennedy was looking for, being he was skin-flinting on the Blue Knights bid.

I have no doubt the RRM could makes moves to control more shares but it still comes down to where is the investment money coming from.

Like the SDM days you can keep looking for cash but there is a point it dries up.
Still can’t see the tens of millions needed heading towards Ibrox anytime soon.
The brand is toxic to all but RRM. That doesn’t mean its not salvageable, just makes it a very tough assignment.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on2:57 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
April 2, 2015 at 2:36 pm

Actually there is the small matter of permission from the courts. The SFA would look stupid, even by their low standards, if “The Man from Mount Florida He Say Yes” only for the courts say “David Cunningham King? Not on your Nelly Sunshine” 😉

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on3:04 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Are Jenkins really a nomad, but a bit more aimless ?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:05 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF · 35m 35 minutes ago
#Rangers directors blame predecessors for failure to get a NomAd required to remain market listed. Dave King “was passed as fit and proper”

Once again we have so called journalists misquoting what was said. The term was

“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.”

Are we sure the proposed additional director was DCK and not Chris Graham’s replacement?

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:07 pm - Apr 2, 2015


scapaflow says:
April 2, 2015 at 2:57 pm

Resin_lab_dog says:
April 2, 2015 at 2:36 pm

…The SFA would look stupid, even by their low standards…

______________________________________________________

SFA stupidity? … with you.

But what are these curious SFA ‘standards’ of which you speak? [1]

note [1] 5WA – SFA/RFC(IL)/SEVCO/SPL/SFL

(The SFA giving FPP ‘permission’ would be used by DCK to argue that he should be given leave by the court… )

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on3:19 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Was the release of interims purely an AIM requirement? If so, as it must have been known de-listing was imminent,(or intended) what was the real point of the release?

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:23 pm - Apr 2, 2015


wottpi says:
April 2, 2015 at 3:05 pm

_________________________________________________________

Are we sure the proposed additional director was DCK and not Chris Graham’s replacement?

————-

Are we arguing over the pointiness of a unicorn’s horn???

I imagine the conversation – if it happened at all – was something along the lines of the following chicken and egg scenario:

DCK: If Court gave leave and SFA passed me fit and proper, would you as our NOMAD have a regulatory problem with me serving on the board?

NOMAD: What’s the gig worth again?
Hmmm… well IF the court had given you leave, AND the SFA didn’t object, in my tentative opinion, I suppose then I probably could find a way which would allow me not to raise any regulatory objection with respect to you serving as a director.

BY the time this ascends to level 5 and reaches KJs photocopier, of course, it’s become ‘NOMAD declares DCK Fit and Proper’.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:30 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Corrupt official says:
April 2, 2015 at 3:19 pm

Was the release of interims purely an AIM requirement? If so, as it must have been known de-listing was imminent,(or intended) what was the real point of the release?

_________________________________________________________

…Transparency??? 😆

(…its the way I tell ’em!)

More likely.. burying one lot of bad news under another lot of bad news. (PR tactic)

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:31 pm - Apr 2, 2015


From Phil Macs twitter feed

TheTributeAct @TheTributeAct · 24m 24 minutes ago
Let’s get the straight.
Old board of spivs were able to get four Nomads to take them on.
Dave King & Paul Murray can’t find one?

😛

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:01 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Might I suggest that, from the RIFC statement, the only things we know to be true with any certainty (can be checked) are the names involved, references to other clubs with shares on other markets, and that RIFC is no longer listed on AIM (OK there might be something else, but you get my drift, I hope). Everything else is just PR spin.

AIM no longer have any interest in what RIFC plc say, do, or claim. They won’t challenge anything said, nor look into it’s veracity.

As no prospective NOMAD was mentioned, none will have cause to challenge what was said regarding reasons for declining the business, and I doubt they’d be interested anyway. It is, I think, entirely possible that no NOMAD went as far as checking the directors seriously as the figures spoke eloquently enough. Clearly, if there was any serious negotiations, no NOMAD was impressed enough with the new board, or their proposed income sources, to overlook the failures of their predecessors to take a punt on them. We also know that the previous NOMAD left purely on their own opinion of the incoming board members, but had no problems with the previous board that the new one seems to lay, a proportion at least, of the blame on for the failure to find a new NOMAD!

Regardless of my conjecture, if a prospective NOMAD looked at any company’s suitability as a client, surely they would only look at the individual board members if they were satisfied with the business itself and, even then, be very reluctant to hang the ‘unfit and improper’ label on anyone or any board. A lot of problems with defamation of character might follow, I’m sure.

There will, no doubt, be the odd occasion where a viable company is run by people that a more scrupulous NOMAD would deem as not being FPPs, but I doubt that would ever be published or put in the public domain, and the business would just go seeking a NOMAD further down the integrity pile! I’m sure I’ve read of at least one AIM listed company having to downgrade it’s NOMAD, more than once, to remain listed, though I can’t quite remember who it was 🙄

The following excerpt from the statement is cleverly constructed, in my opinion, to give the impression that the first thing prospective NOMADs would check is the FPP status of the board, while the conduct, results and future prospects under the new board (not mentioned, of course) are secondary to this. The way they seem to be pushing the ‘fit and proper’ aspect reminds me very much of the ‘1872’ on the back of TRFC’s strip. Something they want to emphasise that isn’t quite…

The excerpt referred to:

‘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.’

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on4:23 pm - Apr 2, 2015


T’internet is a wonderful thing. Here is a brief synopsis of what is needed to become listed on ISDX:

How to join ISDX:

The admission process for issuers is clear and transparent (unlike some organisations we know).

ISDX Growth Market

The ISDX Growth Market is our market for earlier stage, entrepreneurial companies (well they are only three years old).

