For those following the games, rooting for their favourite teams and feverishly discussing their matches between two glasses of ale, football is a mix of entertainment and something to be excited about. These fans are, in turn, a massive customer base for those behind football as a business: their dedication and following is the driving force behind broadcast rights, merchandise, and ticket sales, all of which turn a wonderful sport into a cash cow for those pulling the strings. As long as the game is fair, both in the field and behind the scenes, it’s a win-win for all parties: the players get their salaries, the fans get their quality football, and the business entities behind them, ranging from football betting operators to the teams’ owners, advertisers, sponsors, and such, all get their money. Like in every business, though, there are parties in football that don’t exactly operate according to the rules. Of business, that is.
What many people don’t realize, though, is that football goes beyond being simply a game. As MEP Stelios Kouloglou pointed out in an op-ed published on Euractive this April, football can often flow into different areas like politics and racial bias, pointing out that the emergence of Pelé, one of the best football players ever, was instrumental to significantly reducing racism in Brazil. Yet the democratic nature of football is degraded today thanks to all the money flowing into it. And the best example of this, Kouloglou writes, is the UEFA Champions League.
As he points out, the only clubs that can reach the Champions League semi-finals are from the “big 5” countries – Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Great Britain. And this happens not because there aren’t any talented teams in other countries but because of all the money flowing into the clubs nowadays. After all, not all clubs can afford to pay almost £200 million for a single player, no matter how talented and marketable the player might be. These big clubs with big money behind them syphon all the most talented players from all over the world, offering amazing transfer fees and strengthening their ranks – investing in their future success with the goal of keeping their fans’ attention pointed on them, and making even more money in the process.
And where there’s money, there must be scandals related to money. Corruption and tax avoidance run rampant across football, from the top of organizations like FIFA and UEFA down to local clubs and players, working with financial advisors like Kingsbridge that allegedly help them invest in ways that will grant them tax relief, schemes that “don’t work”, according to HM Revenue and Customs.
A few years ago, an unpopular opinion emerged in the press stating that the influx of big money into football will ruin it forever by attracting the “wrong kind of owners” that see clubs as their “cash cow”, among others. MP Damian Collins went as far as saying that “Running a big football club now is like running a Hollywood studio – it’s a content business. The money goes to the stars”. And this is one of the biggest issues today’s football faces that can ruin it forever.
In addition to the TOP v King (final?) hearing on Friday, Lord Tyre is due to pass down judgement on the "No to Kingsford Stadium" pressure group's request for Judicial Review of the decision to proceed with Aberdeen's proposed new stadium.
A new loan taken out by TRFC Ltd.
The begging bowl has gone back out to Close once again.
27 Feb 2019 MR01 Registration of charge SC4251590014, created on 20 February 2019
It’s worth noting that there was no mention of this borrowing made in the statement accompanying the interim accounts. The charge was created a week ago.
It’s as if they don’t want anyone to know about it.
The floating charge covers, the catering outlets, the PA system, Screens, Wifi, Albion Car Park and Edmiston House.
Quantum EJ?
Smugas 27th February 2019 at 20:44
Quantum EJ?
====================
1-0 to Hearts so far, and I'm just talking red cards.
====================
I've no idea how much was borrowed. It was reportedly around £3m when they took out the previous "overdraft" facility in February last year. I'd expect something similar this time round.
It just demonstrates that despite the half year "profit", they still have cash flow problems.
Easyjambo@19.41
Good spot. I wonder if Clyde SSB have picked up on that? Hugh was very keen to compliment t’Rangers on the interims on Monday night.
easyJambo 27th February 2019 at 17:21
'…In addition to the TOP v King (final?) hearing on Friday…'
*********************
I might have forgotten that, eJ, what with my USA-based son now home on a brief holiday!
But I'll be in Court on Friday to see Lady Wolffe do justice!
The TOP's order was (eventually)complied with.
Lord Bannatyne 's, the Court's order ,was not complied with timeously, but simply given the two fingers, while King went about arranging things to his maximum advantage.
Lady Wolffe will point that out, and direct that King be charged with criminal contempt of Court, and required to face trial.
Well, if I were Lady Wolffe, that would be my judgment, because even I can see that the hubristic King was working the system.
The wee low-life who swears at the sheriff gets put in the pokey for that kind of contempt of court.
In my view, company directors who abuse the court by sophisticated lying and bombast are real enemies of the State and should be regarded as being on the scale of evil as are, perhaps, owners of sport clubs who do not pay taxes due and lie to their sports governance body.
Just a quickie. BR is getting pelters from many quarters, but what about Lawwell?
I think BR has reached his breaking point with our CE – so fair enough – and there are two sides to every coin as they say.
Oh – NL will be fine (permanent appointment I hope. The fans love his 'heart of the sleeve' outlook)
Not too many miles OT, how about this , from the centre-pages of today's 'The Scotman':
" ..We need to think, front-foot, about how we want to see Scotland compete with the best, long-term………..Now is not the time for narrow self-interest or under-resourcing of the system to get in the way of log-term leadership and strategy…"
Thus speaks David D Murray, managing director of Murray Capital, flogging for all he's worth the 'Garden City' development project that is dear to the heart of a certain tax-cheat of a knight, who is on the board of Murray Capital, and whose use of a tax scheme devised by a struck-off lawyer-turned-porno-actor, had , of course,no more to do with 'narrow commercial self interest' than had the saving of his personal business by selling a famous football club for a pound!
Some things make one boak!
Absolutely!
Excellent spot there EJ.
Wonder if the SMSM copy/pasters plagiarize your efforts?
[And such a good spot that I won't tease and add to your suffering after last night's game.
]
If this really is tom english then he is a disgusting wee nonentity.
Tom English
@TEnglishSport
‘Welcome back, Neil Lennon. Here’s a song about the IRA…’
https://mobile.twitter.com/TEnglishSport/status/1100847549936746497?p=v&fbclid=IwAR0eWfiqOWLNwgUbX2B7ga5KIYOXeGmj6JY01cEiikzZoWTdHYcUOOKT-Sw
Close Leasing have two charges against Rangers (the Club not the PLC) now, one was delivered yesterday.
Why would a club whose holding company had such a marvelous interim result (aye right) be obtaining loans (presumably what the charges are securing) part way through the season.
