End of the Road for King?

By

Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 15:35  John C.  I am in …

Comment on End of the Road for King? by Allyjambo.

Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 15:35 
John C.  I am in agreement with you that Rangers were not relegated.  Albert Kinloch is clearly chancing his arm in my opinion.  Where I am not fully in agreement with you, or i just dont believe its clear enough to say that your judgement on the matter is the letter of the law is on how liquidation of the company is treated in respect of the club.
I have read all the arguments on here ad infinitum, all of which are reasonable and sensible but when push comes to shove, the evidence in the courts, on football body websites and in general doesnt support the general consensus of us all on here.
For a QC in this situation to not use what you would believe to be the easy option of going down the liquidation route means he had to know or have reasonable doubt, it would hurt his case.  The SPFL position has been stated as same club so he couldnt use them as evidence.  The SFA have previously said the membership was transferred from oldco to newco and through their website still recognise Rangers as the same club(or they did in the run up to the Scottish Cup Final when listing previous finals)  They also in a submission to the Advertising Standards Agency, said the same thing.  
Im guessing if he chose to go down this route then QC Poole would have lined the SFA and SPFL up and shot him down. Even his own witness, ended up saying it without making it blatantly obvious when cross examined.
I have read that Coral deliberately didnt use liquidation for fear of losing the blue pound however they already risked that with a funny tweet about Kenny Miller(only player to score in 3 Old Firm games) and you could argue they risked losing the rest of Scottish footy pounds by not going down the liquidation route so I doubt very much they were bothered, or probably even aware of the impact.
Again, i go back to my original point that what you are saying is just an opinion and is not a documented fact, as much as we would like it to be.
_________________________________

Mark, you said,

‘For a QC in this situation to not use what you would believe to be the easy option of going down the liquidation route means he had to know or have reasonable doubt, it would hurt his case.’

A QC acts on his clients instructions, he doesn’t have a choice in the matter. Even if the QC has a slam dunk win at his finger tips, he cannot use it if his client says not to. A court of law, particularly in a civil case, is not about ‘the truth’ coming out, (and, indeed, this case is not about ‘who told the truth?’, it is just about the meaning of ‘relegation’ when used in a bet). It is about winning or losing, and it won’t be the first time that someone has defended a case in which they’d rather lose than reveal something that could cost them more than they stand to lose in court. They will have gone to court on the basis that they believe they have a winnable case without using this slam dunk. I am of the opinion that Mr Kinloch has taken this case to court because his inside knowledge of the gambling industry in Scotland made him aware that Corals might well be be hamstrung by their unwillingness to use the ‘Rangers died’ defence.

What’s more, even if we were wrong about Rangers liquidation, there is no way that raising it in court could harm his client’s case, as it would not change the fact that TRFC were voted in to the Scottish League, and not relegated. Quite simply, if Coral’s counsel used the liquidation argument, it would be up to Kinloch’s counsel to prove RFC and TRFC were one and the same club, and that would be in addition to proving they were relegated.

As far as Corals are concerned, they can be pretty certain that if they had it stated in court that TRFC are a new club, and the other side failed to adequately counter this, they would be seen to be the people who ‘killed Rangers’, and the best they could hope for is a bears’ boycott, but they probably fear, with justification, a much worse response. On the other hand, by not using it, they might alienate a small proportion of non-bears, but it would be but a drop in the ocean by comparison. It has also been pointed out that Corals might be afraid of proving TRFC are not Rangers and facing a backlash from punters who placed bets with them because they advertised them in a way that said they were!

Whatever Corals’ reason for not using this ‘slam dunk’ defence, it doesn’t alter the fact that Rangers were liquidated, and automatically lost the right to be a member of the SPL or the SFL. In my opinion, though, neither side has provided enough evidence to win their case (from what I have read), leaving the judge with a very hard decision to make. I think it will swing on whether or not he thinks it reasonable for a punter to believe ‘relegation’ means not playing in the same division as in the previous season, and whether or not Corals have demonstrated, since, that they accepted the bet believing it means only in the event of finishing bottom! Their advertising of Old Firm matches proclaiming the return of Rangers after relegation, wouldn’t seem to lend strength to their argument! 