To join the ISDX Growth Market, all companies are required to meet the following specific admission criteria:

1. Appoint and retain an ICAP Securities & Derivatives Exchange Corporate Adviser at all times (Neil Patey, perhaps)?

2. Demonstrate appropriate levels of corporate governance including having at least one independent non-executive director (need to buy another blazer and pair of brogues)

3. Have published audited financial reports no more than nine months prior to the date of admission to trading (I am sure Deloitte’s will be happy for the work)

4. Have at least 12 months’ working capital (Over to you DCK)

5. Have no restrictions on the transferability of shares (other than caveat emptor)

6. Issue shares which are eligible for electronic settlement (just remember to keep paying the leccie bill)

7. Companies must also publish an ISDX Growth Market Admission Document, which is less onerous than a full prospectus. More information about the content of an ISDX Growth Market Admission Document can be found in the ISDX Growth Market – Rules for Issuers. (I am sure the 120 day plan could be brought up to date for this)

8. Under certain circumstances, for example if raising more than €5 million, companies may be required to publish a full prospectus for approval by the UK Listing Authority (UKLA). The company’s appointed Corporate Adviser will confirm where this is necessary. (Nae tother a ba given the excellent, well documented business acumen of the current Board)

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:29 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I love it when a plan comes together.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on4:30 pm - Apr 2, 2015


So anyway… looking back at the scores:

Old Board said to shareholders pre-EGM that if the vote went for the requisitioners:

DCK would not be able to take up his appointment without court clearance and SFA FPP.
New Board would struggle to find a Nomad.
AIM delisting was a likelihood.

All of this was dismissed by the requisitioners as fanciful at the time but by my reckoning that’s 3/3 already chalked up to the old board.

So what’s the scores on the doors for the requisitioner’s moonbeams?

Well not much on the funding side yet (crisis loans aside)
Not much on kicking out SD contracts yet.
Some marks for effort on the ‘fans representation’ commitments. But you can knock double that off for execution.
And to be fair, King did say he wanted the club to become ‘a solid number 2’. Progress does seem to being made there, semantically at least. PM is already neck deep and seems to spreading it round with a shovel.

On the whole, pretty much what we expected here I would say.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on4:31 pm - Apr 2, 2015


“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.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So
An unnamed source has approved unnamed people to have fit and proper status to be directors

That ought to be good enough for the SFA to give FPP approval to anybody from TRFC willing to renege on SFA fines

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:32 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Has any of the gentlemen of the press asked if RIFC actually meet the requirements of ISDX Growth Market, in respect minor details like going concern, and access to working capital?

To be kicked off AIM, Aim for fecks sake, for being beyond the pale is bad enough, to be refused access to ISDX, now that would be hilarious

http://www.isdx.com/files/pdf/ISDX-Growth-Market-Practice-note-on-working-capital-for-issuers-seeking-admission-2012-10.pdf

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:34 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I’m taking bets on the opening price of RIFC shares on ISDX and also on whether opening on ISDX will ever happen.

If anyone is interested we could also have a book on when Murray (P) will grow a pair and take any responsibility for anything, anything at all.

View Comment

CarlylePosted on4:39 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Or who/which body will hold him responsible ? Could be more interesting.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on4:42 pm - Apr 2, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
April 2, 2015 at 4:31 pm

“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.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So
An unnamed source has approved unnamed people to have fit and proper status to be directors

That ought to be good enough for the SFA to give FPP approval to anybody from TRFC willing to renege on SFA fines

___________________________________________________________

Sadly, It will most probably be viewed as just cause for burning Hampden to the ground if they don’t, by the small but not insignificant contingent of ‘less civic minded’ bears.
That is the realpolitik.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on4:43 pm - Apr 2, 2015


‘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.’
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
For any Bears who might be confused by the above
When introducing “two” points it is normal to call one the “first” and the other “second”

For those unfamiliar with PR this might appear as if the first point is more important than the second point

Not So
Its simply spin

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:43 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Must be those Chelsea fans at it again?

BBC Scotland has learned that a number of shareholders are considering legal action as a result of the delisting.

It is also understood that at least one complaint has been made to the Financial Conduct Authority, but that body has no jurisdiction over Rangers.

View Comment

CarlylePosted on4:50 pm - Apr 2, 2015


But would have authority over RIFC plc on AIM ?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:50 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Murray (P)’s Follow Announcement.

On further consideration, despite my recent exertions and dedicated efforts, J have concluded that it will require less of my time and will be considerably less expensive if I turn down Scarlett Johansson’s kind offer of an extra martial affair. And, so with regret, I must inform her that I won’t be joining her for hot sex in Tahiti.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:53 pm - Apr 2, 2015


It’s maybe a good time now for King to ‘jet in’ and share his vision, in his own words with the bears, and allay their fears, and maybe those of the SFA/SPFL ?
And to be seen attending a game at Ibrox ?

They all need to hear a wee bit of good news – especially before they get humped by Hearts on Sunday… 😕

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on5:01 pm - Apr 2, 2015


wottpi says:
April 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm

__________________________________________________________

BBC Scotland has learned that a number of shareholders are considering legal action as a result of the delisting.

________________________________________________

Interesting to see who they are gonna sue?

The company IS its shareholders, and is potless anyway;

PM – Potless

DCK- oops… Not an officer of the company.

That leaves Park and Letham. They must be delighted!

I wonder if one of the shareholders considering litigation would be Sports Direct?
And I wonder how deep their pockets are?

As to the question of when PM will accept responsibility for anything, the answer is… OOPS … it was the day he signed the AP02 director appointment form for RIFC. 😆

Few have been so privileged indeed Paul :irony:

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:01 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Dear Mr Murray (P)

May we please have from you, total transparency, total honesty and total openness on the “reputational and / or historical issues” that scared away all known Nomads.

yours

mcfc

View Comment

Famous songPosted on5:11 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I posted the other day that I was reminded of a Monty Python sketch. Today, it’s a Bob Newhart monologue. The other day, myself and family travelled on a Southern Hemisphere budget airline. I borrowed the great Mr Newhart’s line about them having done without certain “non essential items, like seats…. and maintenance”.
Today’s RIFC statement that delisting from the stock exchange frees them from tedious expenses, to include “legal, accounting, LSE and nominated adviser” is right up there. Life imitating art, but going one better.
We fly back tomorrow. Well, it looks like a 737.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:12 pm - Apr 2, 2015


“Rangers First Statement
Published: 02 Apr 15
Rangers First shares the Rangers Board’s disappointment that shares in RIFC PLC will no longer be listed on the AIM market and we appreciate that whether or not an AIM listing was maintained was never in the new directors’ gift. As the Club’s earlier statement highlighted, the delisting is simply the result of well documented failings in corporate governance and management of those who previously controlled the Company.