Could it be they are cash poor, bearing in mind they don't have proper banking facilities and operate on a cash basis.
Hand to mouth spring to mind.
Today's CoS Rolls show that two TOP cases will be heard tomorrow.
Friday 1st March
LADY WOLFFE
PETITION DEPARTMENT
STARRED MOTIONS
P418/18 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers & Mergers for interdict – Lindsays – Dentons UK
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers & Mergers for orders sec 955 – Lindsays – Dentons UK
The latter case number has been used throughout the enforcement process, however, I don't have a record of the interdict, but going by the number it dates back to last year. It may be that TOP actually took out an interdict on King to do/not to do something last year. I'd assume that both cases will be tidied up by Lady Wolffe tomorrow, unless there is something else going on that we don't know about.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/02/28/sevco-secured-loans-and-the-meaning-of-life/
How much did they borrow ? – between 7.5m and 10m is hinted at
At what rate of interest ? – up to 42% possibly mibbees definitely
What is the value of the assets this is secured on ? well that's my question but a derelict building, a piece of wasteland masquerading as a car park, some big screens and a kitchen sink wouldn't appear to me to be worth much more than the 3m they secured it on last time around. I very much doubt 14.2m could be realised in a distressed auction of said assets so it would be foolhardy to lend such a sum on those terms . My guess and it is just a guess is that it is for another 3m at 30% just to keep the wolf from the door until that Chinese market opens again . In the meantime a replay at home v Aberdeen in the cup won't go amiss as every penny counts. From a 5m profit ,Frodgers leaving , closing the gap to 6pts and reducing the GD by 4 to Lennon returning with a last gasp win then walking up to a Wonga loan is a roller coaster of emotion that has currently stopped in the basement. The facts as we know them are that not one Director has stepped in to lend a penny and they know the real state of play better than all the bampots combined . I think that speaks volumes.
Timtim 28th February 2019 at 18:17
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/02/28/sevco-secured-loans-and-the-meaning-of-life/
=============================
I'm not sure that Phil's source has got the published numbers right. The £7.6m in the accounts was split as £4.6m this season (required from January 19) and a further £3m next season (next financial year).
However, in addition to the £4.6m the accounts indicated that a further £2m had been "borrowed" as investor loans before the accounts were published, suggesting that the borrowing requirement could have been as much as £6.6m in this year.
King compliance with the TOP requirement saw him disclose information that around £1.84m had been borrowed since the financial year end (figure extrapolated from comparison of the offer document and the accounts). That would appear to be loosely consistent with the £2m specified in the accounts.
In addition to the borrowing, another £1.5m was raised as cash from the share placement last year (mainly from Club 1872).
Putting all the bits an pieces together, their cash flow shortfall for the full year could be £1.5m plus £2m plus £4.6m, so £8.1m in total.
easyJambo 28th February 2019 at 16:17
'..Today's CoS Rolls show that two TOP cases will be heard tomorrow.'
*************
What fun, two for the price of one!
I know that petition 498/18 ( not at all connected to the 'saga', but with the Royal Bank of Scotland) was presented on 11/05/18, and given that there might be about 100 petitions a month, 418/18 may have been presented in February/March of last year.
King's appeal against Lord Bannatyne's order was rejected on 28/02/18.
I have no note of that time of seeing any reference to 418/18, so cannot say whether it pre-dated that judgment or came later.
Tomorrow, all will be revealed, I hope.
"Fiat justitia ruat caelum" is the cry!
I am a glutton for punishment.
I have now read (on the Companies House website) the whole of the text of the Close Leasing floating charge lending agreement with TRFC.
By jingo, don't they make sure that the borrower is wrapped in such tentacles that a default on his part means being squeezed to death!
To borrow money on such terms has to be a sign of desperation!
I realise, of course, that lenders have to protect themselves against men who may have already shown that they might be dishonest and ready to lie, cheat, and steal.
And perhaps in the Close Leasing world, and the world of Del Boy- type finance, distrust is the order of the day.
As it now is in the world of Scottish Football.
@EJ , you included the 1.5m raised in the share issue as part of the shortfall? surely that is a positive and not a negative. In the murky world of King it's a constant guessing game as to the true state of affairs but I think we can all agree it's not looking good …..again.
Timtim 1st March 2019 at 01:07
@EJ , you included the 1.5m raised in the share issue as part of the shortfall? surely that is a positive and not a negative. In the murky world of King it's a constant guessing game as to the true state of affairs but I think we can all agree it's not looking good …..again.
==========================
The £1.5m a positive insofar as the club has raised rather than borrowed the cash, however I expect that it will already have been spent to cover operating expenses.
Once we see the Cash Flow figures for the full year, it should show up along with any new loans as "financing activities" that will cover the operating losses for the full year.
BBC website has a quiz – rank the 8 Scottish Cup quarter-finalists in order of number of semi-final appearances:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47394040
There seems to be a problem with it, though, because I put Rangers in 7th spot (ahead of ICT) and it hinted they should be 2nd! Bizarre.
stevo
They probably meant ascending order.
Turning to the main blog-piece, and thanks to Tom Jones for it, I have to say I find the game is the poorer (ha) for this huge influx of money. Not just because it polarises success in the game towards the 'elite', but because it has brought in a sanitised version of the game.
To me, one of the great things about football was the way in which conditions, luck, mistakes etc could combine to create surprise, and often undeserving, results. The game, itself, is predicated on the difficulty of scoring a goal, which is what makes it so exciting when a goal is scored, in the same way that precious metals and stones are made more precious by their rarity. Even a goal-less draw can be full of goalmouth excitement and have supporters on edge throughout.
This randomness is what led to smaller clubs winning leagues and cups, and now it's almost gone.
But now we have football teams full of extremely talented players – the best that money can buy – coached to hold onto the ball, and regardless of how 'beautiful' this might look to the purist, it is slow, and can be turgid in it's methodical approach. A goal-less draw in this context is more likely to have been played in the middle of the park than have seen the ball pinged into crowded goalmouths with posts hit, miskicks from close range, downright unbelievable misses and incredible saves.
Not everyone will see it this way, and they may even be right, but it has gone this way because the mega-buck investors must see their investments protected by 'hold-onto-the-ball-at-all-costs' coaches. And they do hold onto the ball, and they do beat the less well funded teams ninety nine times out of a hundred, but that only brings joy and excitement to the supporters of the elite clubs, most of whom have never attended a game in their lives.