The OC/NC debate will not be affected by a decision, in this case, should the judge find in favour of Mr Kinloch, as it will only be a decision on what the word ‘relegation’ means in the instance of placing a bet, and possibly only in this particular case.

Allyjambo Also Commented

End of the Road for King?
HomunculusJanuary 23, 2017 at 19:51 
ALLYJAMBO JANUARY 23, 2017 at 18:54
=====================================
I’m sorry AJ but statistics would suggest that the person you spoke to was talking nonsense.
In theory if a coin is flipped 99 times and it lands a head every time on the 100th flip it is still 50/50 how it will land. In fact you could actually argue that it’s more likely to land heads again as there may be some sort of bias in the coin, however that is more geometry than statistics. 
These thing happen, people just notice them because they seem out of the ordinary and counter intuitive. The fabled “law of averages”. However 10 homes in a row is no more or less likely than home, home, away, home, home, away, home, home, away, home. It just draws the attention more, particularly when observers are pre-disposed to suspect nefarious activities. 
_________________________

I agree with what you say, but as in the case of the ‘Monte Carlo fallacy, it’s not what he was saying. He wasn’t talking about the odds of the eighth toss being heads again, he was talking of the odds of seven heads in a row, in fact he wasn’t talking of the odds at all, just that from his knowledge as a croupier, it was considered unusual/suspicious should it go past that seventh win. He didn’t elaborate, and I don’t think he would have if I’d asked, but I got the impression that after seven wins in a row he’d let the management know – by whatever means they use to let the management know.

While I’m sure that that 32 red winning streak was used to the casino’s advantage as the best form of advertising, I’d be very surprised if, after a set amount of wins, the casino’s surveillance wasn’t turned in it’s entirety onto that roulette table, and every effort made to catch the punter out as a cheat.


End of the Road for King?
Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 19:07 
Allyjambo – your man was suffering from what is known as the Monte Carlo Fallacy.  
If someone gets 7 reds in a row, amateur gamblers around the table will put their money on black.  Professional gamblers will not change their normal pattern.  The fact of the matter is that as soon as the wheel starts spinning again, the odds are the EXACT same as the previous spin which is slightly less than 50% in roulette, due to the 0 or 00 but its 50% in a football draw, hence why you get patterns like Hibs and Rangers 10 in a row and Edinburgh City with now 17 out of 20 home draws which is equally amazing.
The longest roulette run recorded is 32 reds in a row.
https://www.caesars.com/casino-gaming-blog/latest-posts/table-games/roulette/gambling-myth-monte-carlo-fallacy
_____________________________________

Not quite the same thing. The writer is talking about the chances of red/black coming up after 6 or 7 wins, not the chances of getting 7 wins on the trot, and he clearly means the ‘Monte Carlo Fallacy’ is to bet on black after a run of reds, assuming it has to change, so this doesn’t equate to what this stranger on a plane said, which was that a winning streak isn’t expected to last longer than seven, at which time, I suspect, the house start to get nervous, or suspicious. I would imagine the roulette wheel was taken apart after that 32 reds in a row, and the punter asked never to return. I hope the croupier got a good tip, too, as he was almost certainly shown the door afterwards with little chance of a job in the industry again.

Regardless, I am not convinced there is any cheating going on with the draws, and it could just be a case of lady fortune shining on a club that needs money more desperately than any other, but what I am convinced of is, if there was a way to do it, the SFA would be prepared to do it to save their favoured club.

Basically, I think there are three things required to carry it off, a compliant SFA, a failsafe method, and a media that won’t ask the question! Two out of three, they say, aint bad, but in this case, I don’t believe it’s enough to carry it off!


End of the Road for King?
A few years ago, my wife and I were flying home from Egypt and got into a conversation with the passenger next to us. He was a casino croupier and had travelled the world plying his trade. Much of the conversation was about his experiences in some of the worlds gambling capitals and he said something that piqued both our interest. He told us that it’s generally accepted/known amongst those operating casinos that a winning/lucky streak only lasts a maximum of seven turns. That’s seven spins of the roulette wheel, seven hands of cards, seven spins of the bandit reels…and so on. TRFC have now had seven consecutive home draws in the Scottish Cup. So, according to this man’s knowledge of the gaming industry and his ability to recognise a system (the bane of the casino owners life) as opposed to a lucky streak, TRFC’s lucky streak should now be over.


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author