In addition, we note positively that an alternative listing is being sought and that an immediate solution has already been put in place from Tuesday that will allow buying and selling of RIFC PLC shares.
All members of Rangers First are asked to note the following.
Whether RIFC shares are listed on the AIM or any alternate public market, listing or delisting has no material impact on http://www.rangersfirst.org and the shares we already own. (RF is presently the 10th largest shareholder)
Rangers First will still be able to buy further shares and in particular when a new share issue is made we will seek to take up our pro rata rights and indeed as many excess shares as we can afford in order to increase our shareholding to our first target of 5%.
Rangers First welcome the fact that limited share trading will be possible from Tuesday 7th April when the markets open after the Easter break and we will explore whatever opportunities there may be to further increase our shareholding in RIFC at that time.
We hope that the RIFC board will be successful in achieving an ISDX listing (or indeed another alternative) to secure a public listing for RIFC plc shares as soon as possible.
Rangers First still fundamentally believe that obtaining as large a shareholding in the PLC as possible for Rangers First and controlled by our members provides the best stable platform going forward for the club we all love.
So as we continue to grow our shareholding we ask that you continue to get your friends and fellow Bears to join with you as a member of the UK’s largest Fan group at http://www.rangersfirst.org

– See more at: http://www.rangersfirst.org/rangers-first-statement/#sthash.tcrHGURt.dpuf

So Rangers First appear to be toeing the party line that some big boys did it and then went on Gardening Leave.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on5:17 pm - Apr 2, 2015


What has amazed me over the span of time since the egm is the lack of communication from the man who would be king , plenty of gas before,has he run out ,do the lamb munchers not have direct access to him, has there been a bush fire taking out the comms ,ffs our msms are realy being pissed on.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:22 pm - Apr 2, 2015


scapaflow says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:12 pm

Surely AIM listing was in the new directors’ gift if they had shown all and sundry a way forward.

It has been clear to us bampots for some time what the known pitfalls were along with a few guesses at the unknowns. Are we to believe that a group of switched on millionaire businessmen have somehow been taken by surprise that the company/club was having a hard time of it.

Stump up the £30m of the kids inheritance, pay your debts and some of the problems would go away.

As discussed earlier it may be that crashing the bus is the best strategy they have to get control on the cheap but it is hell of a risky.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:31 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Ronnie Esplin ‏@RonnieEsplin 4 mins4 minutes ago
Jack Irvine said: “I can confirm that the Easdale grouping is considering legal action.” #rangers #delisting
2 retweets 0 favourites
Reply Retweet2 Favourite
More

wottpi says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:22 pm

I’ve said before that there is no excuse for Kingco not having a plan ready to be executed, the second they got control at the EGM. That plan should have included the immediate appointment of a CEO, tasked with executing the plan, (building confidence in the new regime for benefit of AIM & City, should have been the number one priority.)

We used to say the engineer’s motto was “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout” Looks like at least SOME members of ICAS have adopted it! :mrgreen:

Edit

Purely for laughs, the Virtual Chairman has spoken:

“RANGERS interim Chairman Paul Murray has tonight released the following statement:

We tried everything within our power to have the suspension lifted but it was clear that we would have to pay a price for years of poor corporate governance and financial mismanagement since the IPO. The delisting is down solely to the actions and conduct of past regimes.
You could say the behaviour of previous directors has poisoned the well with AIM but even so we might have expected a little more understanding from certain quarters. However, I must point out that delisting will have no effect on our overall financial strategy.
The investments we expect will still be made and Rangers will be rebuilt on schedule. Be certain that this delisting, which is down entirely to the actions of previous Boards, will have no bearing on future investment.
Also, we are putting in place an extremely credible share-dealing facility which will enable shareholders to buy and sell their shares. I understand there will be some shareholders unhappy with this outcome but I am sure the vast majority of shareholders will be satisfied.
One of the platforms keen to take us is ISDX. This is an exchange that Rangers used to trade on and it is also a trading platform for Arsenal.
We will have a full platform set up by the end of May but have made arrangements to have a temporary facility operating by next Tuesday morning.
It is unfortunate our intended Nomad, who had confirmed to us that they cleared all of the individuals concerned as fit and proper, could not proceed after having conducted due diligence on the company but I want to stress again that this will not hinder our plans.”

Woe! Wow!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:39 pm - Apr 2, 2015


yourhavingalaugh says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:17 pm

For a man who previously had more to say than a busload of gossips, he has been remarkably quiet since shortly after his ascension (in waiting) to the Ibrox throne. I suspect, in fairness, that this could have something to do with his impending hearing at the CoS, as mouthing out, especially in the somewhat careless way he tends to mouth, might cause him difficulties, particularly if his application fails. He has also already been caught out in an ‘untruth’ over his ‘lining up’ of a NOMAD, and maybe he’s been advised to cool it for a while, at least until it’s only the bears he’s actually using his BSc in Truth Economics on.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:42 pm - Apr 2, 2015


scapaflow says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Ronnie Esplin ‏@RonnieEsplin 4 mins4 minutes ago
Jack Irvine said: “I can confirm that the Easdale grouping is considering legal action.” #rangers #delisting…
=================================

Agreed that anything quoted from Irvine, is taken with a huge pinch of salt, but IMO, the only ‘possible’ action could be against King personally – as per his publicly quoted statements that the NOMAD was virtually in the bag, to start ‘immediately’ after the EGM.

But, as we have seen before, whilst assorted chancers like to threaten action, they manage to stay well away from courts – where truth is expected.