Added to this, with player 'values' going through the roof, the game, itself, has had to be changed. No longer the excitement of a sliding tackle started six yards away, seeing the ball won fairly, but with the attacker sent flying and possibly injured, though the tacklers very often were the ones hurt in such clashes.
I'm sure there's more examples that would make this post even longer (phew I hear you all collectively sigh) and just as many welcoming the changes, but my point is that the game has been changed on the field, as well as off, for the sake of protecting the club owners' investments, and this has also reduced the chances of a 'smaller' club carrying off a surprise assault on the prima donna clubs, both domestically and in European competitions, for the excitement and randomness of 'chance' has been greatly removed from the sport.
For the record, I'm not making the point that one form of the game is better than the other, just trying to show how the influx of money has made a change to the game itself, and not just to the chances of the lesser clubs ever challenging the elite financially.
The Scotsman has a piece, listing the oldest Scottish footy clubs. Suppose it fills the columns.
The TRFC entry is, of course, conflated with 'Rangers'.
But, the wording is a bit confusing;
"…
Peter McNeil, his brother Moses, Peter Campbell and William McBeath met in 1872. Games were played that year but official founding was a year later. Liquidated in 2012.
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/the-oldest-football-clubs-how-every-team-in-the-spfl-ranks-in-order-of-when-they-were-founded-1-4877768?page=10
… "
It wasn't "Liquidated in 2012" it is in the process of being liquidated, however it still exists.
The only mistake is that someone has put a picture of the first team from a different club beside the details.
Just carelessness really.
As expected, Lady Wolffe discharged both the interdict and the contempt actions after both sides agreed that should be the way forward.
A discussion on expenses resulted in Lady Wolffe ruling that King was liable for expenses and an additional fee incurred by the TOP in respect of the contempt proceedings. There was no indication of the amounts involved.
StevieBC @ 11.11
————————————————
Another interesting one
Airdrieonians 1878:
Liquidated in 2002 but full name restored in 2013.
Sums up my feelings. It's why I'd struggle to tell you who's been European Champions for the last however many years. It used to be a special tournament, but it's been carved up to such an extent to favour the elites that it's now boring beyond belief. The same teams play each other at the same stages every year, just the same long slow progression.
Same with the EPL – you've got probably 2 teams as genuine title contenders, and another 4 who will see themselves as Champions League qualification contenders. The rest of the league's ambition is to finish anywhere between 8th and 17th. Any lower, and they get relegated, losing their access to the cash cow. Any higher and they risk qualifying for the Europa League, hindering their attempts the following season to finish between 8th and 17th. That's it, that's the extent of their ambition. FA Cup? No thank you. we'd rather concentrate on boring a 0-0 draw out of our midtable rivals.
bordersdon 1st March 2019 at 12:18
=============================
And the reality, the liquidation process started in 2002 and was completed in 2013.
That was when Clydebank, who were going by the name Airdrie United at the time, could then be renamed Airdrieonians.
It is reasonably accurately recorded here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.
Airdrieonians Football Club are a Scottish semi-professional football team based in Airdrie who are members of the Scottish Professional Football League(SPFL) and play in the SPFL Scottish League One. They were formed in 2002 as Airdrie United Football Club following the liquidation of the original club. The club's official name was changed in 2013 with the approval of the SFA to the traditional name of Airdrieonians. As with the earlier team of the same name, this is often colloquially shortened to simply "Airdrie".
The club have won two trophies in their short history – the Scottish Second Division in 2003–04 and the Challenge Cup in 2008–09. Once described as "the luckiest team in the Scottish League", the club have benefited in league division placements due to other club's misfortunes on three occasions (2008, 2009 and 2012).
And with the massively inflated fees involved with transfers, players' and managers' / coaches' salaries etc. there is increased risk.
With the involvement of foreign / 'new' club investors – especially from the USA – I am surprised that the EPL top clubs have not agitated to do away with relegation…yet.
And / or creating a closed, Champions League for top clubs only, with no relegation.
Leagues based on financial strength rather than footballing merit seems like the logical, eventual conclusion.
Maximise revenues, minimise risk… And to hell with what the punters think or want.
And football will then be ruined, completely.
Cluster One 26th February 2019 at 19:35
I take it celtic will receive more in compensation than the RIFC posted as a profit.
=========================================
Whilst I am aware you know that RIFC's "profit" in the interims is no such thing, the short answer is "almost certainly".
Given the remaining period of Brendan Rodgers' contract and it's reported level I would expect the compensation to be £6m, or a bit more.
And with Neil Lennon not being employed by another club at the time there would be no compensation money being paid out. I would also imagine that his salary as short term manager would be considerably less than the amount Brendan Rodgers was being paid.
Just a guess here but all told I think the situation will be worth something approaching £7m to the club.
That's without the need for any shenanigans regarding interest or amortisation having to be mentioned.
Lady Wolffe had me going when she returned to Court at 11.55,after a short break, to deliver her judgment.
She quoted from a judgment delivered by Lord Reed [ Sovereign Dimensional Survey case, [2008] CSIH 12, P.3058/07]
" [31] The rationale of the court's jurisdiction in contempt is to uphold the rule of law by protecting or enforcing the authority of the court. As Lord Justice-General Emslie said in HM Advocate v Airs 1975 JC 67 at page 69, the court's power to punish contempt
"arises from the inherent and necessary jurisdiction to take effective action to vindicate its authority and preserve the due and impartial administration of justice".
Since the jurisdiction is inherent in the court and is exercised in order to protect the administration of justice, it is for the court to determine the circumstances in which it will permit the jurisdiction to be invoked. ""
I really thought she was going to go for it and do King for Contempt for not complying with Lord Bannatyne's order.
Sadly, she did not.
The TOP was not bothering its sorry a.se: -just wanted their expenses, now that King had complied (having in effect been allowed plenty of time to work things to his advantage)
She recalled the interdict, and 'proof' in the matter of contempt was formally discharged.
The fact that expenses including the additional expenses asked for were granted to the TOP does nothing to lessen my disappointment.
But maybe one of these days, King will over-reach himself one way or another.
I live in cheerful hope that that day may come sooner rather than later.
Thanks John from all of us.
