Did the MSM learn anything from the Rangers saga?

haudmajaikittPosted on2:22 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Not sure if this has been posted before.

It’s from Solicitors WHM May Lawsuit newsletter:

“Seeking the truth? Read the Judgement, not the newspapers

The Rangers Administration has excited the media. Acres of newsprint, hours of television time and millions of pixels have been devoted to probably the highest profile administration ever in Scotland. 

Without adding to the clamour of debate regarding the possible outcome of the administration, WJM take this opportunity to point out that sometimes reading court judgments, rather than looking to newspapers for a journalist’s interpretation of the decision, can offer an accurate account of what is really going on.

Reading Lord Hodge’s Opinion on the Note of Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, joint administrators of Rangers Football Club plc, is one sure way of finding out what’s really happening with Rangers.

Lord Hodge’s Opinion, given on 23 March, has been dissected by football fans and journalists all over Scotland. Many Rangers fans were – and are – frustrated by the lack of information coming from the administrators and the apparent misinformation coming from other sources.

In his Opinion, Lord Hodge provided some clarity.

He gave an outline of the agreements between Rangers and Ticketus, which the Club’s administrators are seeking to tear up. In a four-year deal Ticketus paid £25,376,125 to the Club in the current 2011/12 season. The money was for season tickets due to be purchased by fans until the deal ended at the end of May 2015. In effect Rangers fans would no longer be purchasing their tickets from the Club but would purchase them from Ticketus.

He also outlines the options that have been offered to potential purchasers and the need for these options highlights the uncertainty and difficulties that both the administrators and potential purchasers have in moving the process forward.

Although Lord Hodge was ultimately unable to come to a decision as to whether the agreements could be breached, his Opinion gives those interested in the case a clearer picture of what has happened, what is currently happening and what can be expected to happen in the future.”

LawSuit! May 2012 | Lawsuit! | News | Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP, Solicitors

The opinion of LH (23 March 2012) can be found here:

Clark & Whitehouse (Joint Administrators of Rangers Football Club Plc), Re Directions [2012] ScotCS CSOH_55 (23 March 2012)

redetinPosted on2:36 pm - Aug 25, 2012

When the CVA proposal was rejected, Sevco was required* to purchase the business and assets of the company, no mention of “history”. No mention at all of “history” anywhere in the CVA Proposal document of 29 May 2012.

*”4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.”

redetinPosted on2:42 pm - Aug 25, 2012

redetin says:
August 25, 2012 at 14:36

So, rather naughty of D&P to write “business and assets” in the CVA Proposal, and “business, history and certain assets” in the Progress Report.*

*”4.6 As part of a wider agreement with the Joint Administrators which was finalised prior to the CVA meetings, Newco was obliged to purchase the business, history and certain assets of the Company should the CVA fail.”

essexbeancounterPosted on3:04 pm - Aug 25, 2012

miki67 says:
August 25, 2012 at 11:57
13 0 i Rate This

I’m not an accountant and yet I can tell that there is something very wrong with the Duffers’ financial puff piece. It reads to me like a blueprint for legalised theft and fraud. Incredible stuff.
Have you noticed the hourly charge for the most menial of chores? I ask you. It tempts me to appply for a job with them as a lowly office gofer. I’d be a wealthy comedian very quickly…

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

Miki…you do not need any formal accountancy or economics qualifications to fathom that this whole charade is a (conflicted) rip-off.

Whilst not excusing the exorbitant charge out rates which can be applied here, there are a goodly number of genuine anomalies in company law which allow this kind of nonsense to be perpetrated. The whole artificial scenario of Whyte posturing to have his favoured firm be appointed as administrators, just “nosing” out HMRC’s favoured firm(S), indicates that from the start, something stinks behind this whole scenario.

I ask the question, which answers itself really: had this not been RFC going “belly up”, but a similar sized organisation in Scotland going “belly” up, surely the MSM would have engaged suitably qualified financial and business staff reporters to cover the news and raise the correct questions and probe where they knew any porkies were being blatantly fed back to the public?

I ask the question again, does it suit the MSM to have “fitba’ churnalists” cover such a story, in the full knowledge that none will ask the relevant probing question(s)? Does this policy really emanate from the highest editorial level in Scotland?

SouthernExilePosted on3:30 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Was just catching up on Paul McC’s scotslaw site in the past few minutes, did a refresh and got a WordPress statement saying the account is suspended for violations of terms of service??

Anybody got any info?? Paul?