So what is Irvine’s game here then ?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:49 pm - Apr 2, 2015


scapaflow says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Ronnie Esplin ‏@RonnieEsplin 4 mins4 minutes ago
Jack Irvine said: “I can confirm that the Easdale grouping is considering legal action.” #rangers #delisting
________________________

Is that another world record on the way? Most court cases for a football club that has never played in the top tier of a football league!

If I was a Rangers supporter, I wouldn’t want the club I’d once been so proud of to be considered the same as this shambles!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:51 pm - Apr 2, 2015


As I have said a few times in recent days: Expect the unexpected and you won’t be surprised.

I still think it could end-up as a private limited company possibly after raising some more wonga on a new trading platform if accepted.

It won’t bother many of the Bear shareholders as football fans don’t invest to make money out of their club as we all know.

Be interesting to see what the price falls to and I have little doubt it will fall although there might be a bit of a share premium for a period if someone is attemting to consolidate/improve their position.

It will be interesting to see what those with larger % holdings decide to do and especially those mystery overseas one with or without onerous contracts.

I’m confident there’ll still be of plenty of twists and turns in the saga before anything becomes clear as to the future of this current Rangers if, indeed, it has a future.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:59 pm - Apr 2, 2015


scapaflow says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Ronnie Esplin ‏@RonnieEsplin 4 mins4 minutes ago
Jack Irvine said: “I can confirm that the Easdale grouping is considering legal action.” #rangers #delisting
———————————————
It would actually be great if there was legal action and we actually got to find out who the Easdale ‘grouping’ actually are.

Also be lovely to hear what the onerous contracts were and all the in and outs of why they switched their investments from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland.

Sadly I doubt this will ever see the inside of a court room – Pity – I would have booked a season ticket for that one 🙂

View Comment

ianagainPosted on6:01 pm - Apr 2, 2015


From Rangers Rumours someone gets it.

===========================================

02 Apr 2015 14:20:39
So we’ve been de-listed from the AIM exchange for not naming a NOMAD. Apparently plan is to list on the ISDX instead.It is another exchange with the same financial rules and restrictions so is it a big deal?

DOIGER

02 Apr 2015 15:09:22
Yes.

Being kicked out of the AIM means no investor will touch us with a barge pole. You can forget your Sarvers and the like. Also there is now a good case for the institutional shareholders to take legal recourse against the current board consortium, since by their action they have allowed the share prices to be diminished.

For an establishment club which values dignity, being thrown out of the second best bar in town by the bouncers and told never to come back doesn’t seem to bother you.

DisinterestedExpat

02 Apr 2015 15:12:29
YES it is a big deal. Basically, the company will be frowned upon by major investors and will solely depend on the fan base for investment. There is even less chance of seeing King’s £30m, now. We can look forward to a hand to mouth existence and the secured assets are even more vulnerable.

billyb

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:01 pm - Apr 2, 2015


StevieBC says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:42 pm

If they do go to court, keeping the emails off the company network, is no longer an acceptable tactic, as Fred & Co are finding out :mrgreen:

http://www.ianfraser.org/breakthrough-in-rbs-shareholder-trial-as-judge-orders-bank-to-produce-freds-private-mails/

View Comment

Famous songPosted on6:09 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I’m sure that better minds than mine are working on this, but, in the case of Arsenal, is it not the case that:
(a) They have comparatively few shares issued,
(b) These are, in consequence, extraordinarily highly valued? They are, after all, a ‘big club, massive club’, a real one?
(c) The shares change hands very seldom?
Happy to be shot down in flames if wrong. Arsenal vs TRFC comparison twice in the one day, though!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:11 pm - Apr 2, 2015


StevieBC says:
April 2, 2015 at 5:42 pm

So what is Irvine’s game here then ?
——————————————–
His game will be to represent the best interests of his client and the Easdales might not be the only clients he has with an interest in this matter.

Personally I think it’s a reminder from the mystery investors that they won’t be giving-up their onerous contracts without a battle so I read it as PR fluff.

But going to court – I really don’t think so 🙄

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:11 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Famous song says:
April 2, 2015 at 6:09 pm

Indeed, you will remember the fuss over the Aresnal shares Rangers had, that were sold off? An important holding, in a tight battle for control.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:42 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Famous song says:
April 2, 2015 at 6:09 pm

I’m sure that better minds than mine are working on this, but, in the case of Arsenal, is it not the case that:
(a) They have comparatively few shares issued,
(b) These are, in consequence, extraordinarily highly valued? They are, after all, a ‘big club, massive club’, a real one?
(c) The shares change hands very seldom?
Happy to be shot down in flames if wrong. Arsenal vs TRFC comparison twice in the one day, though!
————————————–
You are totally correct – there is no comparison other than that they could be on the same exchange. But I doubt if many investors would confuse the two different investment opportunities even if they could afford the Arsenal share price.

I did a post back in July 2012 on scotslawthoughts which touched on various clubs/exchanges at: https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/has-green-got-the-right-aim-for-rangers-footballing-share-issues-guest-post-by-ecojon/

The articled noted:

Last week the Plus Market formally announced that Messrs: Ellis, King and Whyte had been removed as directors of ‘The Rangers Football Club P.L.C.’.

What was that about lightning striking twice?

@scapa: Link to the Arsenal shares which is interesting: http://www.blog.woolwicharsenal.co.uk/archives/3488

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on6:49 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Statement from Rangers Loyal:

Statement On Delisting

As predicted by regular bloggers on this site and elsewhere, the new regime at Ibrox has brought about the delisting of the club from the AIM.

This is devastating news for shareholders who have seen their shares decimated in value. It is also a slap in the face to those supporters who were urged to buy shares in the two fan schemes.

This disgusting turn of events comes as no surprise to us here in the RSL. It doesn’t make it any less shocking.

The RSL rejects the pathetic attempt of the incumbent board to blame the failure to appoint a Nomad on the previous board of directors. It was incessant complaining by supporters of the new board that made Rangers a nuisance to the Stock Exchange. Ironically, it is this activism and agitation that has prevented the new regime from effecting a successful relisting. Cynics would say that if delisting was their aim, they have been spectacularly successful in making it happen.