King has prevaricated his way to escaping having to make the offer to the disenfranchised minority shareholders which our laws say he should have made as a concert party.
And the takeover panel have proved to be essentially toothless when someone not in their wee city club of chaps in the square mile cocks a snook at them.
It raises at least 6 questions which I'll share.
Firstly who is advising/ has advised Mr King on the machinations that have saved him millions and at the same time shafted other shareholders who might have grabbed the chance to bail out?
I really feel that someone somewhere with the wisdom is a hidden adviser of just how far to push the envelope and together they have danced round the very leaden TOP.
Secondly how do the other key bears in his concert party (who are on the surface legit businessmen) feel about their role in this unusual and dodgy piece of business and all the bad publicity and worry?
Thirdly what do the cleverer and more switched rangers fans in the monthly £18.72 funding club think about what has actually happened and is happening to what were substantial funds to buy real and valuable shares. The fact that their monies have been used to buy less valuable confetti-style shares and at the same time bail out the career criminal will be apparent to some of them.
Fourthly what do the disenfranchised minority shareholders think about it all, especially the ones who would have said yes to the offer and what are their options now and going forward?
Fithly (or maybe filthily) what do the SFA think about all these actions by the chairman of Rangers International, the holding company who is widely reported as Chairman of the actual club who play football and have assumed the name of Rangers and all the things that go with the defunct club which in reality is awaiting liquidation in a box in an accountants room somewhere and still legal owner of all its titles despite some of the post 5 way agreement rhetorics and inventions by Regan and Doncaster.
Lastly what do the impecunious club feel about the sheer waste of pound notes they have paid and will have to pay to legal professionals and the courts in defending the illicit actions of the chairman of their holding company.
John Clark 1st March 2019 at 15:11
I really thought she was going to go for it and do King for Contempt for not complying with Lord Bannatyne's order.
Sadly, she did not.
The TOP was not bothering its sorry a.se: -just wanted their expenses, now that King had complied (having in effect been allowed plenty of time to work things to his advantage)
She recalled the interdict, and 'proof' in the matter of contempt was formally discharged.
==========================================
That can't be right John. According to "sitonfence" yesterday they were "gunning" for him.
"It would appear that the Panel now realise that King has taken them for a long and expensive ride and has arranged his affairs to the disadvantage of the disenfranchised stakeholders. They evidently are gunning for the two bob crook from South Africa. There have been many false dawns so one does not wish to get ahead of oneself, but they would not be back in the Court of Session in the presence of Lady Wolffe if the stench of foul play from south of The Limpopo was not overwhelming.
Posted on February 28, 2019 Author sitonfence"
'John Clark 1st March 2019 at 15:11
The TOP was not bothering its sorry a.se: –just wanted their expenses, now that King had complied (having in effect been allowed plenty of time to work things to his advantage)
She recalled the interdict, and 'proof' in the matter of contempt was formally discharged.
The fact that expenses including the additional expenses asked for were granted to the TOP does nothing to lessen my disappointment.'
###########################################
John, some 'karmic' thinking required here.
I expect that DCK will have repatriated the funds he committed to the UK to back his offer to SA/BVI the moment the offer failed.
That means he'll have to jump through costly hoops at least one more time to pay his lawyers & the TOP. Based on past practice, he won't be writing those cheques today.
I suspect we'll see him in court a few times more disputing fees & expenses before he finally pays his dues.
I think there’s still some ‘legs’ in this…
Jingso.Jimsie 1st March 2019 at 16:55
I suspect we'll see him in court a few times more disputing fees & expenses before he finally pays his dues.
I think there’s still some ‘legs’ in this…
========================
Lady Wolffe neatly side-stepped that one by advising the parties to resolve any further expenses issues through the Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session.
Thanks to court guys once again
………..
Fourthly what do the disenfranchised minority shareholders think about it all, especially the ones who would have said yes to the offer and what are their options now and going forward?
………….
I would hope they awaited for today’s outcome before they think about what to do next
Also, I think there’s still some ‘legs’ in this…
easyJambo 1st March 2019 at 18:12
Lady Wolffe neatly side-stepped that one by advising the parties to resolve any further expenses issues through the Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session.
……………..
I am reminded of another judge who asked (both parties) to work it out.We now await another court date in April.
King is not one to work anything out unless he is forced too.
Re : King/TOP
I know via JC's comments on meeting two of the TOP personnel at a hearing that they (the TOP) were satisfied how they had handled the case & got King to (eventually) make an offer . Their remit was to protect the rights of the balance of shareholders outwith the concert party holdings , however , if I was one of the shareholders done out of the offer of £0.20 thanks to King's share placing recently I would be feeling a bit miffed to say the least .
I can't understand why the TOP didn't introduce the cold shoulder into proceedings on King (was it because he resides in SA ?) to accelerate matters . Anyway , you have to say King has played a blinder overall in what amounts to a massive p*sstake of the TOP .
So after all the Top/King to-ing and fro-ing we now have Mike Ashley as the next challenger. Might turn out different in the next exciting instalment.
King could not have done what he done without the new share issue.
In order to make it work he needed the other lenders to agree to take their loans as equity, and Club 1972 (which he seems to control anyway) to pay actual money (donated by the supporters) to buy further shares.
Those people then had to agree not to sell their shares, keeping the number below 50%.
All to stop him personally making the offer and it being accepted by a substantial number of people, who were entitled to sell to him under the circumstances.
There can be little doubt he has total control over the support, the club, the holding company and the major shareholder.
Basically they are back with one person controlling the lot. I thought they were not going to let that happen again.
https://twitter.com/pieandbov/status/1101572959246917634?s=21
Seems like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Homunculus 1st March 2019 at 16:22
"That can't be right John. According to "sitonfence" yesterday they were "gunning" for him"
**************
Well, if he can read what follows and still maintain that assertion, his idea of 'gunning for someone' is probably different from yours and mine!
Today in Court
For the sake of completeness, I have tried to make some sense of the 12 pages of scribble in the new notebook ('Shorthand reporters notebook ' £1.49) I bought in a stationery shop near the top of Cockburn St on my way to Parliament House.
As usual, I can't say it's a word by word account, but only my understanding of what was said by each speaker, using substantially the principal words they used .