BlindsummitPosted on4:15 pm - Aug 25, 2012

I’m getting that too SouthernExile. Perhaps compaints and pressure from Sevco?

scottcPosted on6:40 pm - Aug 25, 2012

From Companies House.
RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc)
Company number SC004276
incorporated 27 May 1899
Name changed 31 July 2012

From Companies House
The Rangers Football Club Plc (Formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd)
Company No. SC425159
incorporated 29 May 2012
Name changed 31 July 2012

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#

That’s a bit naughty Goosy. Sevco are listed as The Rangers Football Club Limited, a Private Limited Company, not a public one.

It does stink though

HirsutePursuitPosted on7:43 pm - Aug 25, 2012

http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/administratorsinformation/Rangers%20-%20Progress%20Report%20-%2024%20August%202012.PDF

Under Section 1. Definitions

Word or Phrase
Rangers / the Company / the Club

Definition
RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276);

There we have it.

The Rangers Football Club Plc (the football club founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1899) is “Rangers / the Company / the Club”.

As I have said before, D&P sold the Rangers trademarks – this is why Sevco Scotland (the football club founded & incorporated in 2012) could change its name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd and play in the SFL as Rangers FC.

This new club can call itself Rangers; but it is not Rangers.

AngusPosted on8:07 pm - Aug 25, 2012

HirsutePursuit says:
August 25, 2012 at 19:43

Word or Phrase
Rangers / the Company / the Club

Definition
RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276);

——–

As I’ve said before, the “definitions” section refers only to that document. In other words, where you see “Rangers / The Company / The Club” printed elsewhere in that document, that is what those words mean – “RFC 2012 PLC”.

e.g. We don’t understand “Rangers” as meaning the club RFC 2012 PLC when we see it in current match reports anymore. More extremely, we don’t take a reference to “the Company” in an article about, say, Virgin, to mean RFC 2012 PLC.

Mind you, your reasoning is OK by me. 🙂

nickmcguinnessPosted on8:41 pm - Aug 25, 2012

I asked the other night if anyone had a copy of the presentation Charles Green made to potential investors before the CVA was rejected.
Now it’s turned up on kerrydalestreet.co.uk – and you can log on to it here:

http://freepdfhosting.com/764719bf8c.pdf

The document shows that Zeus Capital hired Green on 10% commission to raise up to £30m for Sevco 5088.
And investors were told that if they invested in Sevco, they could own up to 85% of RFC PLC’s shares, with the other 15% being owned by 26,000 “fan investors”.
What does this mean?
It means that Green had reached agreement with Duff & Phelps and WHYTE to sell the wee chancer’s shares for him.
And if the CVA failed? There was a contingency plan to cover that too.
Perhaps involving a later share issue?
I keep saying it . . .
Ticketus and Whyte are THE key players in this Sevco farce.

Duff & Phelps, Green and Zeus (and Ticketus and Whyte) are desperate, really desperate, to get this shareholding stitched up and presented as a “fait au complet” before BDO get a chance to unravel this scandal.

bad capt madmanPosted on8:53 pm - Aug 25, 2012

A poster called Merciatic replied to one of Paul McConville’s blogs on CGs flotation plan.

Merciatic put a link to CG’s presentation to investors (http://freepdfhosting.com/764719bf8c.pdf), which amongst other things mentions figures from the 2011 accounts.

Now forgive me if i’m wrong but I don’t remember reading that these accounts had been provided to the SFA.

Some of the figures include statements such as a £9,658,000 trading profit, an operating profit of £1,246,000, and an after tax profit of £76,000. How can there be profits if this is a new company? The timeframe was pre CVA, the oldco had huge debt, and the newco was about to be bought by CG by a £5.5m loan? Unbelievably it also states social responsibility as one of four “strategic levers”.

The main question though, did either RFC, D&P, Sevco, or TRFC submit annual accounts which CG uses as part of his pitch?

easyJamboPosted on9:09 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Captain Haddock says: August 25, 2012 at 20:53

The accounts for 2011 were published but in an “unaudited” form. There is no reason to doubt their authenticity as they only covered the first couple of months of Craig Whyte’s tenure.

The trading profit was genuine and resulted from CL & EL funding in that year of approx £19M. It is that which brought the Lloyds debt down from approx £27M to £18M.

What it did show, however, was that without CL money (as in 2011/12) RFC was losing around £10M a year, something that Whyte was able to repeat with ease. 🙂

tomtomPosted on9:18 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Captain Haddock says:
August 25, 2012 at 20:53
———————————–

From the presentation doc;

“Brought forward tax losses of £40m to remain in place subject to HMRC approval”

He’s got to be having a laugh here surely 😀

FiferPosted on9:25 pm - Aug 25, 2012

campsiejoe says:
August 25, 2012 at 19:53

Maybe it’s because of the size of followers compared to Thistle!