Since this new board took over we have seen a very unimpressive start to their custodianship of Rangers. Hard questions must now be answered, including a critical one: Was Dave King lying to the media, fellow investors and fans when he very publicly claimed he had a Nomad lined up to take over a month ago?

These are very dark days for all associated with the club. To paraphrase and slightly amend a recent blog title, we have to say:

Different board, unbelievably worse crap.

The RSL urges every Rangers fan to ask searing, probing questions of the “Real Rangers Men” who now sit in the boardroom at Ibrox – and do not relent till you get answers.

We certainly will be asking such questions.

Transparency is no longer optional where Rangers’ boards are concerned.

ENDS

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:59 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I wonder how much of a case the Easdale Group would have to mount legal action over the delisting.

After all IIRC didn’t the Easdale Camp and their mystery proxies holding circa 25% of the shareholding decide to abstain from voting at the egm.

Surely the outgoing NOMAD had made it clear to them that he was intending to resign if the DK camp won the vote?

Seems to me the Easdale Camp and its proxies may very well have been the author of their own financial misfortune.

EDIT: Hi Jack – nice to see you’re earning some nightshift corn 🙂 Keep the TDs going!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:04 pm - Apr 2, 2015


The background to Rangers owning Arsenal shares goes back to 1910 when Arsenal were in financial difficulties. Rangers bought two shares to help them out.

Twenty years later when Arsenal was in a financially stable state, they gifted 14 further shares to Rangers as a thank-you for helping to bail them out previously.

Craig Whyte subsequently sold the 16 shares to Alisher Usmanov for approximately £230,000.

The money for the shares ended in the accounts of Pritchard Stokbrokers (Whyte was their company secretary) who themselves were in financial difficulties. Pritchards eventually went bust, but RFC 2012(IL) ultimately received approximately 50% of the money due as a creditors dividend.

Arsenal shares are currently trading at £15,875 each, so it’s not a share for the man on a Clapham omnibus.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on7:08 pm - Apr 2, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 2, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Statement from Rangers Loyal:
Statement On Delisting…
…….Since this new board took over we have seen a very unimpressive start to their custodianship of Rangers. Hard questions must now be answered, including a critical one: Was Dave King lying to the media, fellow investors and fans when he very publicly claimed he had a Nomad lined up to take over a month ago?…..
…..The RSL urges every Rangers fan to ask searing, probing questions of the “Real Rangers Men” who now sit in the boardroom at Ibrox – and do not relent till you get answers.
We certainly will be asking such questions.
=====================================================

It seems the only people not asking such questions are the SMSM and the football authorities.

Scottish Football needs questions asked – and answered!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:17 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Absolutely facinating stuff going on with the Bears.

The old boycotting Bears who were derided by the Ashley Camp Followers are now back in their seats.

And it looks as though the Ashley supporters are on the verge of demanding and mounting their own boycott. Of course it’s hard to tell whether the anti-King Camp exist outwith cyber space.

So it will be quite illuminating to see how many red cards they can flourish against the new Board – they could probably buy bulk on the cheap from sons of struth who don’t need their’s anymore.

It’s a messy civil war but perhaps the best thing for Rangers is that the hopelessly divided support actually split and support different football club entities.

It will be interesting to see how the SFA deal with that one although I reckon they’ll continue to back King probably because Ashley frightens them to death.

I thin if I was one of T3B I would be turning the trophy room into Fort Knox as possession of the Battle Honours – no matter how gained – could be critical in the coming fight.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:28 pm - Apr 2, 2015


ecobhoy says:
April 2, 2015 at 6:59 pm
I wonder how much of a case the Easdale Group would have to mount legal action over the delisting.

After all IIRC didn’t the Easdale Camp and their mystery proxies holding circa 25% of the shareholding decide to abstain from voting at the egm.

Surely the outgoing NOMAD had made it clear to them that he was intending to resign if the DK camp won the vote?

Seems to me the Easdale Camp and its proxies may very well have been the author of their own financial misfortune.

==============================

Maybe they assumed (as they were entitled to ) that King was telling the truth when he announced that he had a new Nomad all lined up and ready to go within 24 hours? I think that King is potentially in big trouble on this one, because I don’t think for a moment that the Easdales are the only shareholders who feel badly let down (that’s putting it politely) by King.

Here is a link which may (or may not) be relevant.

http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud-az-market-manipulation

I note King’s silence since the EGM. Maybe he’s taking some good advice to put a sock in it, as an alternative to putting his foot in it.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:32 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I think I’ll pass on Rangers Supporters Loyal which I actually thought might be an April Fool’s Jome when McMurdo Minor announced it on 1 April last year.

He said at the time:

It is important for me to say this – this will not be the Bill McMurdo Rangers Supporters Group. I am happy to support it and be involved with it but this new group has come out of that wellspring that is still thankfully at the heart of our massive bluenose support – the wellspring of loyalty to and love for the club which makes us The People.

Good luck to them but I have no doubt that DK anf T3B have the support of the bulk of Rangers fans. How long they will retain it is another matter but they have a bit of time to show their plan and that it can work.

If they can’t or it doesn’t work then they are toast and it’s possible that Rangers will implode to a level that could take them 10-20 years to recover from – if they ever do.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:36 pm - Apr 2, 2015


ecobhoy says:
April 2, 2015 at 6:59 pm

I wonder how much of a case the Easdale Group would have to mount legal action over the delisting.

________________________________________________________

Not sure this materially damages their case. Quite the opposite in fact.
I can imagine the scenarios being meticulously played out in their war room pre EGM.

They (and potentially others) failed to back the current board. They did so to their detriment on the back of public assurances given by the requisitioners, which were evidently false.

Now the cynic in me might suggest that the Easedale faction therefore actually ELECTED NOT to back the old board – with an eye to future litigation – PRECISELY SO they would have stronger grounds to subsequently claim that they had themselves been swayed by the assurances falsely given, to their ultimate detriment, thereby strengthening their case in the subsequent litigation. “We were duped!… wink wink” goes up the cry!