The judge and the QC s have of course read everything to do with every aspect of the Sec 955 action and can speak in a kind of shorthand , very often not finishing a sentence because the others know what is meant.
JC
********
Before Lady Wolffe, Court Room 7, Parliament House, Friday 1st March 2019, 10.00 a.m
Mr Johnstone QC for the Pursuer (the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers)
Mr Mitchell QC for the respondent.
Mr J: Good morning, m'lady. There are two motions before the Court today, one relating to the interdict, the other relating to Contempt. I'll deal with the Contempt first. The notes of agreement between the Parties show that the parties agree that it is for the Court to decide how the contempt issue should be dealt with.
The petition for interdict was raised because of the respondent's failure to comply with the Takeover Panel's requirement that he should make the Offer.
The Offer has since been made. There is now no practical content in the minute, no real purpose in taking the matter any further.
Lady W: Yes…..it was in January 2016..?
Mr J: …and the finishing line was reached. There were other aspects to the action:
The motion today is that that motion be dismissed, and that expenses should be awarded to the Petitioner
Lady W: There are two separate expenses issues?
Mr J: Yes. On the Interdict of 22nd April 2018, this was raised against the making of an Offer that would not contain the necessary guarantee of cash being available in the UK. King had issued a 'statement' about making an Offer, so the Panel sought interdict and expenses.
Lady W: What is the position in relation to expenses when matter is not going to 'Proof'?
Mr J: It was an appropriate step in the public interest. There is no reason why the Petitioner should not get expenses, but that is for the Court.
Lady W: Mr Mitchell?
Mr M: The formal disposal to which I accede is to recall the interdict. As regards the Minute, the Court of course has the power to overrule. The answer to my Lady's question to Mr Johnstone about the position where matters have not gone to 'Proof' is found in the minute, in which basically it is said that if you don't oppose, you won't be liable…
Mr J: relative to the interdict, there are two points, first, the Court has power to award expenses
secondly, expenses can be awarded against parties not involved.
On the minute of Contempt…….
Lady W: Do I take into account the evidence I heard? [ed; that is, during the hearing when King was giving evidence]
Mr J: Yes, m'Lady.
Lady W: Mr Mitchell?
Mr M: That's a difficult question…
Lady W: It's not about whether Contempt was established but about the way the matter was resolved……I have picked out two passages from the evidence : there are the words “.. do you now accept..', and , in reference to cash confirmation, Mr King saying “ I understand that, from his evidence yesterday”[ ed. The evidence of the South Africa expert]
Mr M; No, Contempt was not investigated to conclusion, m'Lady. The answer to your question must be no, unless 'wilful defiance' were proved.
Lady W:… Yes…. I know.
Mr J:………expenses in relation to the Contempt motion should not be a matter of guessing what conclusion would have been arrived at! How should expenses be decided when 'Proof' is cut off in order to give respondent time to procure compliance with the Order? The proceedings achieved the objective, the order was achieved, but only because of the contempt threat. The matter had dragged out since June 2016. There was the TOP order, then appeal, and then appeal to the Courts, and then a Court order, and then confirmation of the Court order in 2018. From June 2016 Mr King had plenty of time. He did nothing, until the proceedings before your Ladyship. The minute was not judicially determined, but that was because of Mr Mitchell's motion.
[the claim for expenses] is based on a number of heads of claim
the complexity of procedures ( the need for reference to the Lord Advocate on the competency question required considerable time)
the South Africa dimension (S.A tax law, exchange control, South Africa expert)
the share issue announcement while proceedings were under way
the skill, time and labour of solicitors
the need to serve proceedings in South Africa
the volume of documentation
Lady W: 4 volumes, including the Code itself..but a lot of ordinary emails..
Mr J: Yes. Every litigation is of importance to the parties involved, but this litigation was high profile, with members of the public and shareholders applying pressure, and the credibility of the Panel as a Regulatory body being in question, and the stakes were higher than normal.
The Takeover Panel wanted NOT penalty, but positive engagement with the Respondent.
And in the circumstances, an additional fee is appropriate,m'Lady.
Lady W: Mr Mitchell?
Mr M:…..The expenses in the interdict are relatively trivial, m'Lady. The 'prayer' I set out indicated that we were not opposing but exploring the terms of the Order.
As far as expenses in the Minute are concerned the onus would [have been?] be on the Pursuer to prove that there was contempt.This is a case where the matter had not been determined. The Petitioner is seeking in effect a consolation prize which My Lady cannot give,absent proof of the allegation of Contempt.
Lady W: refers to Lord Reed's judgment ..I'm not sure I'm with you..
Mr M: [I couldn't follow what sounded like irrelevant waffle]..
Lady W : the tenor of the evidence from Mr King was that he did understand., and the indulgence of the Court allowed him to reach agreement to make the Offer….
Mr M: the Petitioner is using the wrong tool…
Lady W: What would be the appropriate tool?
Mr M: [I couldn't follow the first part of what he said]… my comments on the heads of expenses:
complexity? No, just a matter of pure law, regarding the position of the Lord Advocate.
South Africa exchange control? Nothing out of the ordinary
South Africa dimension? Does this get over the necessary hurdle required to attract additional fee?
Solicitors' time, knowledge and skill? Really not enough , no specialised knowledge required
Huge volumes of documentation? Not really.
Lady W: What about Mr Johnstone's observation of being the first time Section 955 has been used? Should I ignore that?
Mr M: I think you have to look at it in the round….Under head (g) , an anomalous head, a reward for good behaviour by solicitors, not deserving of Additional Fee!
Mr Johnstone: Two points of detail: first, the irrevocable undertakings and their impact.This was a new matter, in Mr Geeling's statement refers to 2/10/18…the Code required…
Second, some weight was placed on Mr King's evidence 'suddenly coming to understanding'……..WE never reached cross-examination! I would have questioned him about how he 'now' understood during proceedings.
The respondent seeks to have his cake and eat it.
[Court rose]
And Lady Wolffe's judgment can be found in my post of today at 15.11
Thanks John from all of us.
King has prevaricated his way to escaping having to make the offer to the disenfranchised minority shareholders which our laws say he should have made as a concert party.
And the takeover panel have proved to be essentially toothless when someone not in their wee city club of chaps in the square mile cocks a snook at them.
It raises at least 6 questions which I'll share.
