Everything Has Changed


HirsutePursuit says: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 13:08 ================= Right, so the …

Comment on Everything Has Changed by dentarthurdent42.

HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 13:08


Right, so the interims are for the whole group, as opposed to just the PLC. I wonder why i didn’t get that straight away. I thought the PLC was preparing interim accounts to present to AIM.

They are basically treating it as if it is all just one big legal entity. So in reality there could be for example loans from the PLC to the Ltd Co, which it then used to pay those wages it speaks about.

The Club could actually be in debt to the Holding company, as Whyte did with Wavetower originally.

Like I said, without seing audited accounts for both the PLC and the Ltd and comparing the two it is difficult to get any meaningful picture.

I’m not accusing them of mendacity, or even duplicity obviously. You may think so, I couldn’t possibly comment.

dentarthurdent42 Also Commented

Everything Has Changed
Bottom line

Reconstruction is fine, but only if

1, It is with the agreement of the clubs concerned


2, It is not decided during the course of a season.

The proposals must be made, the clubs must agree and there has to be a clear season for clubs to adjust to those changes.

Any change put in place for “next season” is unacceptable.

If one club does not agree the changes that should be enough. If there is a clear season then they can simply choose not to join in the year after. It is unfair on any person, or body corporate to change the rules without giving them the opportunity to simply walk away and not be part of the new structure.

That must surely be a fundamental right.

Everything Has Changed
I don’t think they can re-construct though, they can only propose it.

The clubs must agree

Everything Has Changed
Assume the SPL stays at 12, one up, one down, clear cut. No change there.

Assume SPL 2 is made up of 12, that’s two extra.

Assume one up and one down, then that’s the first 10 sorted.

Simple question, where do the extra 2 come from.

In a meritocracy, they would come from the current SFL2, and from the top of it (see “Club 12″ for an analogy”).

In a carve-up, by invitation.

A carve-up would be as obvious as it is predictable. It will be up to the SFL clubs to reject such a notion if they choose to. It really is up to them to decide what they will accept and what they won’t.

It would be arrogant of the SPL(1) clubs to dictate to them.

Personally I think any changes of the structure should be made with one clear season. i.e. it is agreed in advance and does not come into force until the season after the upcoming one. So 2014/15 would be the new structure. I think that is fair to everyone and gives all teams a chance to plan.

Recent Comments by dentarthurdent42

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
John Clark says:
September 7, 2014 at 2:09 am

Perhaps he has already been told that the “fit and proper person” status is a non starter.

He was a director of Rangers for a protracted period in the run up to it’s sale to a charlatan who was banned from being a director of a company in the UK, but did it anyway. A man who subsequently failed to pay around £14m in social taxes leading to the company’s administration and liquidation. A man who has lost a court case relating to over £20m he conned out of Ticketus.

King himself was convicted of 41 counts of tax fraud involving tens of millions of pounds. He pled guilty to it in a deal where he has agreed to pay those tens of millions back, rather than face 82 years in a South African prison.

How in the name of goodness could this man be described as “fit and proper”. It beggars belief that it is even a discussion point.

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
neepheid says:
September 6, 2014 at 9:44 pm

That makes sense to me.

The Court can “ring fence” money via an order. I don’t see how an auditor can, other than possibly via a threat of what they will put in their audit report should the client not agree. Mayhap an accountant can comment on that.

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
That’s my point Paul, it’s their money, surely they can spend it if they want.

Well other than the money which Ahmad arrests. That is still their money, they just can’t spend that. Even if they want to. The bank will have an arrestment order from the Court of Session and as I understand it will place that money into a suspense account until the order is lifted or Ahmad wins.

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
Does this “ring fencing” of the season ticket money actually mean anything.

What power does an auditor have to tell a business that it cannot spend money it has earned.

Surely the company employs the auditor. It’s a legal requirement for them to be audited but they can change the auditor if they want, so long as it is with someone licenced to do the job.

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
ecobhoy says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm

With regard to the arrestement. Is the money arrested in an account held by TRFC or one held by RIFC.

I am assuming Ahmad’s claim is against TRFC as that is the organisation he would have set up the contracts for, or is it. So it would be an account held by that company.

About the author