FiferPosted on9:42 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Only saying, size of followers = who the media will write about, seems normal to me in a business sense….

smartie1947Posted on10:08 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Fifer says:

August 25, 2012 at 21:47

0

3

Rate This

While we are on about MSM so called journo’s that two faced Gonk Spence should go as well, ever read his blog on Dundee when they went bust and then compare it to Rangers, idiot of a man.

===========================================================
As a genuine born and bred citizen of the Kingdom, if your nom-de-plume is true, may I say you don’t half give the place a bad name.

bicho malo nunca muerePosted on10:23 pm - Aug 25, 2012

The MSM, along with CG as per his offer, wish to preserve the ‘The Old Firm’ as that narrative sells both brand loyalty, and the laziest and most hypocritical of copy. When the term starts to reappear it must be resisted by all fans of Scottish football (ad naseum), as killing this term is one way of ensuring recognition that Rangers expired, and that football can be sold on its merits, rather than its historical baggage.

FiferPosted on10:31 pm - Aug 25, 2012

bicho malo nunca muere says:
August 25, 2012 at 22:23

Agree, we don’t want associated with them either.

iceman63Posted on10:32 pm - Aug 25, 2012

This is a long post relating specifically to Rangers’ history and why it matters.Allyjambo amongst others seems to feel that the History question is irrelevant and that Rangers fans will claim it whilst others will deny them it. I disagree – indeed I would argue that the History of Rangers is fundamental to understanding just what has occurred with the switch to SEVCO for Rangers, the whole edifice of the 5-way agreement, and its centrality to events.

For SEVCO, obtaining the Rangers’ history appears from the outside to be a ludicrously high-risk means of obtaining league football in Scotland. When, in so doing, you appear to be accepting some of the debts of the old company, and some form of its footballing punishments it appears a highly dangerous strategy. The SPL investigation into illegal registrations has yet to take place and it seems inevitable that some further punishment for the decade long scam which allowed RFC to field a squad of players it could not afford bypassing proper registration procedures must follow. Given the serious nature of these allegations – they fundamentally amount to cheating the entire league for over a decade and have undermined the credibility of the whole game for that period – a lengthy suspension or massive fine ( potentially 50 million to recoup what has been lost to other clubs in the intervening periods which this fine could then repay) or both, such a decision to incorporate the history of Rangers appears to have the potential to destroy the entire organisation.

It cannot therefore be merely a question of “pays your money and takes your choice” as regards history. For either SEVCO or, I suspect, elements within the SFA itself, and the SPL and the SFL deem the carrying on of that history to be so fundamental that they were prepared to threaten the whole venture to maintain it.

The reason given, that of the need to transfer the share rather than apply for a new one is spurious. The actual process of this transfer from one legal entity to another is an ultra vires act and as such required a complete ignoring of the rule book to achieve. Given the willingness to adapt and twist the rules so blatantly, I would suggest that an application for a new licence – even though it required 3 years of audited accounts – could have been finessed much more easily that the process that allowed SEVCO entry into the league as Rangers. SEVCO could easily have bought a small junior or amateur club with 3 years of audited accounts, and upon receipt of the licence through a vote for the vacant place – one that would overwhelmingly have been passed by member clubs desperate to have Rangers in Scottish football – they could have been given blue livery and taken the place of the previous club as Rangers, calling themselves, Rangers. This course of action would have been fundamentally less risky financially and have had the benefit of being seen as being legitimate by the vast majority of all fans. The new club would have had no sanctions placed upon it nor the risk of further sanctions.

The financial argument that a successful Rangers is essential to a successful Scottish league again does not and cannot explain the necessity to keep a club linked to the old one through history. Indeed financially a new club would be more stable in its finances, would have been able to employ entirely new players and staff at Ibrox and could have engaged in the essential cost-cutting which SEVCO has up to date ignored to place the new club on a more sustainable and viable footing – and the new entity could not be chased for OLDCO’s football debts nor face the risks of footballing sanctions against them.

Hence in logistical practical term, and in financial terms the decision to encumber SEVCO with Rangers’ history makes no sense.

Thus it can only make sense in what I would refer to as cultural terms- the mentality of the organisation that was RFC at its highest levels and its acolytes and placemen at the core of the Scottish game, as well as these individuals’ perceptions of the majority of Rangers’ fans.