Firstly who is advising/ has advised Mr King on the machinations that have saved him millions and at the same time shafted other shareholders who might have grabbed the chance to bail out?
I really feel that someone somewhere with the wisdom is a hidden adviser of just how far to push the envelope and together they have danced round the very leaden TOP.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They are not leaden. Ask JC the finest were in court but a clever mind was backing King and the delays count for much when the "Lords" get irritated. Doesnt take much.
Secondly how do the other key bears in his concert party (who are on the surface legit businessmen) feel about their role in this unusual and dodgy piece of business and all the bad publicity and worry?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They've been rolled and are Rangers men. Don't know what you expect.
Thirdly what do the cleverer and more switched rangers fans in the monthly £18.72 funding club think about what has actually happened and is happening to what were substantial funds to buy real and valuable shares. The fact that their monies have been used to buy less valuable confetti-style shares and at the same time bail out the career criminal will be apparent to some of them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He he. The clever and switched on Ranger. Urr you daft?
Fourthly what do the disenfranchised minority shareholders think about it all, especially the ones who would have said yes to the offer and what are their options now and going forward?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They probably dont want the hassle. There is no revenge.
Fithly (or maybe filthily) what do the SFA think about all these actions by the chairman of Rangers International, the holding company who is widely reported as Chairman of the actual club who play football and have assumed the name of Rangers and all the things that go with the defunct club which in reality is awaiting liquidation in a box in an accountants room somewhere and still legal owner of all its titles despite some of the post 5 way agreement rhetorics and inventions by Regan and Doncaster.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Guilty
Lastly what do the impecunious club feel about the sheer waste of pound notes they have paid and will have to pay to legal professionals and the courts in defending the illicit actions of the chairman of their holding company.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Hehe. They don't care a monkeys as long as their "heritage" is continued.
Hugh McDonald had his say on Rodgers a few minutes ago on Radio Scotland.
A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, in my opinion.
For McDonald is one of the SMSM who goes along with the Big Lie, and has not ever ,as a 'journalist', sought the truth about the Res 12 issue and the 'liquidation survival' myth, but happily goes along with the herd, as if he too had been fed for years on succulent lamb.
As if on cue and apropos the blog here Sitonfence is speculating that the way Leicester operate their finances and the club’s run of games at the end of the season could see Brendan Rogers looking for another job by 12 May.
Money ruining footy…
All I'll say about Rodgers' judgement: he will eventually come to regret his decision – if only for purely selfish reasons – that he 'discarded' 2 trophies from his CV.
And at the other end of the financial riches swirling around the game…
Recently I refused to take the wife to a CFC v Hibs game.
It was midweek and the 'cheap' tickets were £31 each.
Plus an additional £2.30 for the 'option' of printing the tickets yourself!
With pie & Bovril it was c.£75 all in.
Being a tightwad I told the wife it wasn't worth it: she reluctantly agreed.
Before this though, we had considered applying for season tickets, as it should be more economical. Aware of a waiting list, I duly went into the CFC website just to stick our names down.
Once you enter your details there is a charge of £10 each.
No mention if it is deducted from your ST purchase, or if it is refundable.
So, £20 to join a queue! And;
[There's probably T&C's somwhere, but it definitely wasn't at all obvious on screen during the registering process.]
Don't know if this is standard for most clubs, but my point is: whilst lavish salaries can be paid to managers and players, some clubs are getting progressively greedier in their attempts to squeeze every last penny out of the fans.
IMO.
….which is mibbees not ruining football for me, but it’s certainly making me question its value to me.
With regards to the John James article:
This is a good time for Leicester to appoint Rodgers (or, if you prefer, Rodgers to join Leicester).
All he has to do in the remainder of this season is ensure the Foxes finish 17th or better in a 20 team league.
This morning, they're 11th, 10 points ahead of the team in 18th (play-off) place. They're 18 points ahead of the team in 19th (automatic relegation spot). They've 5 home & 5 away games to go. Those ten games are split 5 teams above them & 5 teams below. I suspect a realistic Rodgers will be looking for a minimum of 12-15 points of the 30 available. Relegation is virtually impossible. He'll get a pre-season & a transfer window before the real examination of his credentials next season.
Ex Ludo 2nd March 2019 at 09:53
As if on cue and apropos the blog here Sitonfence is speculating that the way Leicester operate their finances and the club’s run of games at the end of the season could see Brendan Rogers looking for another job by 12 May.
=============================================
From his latest.
"It had long been my contention that the Rodgers’ appointment was not done and dusted within forty-eight hours. This has now been confirmed.
How does that fit in with his recent
"Other than being pushed I cannot conceive any circumstances which would compel Rodgers to leave Celtic for Leicester City."
It can't have been his contention for that long.
easyJambo 1 March 2019 18.12
'..Lady Wolffe neatly side-stepped that one by advising the parties to resolve any further expenses issues through the Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session.'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That prompted me to try to see what the functions of the Auditor are.
This link gives some basics https://auditorcos.org.uk/taxation/
From it, I have taken this:
"Taxation
Taxation is the process where an independent determination of fees, in any matter, is carried out by the Auditor. At the conclusion of the taxation having considered all the documentation and where appropriate heard submissions, the Auditor issues a report. This is binding on the parties and may only be overturned after consideration by the Court.
The Auditor of the Court of Session does not (my italics)assess fees. "
That suggests that all the donkey work of setting out what they want to claim by way of 'expenses'( i.e 'costs' ) has still to be done by the parties, and the Auditor is the referee( at a cost to whichever party makes reference to him, I suppose? ) where there is disagreement.
I suspect that Cluster One (1st March 2019 at 18.26) is probably right. King will get his QC to argue the toss over every penny to the nth degree not just to postpone the day when he has to part with a penny but because he seems to have some deep-seated personality trait that requires him always to assert himself by arguing, in a sort of paranoid suspicion that people are always trying to rip him off.
There might be a proper name for such an unpleasant condition, and perhaps I should not be too ready to describe him as an unpleasant , obnoxious person.
But, of course, not myself being free of all fault, I do so describe him!
<
p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>
Homunculus, looks like Mr.sitonthefence has given you a thumbs down there, for highlighting his, erm, inconsistency.
StevieBC 2nd March 2019 at 12:01
===============================================
I assumed it was him who put the thumbs up 🙁
He probably won't like me quoting this then.