Because otherwise, for the litigation to succeed, they would have to find others who would swear to that effect,(i.e. would have backed the existing board if assurances on Nomad had not been given) to have any case.

So my contention is, this move was in their game plan all along – was planned from as soon as they realised that they could lose the vote – and was – in fact – the reason behind them abstaining unexpectedly, (which had us head scratching for a while.)

They laid a baited trap for the requisitioners, who jumped right into it. 😈
They do not mess about these guys, do they?!

Think that AP02 form might come back and bite PM on the bahookie!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:39 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Looks like the honeymoon period for the new board has come to an abrupt end already.

Will there be another world record achieved at Ibrox on Sunday ?

…the world’s quickest ever rendition of “Sack The Board !” for a new board from unhappy football supporters ? 😯

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:40 pm - Apr 2, 2015


redlichtie says:
April 2, 2015 at 7:08 pm

It seems the only people not asking such questions are the SMSM and the football authorities.

Scottish Football needs questions asked – and answered!
============================================

That is a very interesting statement from the RSL. In contrast, listening to Sportsound tonight the resident apologist, a certain Mr Wilson, was at pains to point out Mr King DID have a NOMAD lined up who was prepared to work with him, but due diligence meant it couldn’t happen. He couldn’t name said NOMAD mind you. Of course, Mr Murray’s statement that delisting was all the fault of previous boards was stressed a couple of times. ‘You can’t just throw lines at the Stock Exchange and make them stick’ was Mr Richard Wilson’s wise words. I’m not really sure if there is a positive in there but I’m sure I could hear the sound of straws being clutched in the studio.

For my next part I apologise in advance for making this a two club thing, but please read on. When it suits the media they compare Rangers to Celtic, especially in terms of the size of club, fanbase, and potential earning potential. I am sure a straw pole among Scottish journalists would still have Rangers as the biggest club. So why do they never directly compare the way the two clubs are run? Celtic are listed, have a NOMAD, issue fully audited accounts on time, and are fully transparent wherever they are required to be. They have a real billionaire N.E.D on the board, and another even richer billionaire shareholder. They can attract directors like the deputy Governor of the Bank of England and the Chief Executive of British Telecom, but still people like Paul Murray and Dave King are the ones who are portrayed in a shining light. It’s almost like they want to avoid a comparison like the plague.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:41 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Cheers Eco, yes, those Arsenal comparisons are comedy gold as they say

“Such a trading gives Arsenal a value of £1.1 billion” that’s billion with a b Mr Murray :mrgreen:

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:01 pm - Apr 2, 2015


neepheid says:
April 2, 2015 at 7:28 pm

Obviously one has to guard against any element of wishful thinking when it comes to legal action against King.

I have stated earlier that I seriously doubt if the mystery men will come out of the shadows and face an open court. They also have to prove they have suffered a financial loss.

Considering many of them bought their shares at 1p a time and some have onerous contracts I think they might have difficulty on the legal front.

DK will simply state that as a concerned major shareholder he was doing his best to persuade a replacement NOMAD to act and he may even have a NOMAD that confirms they were going to act but after due diliegence or possible even speaking to the AIM Regulatory Team he changed his mind.

It was well known there was virtually zilch chance of getting a replacement NOMAD – I find it hard to believe that any ex-directors or significant shareholders didn’t know exactly what the score was wrt a NOMAD.

I actually think the NOMAD resigning suited DK down to the ground as it meant the company got delisted to put the next bit of the plan into place. Otherwise he couldn’t have done it because he wouldn’t have got 75% of the vote.

And it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Easdale and the Mysterons abstained from the egm vote when they could have defeated it. Would love to hear how they justify that one in court in terms of not taking steps to safeguard their investment.

If it goes to court it goes to court. I really want it to – but it won’t 😥

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:23 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
April 2, 2015 at 7:36 pm

We can all speculate from now to doomsday and chances are we would still all get it wrong.

Because: We don’t know what the plans are from either side or sides let alone able to figure-in the various things that might blow them off course.

So patience is a virtue as it will all unfold eventually. In situations like this I try to take an objective view of the factions joining battle without believing a word they state unless I can independently verify it.

I have been quite surprised at the seeming support for the views of some dangerous elements in the Rangers support. However perhaps I keep a closer eye on the Bear sub-divisions than most.

DK is a total chancer in my book but – and I will never change my mind on this – it’s up to Bears who they choose to support. And if King remains their choice then so be it.

It might work although I have serious reservations that the required dosh can be put together under his stewardship.

However I also have serious reservations about Ashley. He has the money but I worry whether his plans in Scotland stretch beyond Rangers. Still I no longer assume that he is that interested in Rangers and he might just take his money back and depart. Who knows?

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on8:29 pm - Apr 2, 2015


easyJambo says:
April 2, 2015 at 1:49 pm
incredibleadamspark says: April 2, 2015 at 9:41 am

borussiabeefburg says: April 2, 2015 at 8:48 am
___________________________________________________________

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 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
#########################################################

The conclusion being jumped to online is that a (relatively) long term rumour that a member (or members) of the management team are incentivised through a cut of transfer fees…we may or may not find out in due course…

What has struck me most is how rapidly ST has lost fan support (online at any rate so some caution required)…the immediate cause has, of course, been the transfer of SA and GMS to Celtic…the board underestimated how much anger this would generate IMO.

This in turn highlights the question of what fans of a club with United’s financial base should reasonably expect in terms of their ability to hang onto players….it’s easy to condemn what might be seen as an unreasonable desire to hang onto good players at the expense of monetary gain….but then again if you don’t want to challenge at the top what’s the point anyway.