To these individuals Rangers football club is not merely a football club – a new club playing in blue and at Ibrox could have been set up with much less risk and much greater credibility than the present attempted continuity Rangers- it is about a philosophy and a vision of the world which has to be protected. Thus they need the history – and sadly I believe they needed all of it – not just the World record number of trophies, but the legacy of exclusion and sectarianism, the vision of a specifically protestant culture , the need to be the number one club in Scotland.

What would have been lost without the history seems to most football fans of most clubs to be an important part of a club – its bragging rights, its place in the record books – but not an essential part of the club. For most fans the ability to have a team on the pitch that can be supported every week would be the key thing. You could always generate a new history and a new culture. But to those in the highest echelons of the Scottish game, such a situation for Rangers – even if it ensured that a club called Rangers survived and was secure in its formation, was simply anathema. It is open to question whether Rangers’ fans would have felt the same. Personally I doubt it. I think most Rangers’ fans would have welcomed being on the other side of “the chase” and would have set about making a better club with a new history. Sadly they were denied that opportunity by powerful individuals determined to keep the past – no matter how chequered – at whatever cost

The history is the key here – it is what motivated the tearing up of the rule book, its preservation at all costs is what has taken the experience of a broken and collapsed club, and by refusing to accept that fact has transformed that into a complete destruction of all of the rules and fundamental processes governing the game. Without the “need” to preserve the history of Rangers we could have been in a similar position to where we are now with a footballing structure intact, and the fundamental principles of the game preserved.

It is that history and the insistence on its survival that has brought Scottish football to the brink of existence – rather than the collapse of RFC itself which could have been managed in a much more open, honest and sustainable fashion. It is the maintenance of that history that ensures Scottish football will not be healed in the foreseeable future.

CEPosted on10:49 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Fifer,

For a start Dundee did not ‘Go bust’. That dishonour, liquidation and extinction, has fallen to RFC alone.

So please get your facts right before insulting one of the best sports journalists in Scotland.

jean7brodiePosted on11:46 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Stanblack says:
August 25, 2012 at 22:32

Rate This

relax frankie

Thanks Stan!! Good wee comment!
I haven’t made many posts on here so far as I am in awe of all the erudite contributors so far. Keep up the good work.

rabPosted on11:56 pm - Aug 25, 2012

Yip, rangers are history all right.

nostarsandbarredPosted on12:05 am - Aug 26, 2012

Fifer says:
August 25, 2012 at 23:39
0 3 Rate This
Rangers will always be Rangers, even when we are long gone……

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Correct…… you are gone…. in a few months, you will be “long gone”. Nice to see you admit that point….

So now….. you are Sevco Scotland (est. 29/05/12, renamed on 31/07/12)… you are in Div 3 🙂

FiferPosted on12:10 am - Aug 26, 2012

5StarsorBehindBars says:
August 26, 2012 at 00:05
 0 0 Rate This
Fifer says:
August 25, 2012 at 23:39
0 3 Rate This
Rangers will always be Rangers, even when we are long gone……

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Correct…… you are gone…. in a few months, you will be “long gone”. Nice to see you admit that point….

So now….. you are Sevco Scotland (est. 29/05/12, renamed on 31/07/12)… you are in Div 3

Mustn’t be terrible when you are obsessed by another team rather than support your own.

midcalderanPosted on12:28 am - Aug 26, 2012

Captain Haddock says:
August 26, 2012 at 00:01

Great post, worthy of being a guest blog (hope TSFM agrees).
First version in moderation, so I’ll use some abbreviations and symbols.
This west coast shame of pro v cat
——————————————————————–
Captain. I came upon this type of inquisition in the mid 60’s when looking for my first job. I eventually secured a job with the Inland Revenue (now sadly -very sadly – HMRC) and at no time over a 40 year career, have I ever encountered a bias to towards anyone on grounds on religion, race etc.

I can assure anyone who is lurking or contributing to this site that any HMRC actions will be based solely on facts and evidence and not because of loyalty to one side or the other,

goosyPosted on12:58 am - Aug 26, 2012

A lateral thought looking back over the last 5 months

Was there a private debate anywhere in the MSM or at Ibrox as to whether liquidation of Oldco was a watershed moment for N.I as well as Scotland?
One that could to be siezed as an opportunity to disavow disgraceful NI elements of Rangers history ?
If so
Was a conscious decision taken to retain and promote these disgraceful elements for commercial reasons?

Or put more starkly

Did D&P and C Green decide that helping to promote the peace process in N.I was something they could not afford to do?

And did the MSM deliberately give their support for the same reason?