"Rodgers would not have achieved immortality had he fulfilled his contract. The late Jock Stein is immortal."
It made me chuckle.
Homunculus @11.23
A certain amount of bandwagonism on the JJ site much like Off The Ball this afternoon, if anybody has been listening in. Although to be fair to S&T they did highlight the volte face from Kilmarnock FC who have now decided to charge a fee for the rescheduled Motherwell game having made a list on Wednesday and promising those affected that the replayed game would be free. Money and football again.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/mar/01/fernando-ricksen-rangers-netherlands-motor-neurone-disease
Paddymalarkey @14.26
A sad tale. St Andrew’s hospice is a gentle place to be. There is peace there.
5.The government is also committed to ensuring that those who have used these schemes in the past aren’t allowed to get away with it. To meet this objective, the government will introduce legislation to put beyond doubt that all loans or debts from a disguised remuneration scheme will be taxed as earnings if they haven’t already been fully taxed or repaid on or before 5 April 2019.
Collecting tax on disguised remuneration payments
2.Many of the changes result in a charge being levied under Part 7A. In the majority of cases this means that the charge is collected through PAYE from the employer who was party to the avoidance scheme. NICs would also normally be collected from the employer.
3.However, the government will amend the PAYE regulations to allow, where appropriate, for the tax and NICs to be collected from the employee where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer. A consultation on these amendments will form part of the wider consultation over the summer
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-disguised-remuneration-avoidance-schemes-overview-of-changes-and-technical-note/technical-note
……………….
Maybe something to keep an eye on over the coming weeks.
To add to the above.
Former Rangers stars face ruin as taxman gets tough following Budget crackdown on EBTs
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-stars-face-ruin-7659540
I think those figures are misleading.
Firstly they appear to be based on a rate of tax of 40%. The additional rate is 45% (46% in Scotland) and is chargeable on earnings over £150,000.
Secondly it does not include interest. HMRC have discretion with regards the level of penalties imposed, depending on the taxpayers level of compliance in calculating the tax due. However they have no discretion over interest, it has to be charged.
They will have more to pay than the figures quoted, if HMRC add charges it could be much more. In fact they could owe more than double the amounts shown.
Homunculus 2nd March 2019 at 16:20
They will have more to pay than the figures quoted, if HMRC add charges it could be much more. In fact they could owe more than double the amounts shown.
……….
Maybe a worrying few weeks ahead then for some.
Homunculus 2nd March 2019 at 16:20
They will have more to pay than the figures quoted, if HMRC add charges it could be much more. In fact they could owe more than double the amounts shown.
==================================
My understanding is that HMRC will not levy penalties if the EBT recipients co-operate and seek agreed repayment terms.
That came from David Murray at the Craig Whyte trial.
The "loan charge" amount will be assessed as part of your 2018/19 tax return, so payment will not be due until 31 January 2020, the deadline for self assessment for the 2018/19 tax year.
easyJambo 2nd March 2019 at 16:47
My understanding is that HMRC will not levy penalties if the EBT recipients co-operate and seek agreed repayment terms.
That came from David Murray at the Craig Whyte trial.
………………….
That could be the crux of the matter, why agree repayment terms when you have a side letter?
easyJambo 2nd March 2019 at 16:47
======================================
In that case they are getting off very lightly.
Assuming they have the money to pay the bills of course, or they can come to acceptable terms.
On the basis of them already earning £150k or more it will presumably be at the 45% rate though..
Cluster One 2nd March 2019 at 15:54
Mibbes that's why Steven Davis is back at Ibrox – getting the money due to him as stated in his side-letter ?
paddy malarkey 2nd March 2019 at 19:32
'..Mibbes that's why Steven Davis is back at Ibrox – getting the money due to him as stated in his side-letter ?'
******************
Well, as I understand matters, neither TRFC Ltd nor RIFCplc were in legal existence at the time the side-letter promises were made, and none of the employees of RFC during the EBT years were paid or could have been paid by either of those two entities.
So, there's no way HMRC can go after anyone but the individual recipients-each individual recipient is ultimately responsible for ensuring that he pays his taxes: he can't blame his agent or lawyer or accountant.
I wonder if any of the more savvy people had the prescience and foresight when things looked like going pear-shape and the chief rats began to desert the ship, to lodge their side-letters with the Liquidators of RFC (IL) who have the only funds that that Liquidated football club has from which creditors might be paid something?
They will sure as eggs is eggs get nothing in the way of an acknowledgement of responsibility for their tax debts from RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd since SevcoScotland/ The Rangers Football Club Ltd of 2012/ RIFC plc are not at all Rangers Football Club of 1872 which signed the side-letters.
And anything Davis may be getting will be in no way in recognition of some liability on TRFC for his tax owed while a RFC(IL) player.
I think you have it spot on JC.
The company which issued the side letters still exists, albeit being liquidated.
The new club, if approached will simply say, sorry that's not us you will have to speak to the people you have the deal with.
They have done this before.
Homunculus @11.24
But, but it’s the same club. Everybody says so.
CFC eventually won convincingly yesterday – so the 'confusing' ref decision not to award a free kick on the edge of the Hibs' box, with a Hibs player to get booked – is quickly forgotten.
But at 0-0 that was a rather significant decision, and when most of the stadium – and linesmen / 4th official – probably thought otherwise?
And so to AFC v TRFC today.
On paper at least, TRFC should blow Aberdeen away with ease. But, a cup tie can always surprise…
TRFC 'shouldn't' need any honest refereeing mistakes, but I'm sure we'll all be watching out for them.
Just hope it's a decent, blood and thunder match – and that the referee doesn't grab the headlines.
Homunculus 3rd March 2019 at 11:24
5 2 Rate This
I think you have it spot on JC.
The company which issued the side letters still exists, albeit being liquidated.
The new club, if approached will simply say, sorry that’s not us you will have to speak to the people you have the deal with.
……………….
Who would be the first ex-player facing ruin to raise his head above the parapet and state “I face ruin because the way my wages were paid at ibrox, i have a side letter that claims the club will see everything alright if the tax man came calling.But when i went to ibrox with my lawyers the club said it is has nothing to do with them”.
Options for said players.
1. Agree payment terms with the tax man, and hope you have enough to keep up the payments and keep the tax man from your door.