Which leads to a problem that most clubs in Scotland face….what’s the point if you can’t challenge regardless of what you do ❓

View Comment

nawlitePosted on8:32 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I’ve just seen on SSN the official Rangers* response to Sandy Easdale’s comments. How embarrassing is that? It doesn’t actually respond to anything he said, instead simply (and arrogantly) winding him up about the old board getting thrown out so heavily and finishes with a childish “I thought yesterday was April Fool’s day”. Is that a how a normal – let alone a dignified – business acts? That childish arrogance does have the fingermarks of Traynor, right enough.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:33 pm - Apr 2, 2015


ecobhoy says:
April 2, 2015 at 8:23 pm

Resin_lab_dog says:
April 2, 2015 at 7:36 pm

__________________________________________________

I think Ashley is interested in Ashley and he has a habit of coming out on top.
My view is that the minute TRFC got into bed with SD they began riding a Tiger, and were in proper trouble. At best, they could influence how much and how bad.

Now they have jumped off the tigers back and into his claws.
Well… he may toy with them for a while and let them go.
Or he may gobble them up.
Or he may rip their heads off with his claws and then leave them to rot.

But I believe that the uncomfortable truth for the TRFC fans is that whatever happens next to them is largely still up to him.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:36 pm - Apr 2, 2015


scapaflow says:
April 2, 2015 at 4:32 pm

Has any of the gentlemen of the press asked if RIFC actually meet the requirements of ISDX Growth Market, in respect minor details like going concern, and access to working capital?
————————————————————-
Don’t be daft 😆

If he doesn’t get accepted then he’ll be forced to go private or to use that threat as a bargaining-chip.

We know the whole edifice has been tottering for a while and there will be quite a few shareholders worried it might all come crashing down. These will be the ones with most to lose.

It will all come down to who blinks first methinks – and it isn’t always the case that the person with most money wins. Often the one who is crazy and prepared to destroy everything if they don’t win is the one who takes the pot.

But time is accelerating and I don’t actually think I’ve previously felt it as much as I do this time: It simply can’t go on like this much longer.

There has to be some resolution.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:39 pm - Apr 2, 2015


A scan around the fans boards clearly shows From Pie and and Bovril to RL the current lot are going to receive the same abuse as the last lot. I see no modicum of wait and see on tonight’s forums. Dave Kings next “Jet in” may be very much less pleasurable than his last. Indeed unless his last was his last?
Very very unhappy troops.

Except for this very very deluded and extremely upbeat chap
==============================================
02 Apr 2015 16:57:58
Arsenal shares are traded on ISDX and John Lewis Partnership, Specsavers and Iceland are just three examples of privately held companies, the former employee-owned. Why can’t Rangers as a business succeed as a private company? Shares can still be traded privately. Perhaps the various Rangers supporters’ organisations can buy up even more equity. Don’t forget, it wasn’t the new Board that caused this mess and I do think the regulatory authorities should look into what has gone one. Disinterested Expat, you do seem a gloomy fellow!

DOIGER

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on8:39 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Of all the mistakes made by the various custodians of the blue room in recent years this has the potential to be the worst.

A business that desperately needs investment takes the decision to burn their own institutional investors for short term advantage or perhaps out of desperation.The City of London has a long memory and the power to make life difficult for anyone that crosses them.

I expect to see a few legal applications popping up at the Royal Court of Justice soon,

Supporters of the team in blue that plaY’s at Ibrox for alienating anyone who could help them; “yanks go home: to Bill Miller, “rats out” to Ashley.

But this is a doozy

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:43 pm - Apr 2, 2015


ecobhoy says:
April 2, 2015 at 8:01 pm

neepheid says:
April 2, 2015 at 7:28 pm
….

They also have to prove they have suffered a financial loss.

Considering many of them bought their shares at 1p a time and some have onerous contracts I think they might have difficulty on the legal front.

______________________________________________________

Not so I believe.
They held shares that were freely traded at 35.5p prior to the suspension, and which are now (probably) worth far less as a result of DCKs erroneous assurances.
What they paid for them at some historical point in time is irrelevent.
The financial loss accrues from the value they had between the assurances being given and proving false.
And any award would apply equally to ALL shareholders.

The easiest way for the requisitioners to avoid liability? A full buy out at or above the price immediately prior to EGM.

View Comment

Famous songPosted on8:53 pm - Apr 2, 2015


OK, I did my own spadework. The Arsenal market capitalisation is £987M on ISDX, well over thirty times the market capitalisation of RIFC (“Rangers” or “The Club”), the last time their shares were quoted on a stock exchange anywhere in the Western World.
The repeated mentions of Arsenal in Murray (P)’s statements today are giving us an insight to a troubled man, and a troubled world. The fact that, in addition, the trading of RFC shares on ISDX comes up, tells us how bright he thinks the rest of us are. RFC, Paul? What happened to them?

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on8:54 pm - Apr 2, 2015


TBH delisting was in many ways a sensible option. Cuts down on the expense/time spent on complying with AIM rules.

Let’s be honest, raising capital on AIM is ship that sailed some time ago (laden with booty and last seen just off the French coast…).

What has not been sensible is the shambolic (to put the best interpretation on things) manner in which it has happened.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on8:57 pm - Apr 2, 2015


Resin the quantum of compensation for a claim might be the difference in value of the shares comparing what it was before the statement and what it would have been in the absence of the statement and its consequences. That valuation is fraught with difficulties. Not only that but proving that there was a loss attributable to the statement even if the value of the shares is lower would also be fraught with difficulties.
There are statements being made that might be unbecoming for members of a professional body even to the extent of bringing the profession into disrepute – no one here I hasten to add!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:02 pm - Apr 2, 2015


James Doleman says:

April 2, 2015 at 8:39 pm

Of all the mistakes made by the various custodians of the blue room in recent years this has the potential to be the worst.

A business that desperately needs investment takes the decision to burn their own institutional investors for short term advantage or perhaps out of desperation.The City of London has a long memory and the power to make life difficult for anyone that crosses them.

I expect to see a few legal applications popping up at the Royal Court of Justice soon,

Supporters of the team in blue that plaY’s at Ibrox for alienating anyone who could help them; “yanks go home: to Bill Miller, “rats out” to Ashley.