2.Face ruin.
3.Take the ibrox club to court to honour the side letters,after all they say they are the same club.
4. Go public if the ibrox club tell you to do one.
5. Face ruin and keep your mouth shut.
6. CRY.
Ex Ludo 3rd March 2019 at 12:06
'..But, but it’s the same club. Everybody says so.'
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I don't suppose HMRC has made any approach to RIFC plc or the TRFC Ltd Board.
It would be fun, though, to see and hear the bumptious Blair trot out again the rubbish that there was a 'holding company' that went bust,
lost its entitlement to be a shareholder in the company known as the SPL
had to return its share certificate to that league,
and in consequence of not being a member of a recognised league, lost its entitlement to membership of the SFA
-and lost any right to participate in professional football in Scotland.
because, of course, if it had been as simple as that, there would have been no need for anyone to create a new football club and apply for admission of that club to a recognised football league (any league, please, just let us in!)
And it would fun to hear again a learned QC explain that such new club is the identical entity that is presently in Liquidation, except of course that it is not the football club that paid players by means of an EBT, guaranteeing those players that if that wizard wheeze resulted in them owing tax , it would reimburse them any tax they had to pay.
Pure Blairian fantasy.
Far more legally proper and easier to tell the truth: RFC of 1872 , the football club which employed football players , secretly paid them by EBT loans while promising to pay any tax looked for in connection with those loans , went into and is presently in Liquidation.
The present day TRFC Ltd and RIFC plc are NOT that liquidated football club and made no payments to any of those football players who hold a 'side-letter', and are in no way liable for any of their tax debts, or the debts of RFC 1872 (IL).
Cluster One 3rd March 2019 at 13:31
Homunculus 3rd March 2019 at 11:24
5 2 Rate This
I think you have it spot on JC.
The company which issued the side letters still exists, albeit being liquidated.
The new club, if approached will simply say, sorry that’s not us you will have to speak to the people you have the deal with.
……………….
Who would be the first ex-player facing ruin to raise his head above the parapet and state “I face ruin because the way my wages were paid at ibrox, i have a side letter that claims the club will see everything alright if the tax man came calling.But when i went to ibrox with my lawyers the club said it is has nothing to do with them”.
Options for said players.
1. Agree payment terms with the tax man, and hope you have enough to keep up the payments and keep the tax man from your door.
2.Face ruin.
3.Take the ibrox club to court to honour the side letters,after all they say they are the same club.
4. Go public if the ibrox club tell you to do one.
5. Face ruin and keep your mouth shut.
6. CRY.
_____________________
It's not going to happen, but…
The 5Way Agreement made TRFC responsible for the previous club's football debts. Now what if a player claims, and can put forward a good argument, that the money he owes HMRC is actually a football debt of Rangers Football Club, because he can show the court a contract that states Rangers Football Club will indemnify him against any claims from HMRC.
So, an EBT player takes his side letter (indemnity) to the Liquidators (BDO) and says he wants to claim against the club. BDO don't want to accept it (there's little enough in the pot) and say, 'TRFC have agreed to pay all football debts of Rangers FC. You are/were a footballer and the letter is part of your contract as a footballer. Go sue them'.
Fanciful, probably, but I'd love to see it argued in court.
Re The footballing debt would the question not be which of the side letter holders made no footballing contribution whatsoever?
so that’s Bob Malcolm stuffed for starters!
Lots of EBT chat on here today. I think it was PMGB who stated that this mess would take 10 years to work through such a legal mine field. It looks like it could take much longer.
It would prove a severe test of former players’ loyalty for them to consider taking either iteration of Rangers to court and some of them might not have a side letters in any case. Based on the interims and the Close loan it would seem suing Rangers (IL) is a better option.
Allyjambo 3rd March 2019 at 16:54
The 5Way Agreement made TRFC responsible for the previous club’s football debts. Now what if a player claims, and can put forward a good argument, that the money he owes HMRC is actually a football debt of Rangers Football Club, because he can show the court a contract that states Rangers Football Club will indemnify him against any claims from HMRC.
So, an EBT player takes his side letter (indemnity) to the Liquidators (BDO) and says he wants to claim against the club. BDO don’t want to accept it (there’s little enough in the pot) and say, ‘TRFC have agreed to pay all football debts of Rangers FC. You are/were a footballer and the letter is part of your contract as a footballer. Go sue them’.
Fanciful, probably, but I’d love to see it argued in court.
………………….
Options.
1. Face ruin.
2. Face the wrath of the fans
Ex Ludo 3rd March 2019 at 18:50
=============================
I think it would be throwing good money after bad.
They would have to ask the club, through BDO to pay their tax debt for them.
BDO would refuse, saying they were not a creditor and even if they were they wouldn't be a preferred one anyway.
They would then have to sue the club, through BDO for breach of contract.
Even if they won, and that is by no means certain after all this time, it would probably just become another debt which they might get a small dividend on.
Sounds like a waste of time and money to me.
Making a claim from the OC administrators may be complicated by the fact that both HMRC and EBT recipients would be claiming for the same unpaid tax. As Homunculus noted the financial returns would be meagre even if the claims were successful. It might clarify whether they satisfied the football creditors rule however. If this was followed by an invocation of NCs 5 way agreement undertaking then things could become very interesting.
Spikeyheid@20.40
I’m speculating here but if the new club did not meet the terms of the 5 way agreement in relation to football debts then the SFA would be in a difficult position as it might render the whole 5 way deal null and void.
This caught my eye five minutes ago:
"Disciplinary Tribunal Update | Selkirk FC
Friday 1 March 2019
Alleged Party in Breach: Selkirk FC
Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 1
All members shall:
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play;
(b) be subject to and shall comply with:
(i) the Articles;
(ii) this Protocol;
(iii) the Cup Competition Rules;
(iv) the Registration Procedures;
(v) the International Match Calendar;
(vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and
(vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, Decisions promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes;
(d) respect the Laws of the Game;
(e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010;
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
Principal hearing date: Thursday 28 February 2019
Response date: 18 February 2019
Outcome: Termination of membership."
<
Anyone got the full story on Selkirk's case? What did Selkirk FC actually do/not do:field ineligible players? tell lies to the SFA about the remuneration they were paying their players, or on their licence application form? No, couldn't have been any of those, if we follow precedent!