But this is a doozy
=================================================
For anyone wondering if they were open due to the fire.
=========================================
The main Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) complex will be open as normal on Tuesday 7 April (apart from certain work which will take place at the Rolls Building).

The Rolls Building will sit as normal, and will also sit Central London County Court hearings, the Small Claims scheme, Bankruptcy hearings, and Senior Courts Cost Office hearings.

However the Employment Tribunal at Victory House in Kingsway will be temporarily closed on Tuesday 7 April. All hearings scheduled for those dates have been cancelled and will be rescheduled in due course.

Staff are working closely with National Power UK to resolve the issue and the court will resume normal business as soon as possible.

If you are a member of the public:

If you are a member of the public and were planning on attending a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday 7 April, please call 0207 947 6000 after 9am on if you have a query.

If you were planning on attending a hearing at the Employment Tribunal at Victory House in Kingsway on Tuesday 7 April, please call 020 3206 0667 between 9.30am and 5pm. Please also call this number to enquire about the current situation for hearings listed beyond these dates.

Regards

HMCTS

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:04 pm - Apr 2, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 2, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Statement from Rangers Loyal:

Statement On Delisting

This is devastating news for shareholders who have seen their shares decimated in value. It is also a slap in the face to those supporters who were urged to buy shares in the two fan schemes.
=======================================================================
….they should have listened to Ecobhoy…how many times did he advise against such ridiculous actions as buying a few shares on the open market to no avail and depriving the “clumpany” of genuinely fresh investment funds.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on9:08 pm - Apr 2, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 2, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Statement from Rangers Loyal:

Statement On Delisting

“Since this new board took over we have seen a very unimpressive start to their custodianship of Rangers. Hard questions must now be answered, including a critical one: Was Dave King lying to the media, fellow investors and fans when he very publicly claimed he had a Nomad lined up to take over a month ago?…”
==========================================================================
…so will any of our intrepid churnalists in the SMSM ask the obvious question of Mr King?…nah, thought not!

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on9:08 pm - Apr 2, 2015


ecobhoy says:
April 2, 2015 at 8:36 pm

But time is accelerating and I don’t actually think I’ve previously felt it as much as I do this time: It simply can’t go on like this much longer.
——————————————
There’s surely a fair bit to go yet. On previous evidence, it ain’t over until the Neil Patey sings.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on9:09 pm - Apr 2, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
April 2, 2015 at 9:04 pm

We’re just waiting for Neil Patey to come on and tell us that everything is actually tickety-boo and the future is light blue.

Still, there is some good news, pop corn futures are on the rise 😉

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:20 pm - Apr 2, 2015


ecobhoy says:
April 2, 2015 at 8:01 pm

I actually think the NOMAD resigning suited DK down to the ground as it meant the company got delisted to put the next bit of the plan into place. Otherwise he couldn’t have done it because he wouldn’t have got 75% of the vote.

=====================
I agree entirely. I’m just astonished that King has bypassed the need for a 75% shareholder vote so easily.

I don’t the think that the danger to King comes from the original mystery investors, but rather from the moderately well off types (the real, real Rangers men) who rallied to the cause at the IPO with what would to them have been a significant sum, and are now seeing King effectively wipe them out.

They might even have read the Record, or visited the BBC website, and actually believed what Jackson and Wilson told them about King’s honourable intentions.

Such people tend to be honest themselves, and can get very upset when they feel they are being dealt with dishonestly. They also know how to complain, and will not be happy about being stiffed by King.

Personally, I think King is in deep trouble already on the wider front, and not just because I want him to be. Unless he comes up with a big money injection soon, the support will rapidly turn against him. They are definitely not on board with King/Murray’s latest 2022 plan for world domination.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:28 pm - Apr 2, 2015


neepheid says:
April 2, 2015 at 9:20 pm

Personally, I think King is in deep trouble already on the wider front, and not just because I want him to be. Unless he comes up with a big money injection soon, the support will rapidly turn against him. They are definitely not on board with King/Murray’s latest 2022 plan for world domination.
==========================================

David Murray, along with those from the Bank of Scotland who backed him, have caused untold damage.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on9:35 pm - Apr 2, 2015


essexbeancounter

Given the somewhat questionable honesty of the RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC Interim Chairman Paul Murray in the Interim Accounts to 31 December 2014 and Press Releases is this compatible with his membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:54 pm - Apr 2, 2015


sannoffymesssoitizz says:
April 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm
essexbeancounter

Given the somewhat questionable honesty of the RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC Interim Chairman Paul Murray in the Interim Accounts to 31 December 2014 and Press Releases is this compatible with his membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland?
===================================

Hugh Keevins clarified the position earlier tonight on Radio Clyde by telling us “everyone knows Paul Murray is a man of integrity”. Presumably we are included in the ‘everyone’ so who are we to disagree?!!!!!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:59 pm - Apr 2, 2015


I Wonder (only) did someone who saw the inside of the bonnet just profit therefrom ?

Have a wee search (for appropriate) similarities.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFSM/

BTW Me very sceptical chap.

Expect Dave King Suitcase of dough next week (not Sunday too embarrassing, got to smash his kids Easter eggs).

There’s always a market even in failure.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:07 pm - Apr 2, 2015


sannoffymesssoitizz says:
April 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm
essexbeancounter

Given the somewhat questionable honesty of the RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC Interim Chairman Paul Murray in the Interim Accounts to 31 December 2014 and Press Releases is this compatible with his membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland?
=========================================================================
sannoffymesssoitizz…you will not be surprised that a goodly number of members of all bodies of accountants have behaved in a manner which may appear to be incompatible with their membership of those bodies.

However, unless the said “member” actually commits an indictable offence, e.g. fraud or similar, the only time that such bodies, ICAS in particular :mrgreen: will take any notice would be if a client or member of the public makes a legitimate complaint against that member.

Furthermore, you will not be surprised that Mr Fred Goodwin is still a member of ICAS…on the basis of the above, as are several others.

View Comment

Comments are closed.