The recent revelations of a potential winding up order being served on Rangers Newco certainly does have a sense of “deja vu all over again” for the average reader of this blog.
It reminds me of an episode of the excellent Western series Alias Smith & Jones. The episode was called The Posse That Wouldn’t Quit. In the story, the eponymous anti-heroes were being tracked by a particularly dogged group of law-men whom they just couldn’t shake off – and they spent the entire episode trying to do just that. In a famous quote, Thaddeus Jones, worn out from running, says to Joshua Smith, “We’ve got to get out of this business!”
The SFM has been trying since its inception to widen the scope and remit of the discussion and debate on the blog. Unsuccessfully. Like the posse that wouldn’t quit, Rangers are refusing to go away as a story. With the latest revelations, I confided in my fellow mods that perhaps we too should get out of this business. I suspect that, even if we did, this story would doggedly trail our paths until it wears us all down.
The fact that the latest episode of the Rangers saga has sparked off debate on this blog may even confirm the notion subscribed to by Rangers fans that TSFM is obsessed with their club. However even they must agree that the situation with regard to Rangers would be of interest to anyone with a stake in Scottish Football; and that they themselves must be concerned by the pattern of events which started over a decade ago and saw the old club fall into decline on a trajectory which ended in liquidation.
But let me enter into a wee discussion which doesn’t merely trot out the notion of damage done to others or sins against the greater good, but which enters the realm of the damage done to one of the great institutions of world sport, Rangers themselves.
David Murray was regarded by Rangers fans as a hero. His bluster, hubris and (as some see it) arrogant contempt for his competitors afforded him a status as a champion of the cause as long as it was underpinned by on-field success.
The huge pot of goodwill he possessed was filled and topped-up by a dripping tap of GIRUY-ness for many years beyond the loss of total ascendency that his spending (in pursuit of European success) had achieved, and only began to bottom out around the time the club was sold to Craig Whyte. In retrospect, it can be seen that the damage that was done to the club’s reputation by the Murray ethos (not so much a Rangers ethos as a Thatcherite one) and reckless financial practice is now well known.
Notwithstanding the massive blemish on its character due to its employment policies, the (pre-Murray) Rangers ethos portrayed a particularly Scottish, perhaps even Presbyterian stoicism. It was that of a conservative, establishment orientated, God-fearing and law-abiding institution that played by the rules. It was of a club that would pay its dues, applied thrift and honesty in its business dealings, and was first to congratulate rivals on successes (witness the quiet dignity of John Lawrence at the foot of the aircraft steps with an outstretched hand to Bob Kelly when Celtic returned from Lisbon).
If Murray had dug a hole for that Rangers, Craig Whyte set himself up to fill it in. No neo-bourgeois shirking of responsibilities and duty to the public for him; his signature was more pre-war ghetto, hiding behind the couch until the rent man moved along to the next door. Whyte just didn’t pay any bills and with-held money that was due to be passed along to the treasury to fund the ever more diminished public purse. Where Murray’s Rangers had been regarded by the establishment and others as merely distasteful, Whyte’s was now regarded as a circus act, and almost every day of his tenure brought more bizarre and ridiculous news which had Rangers fans cringing, the rest laughing up their sleeve, and Bill Struth birling in his grave.
The pattern was now developing in plain sight. Murray promised Rangers fans he would only sell to someone who could take the club on, but he sold it – for a pound – to a guy whose reputation did not survive the most cursory of inspection. Whyte protested that season tickets had not been sold in advance, that he used his own money to buy the club. Both complete fabrications. Yet until the very end of Whyte’s time with the club, he, like Murray still, was regarded as hero by a fan-base which badly wanted to believe that the approaching car-crash could be avoided.
Enter Charles Green. Having been bitten twice already, the fans’ first instincts were to be suspicious of his motives. Yet in one of history’s greatest ironic turnarounds, he saw off the challenge of real Rangers-minded folk (like John Brown and Paul Murray) and their warnings, and by appealing to what many regard as the baser instincts of the fan-base became the third hero to emerge in the boardroom in as many years. The irony of course is that Green himself shouldn’t really pass any kind of Rangers sniff-test; personal, sporting, business or cultural; and yet there he is the spokesman for 140 years of the aspirations of a quarter of the country’s fans.
To be fair though, what else could Rangers fans do? Green had managed (and shame on the administration process and football authorities for this) to pick up the assets of the club for less (nett) than Craig Whyte and still maintained a presence in the major leagues.
If they hadn’t backed him only the certainty of doom lay before them. It was Green’s way or the highway in other words – and speaking of words, his sounded mighty fine. But do the real Rangers minded people really buy into it all?
First consider McCoist. I do not challenge his credentials as a Rangers minded man, and his compelling need to be an effective if often ineloquent spokesman for the fans. However, according to James Traynor (who was then acting as an unofficial PR advisor to the Rangers manager), McCoist was ready to walk in July (no pun intended) because he did not trust Green. The story was deliberately leaked, to undermine Green, by both Traynor and McCoist. McCoist also refused for a long period of time to endorse the uptake of season books by Rangers fans, even went as far as to say he couldn’t recommend it.
So what changed? Was it a Damascene conversion to the ways of Green, or was it the 250,000 shares in the new venture that he acquired. Nothing improper or unethical – but is it idealism? Is it fighting for the cause?
Now think Traynor. I realise that can be unpleasant, but bear with me.
Firstly, when he wrote that story on McCoist’s resignation, (and later backed it up on radio claiming he had spoken to Ally before printing the story), he was helping McCoist to twist Green’s arm a little. Now, and I’m guessing that Charles didn’t take this view when he saw the story in question, Green thinks that Traynor is a “media visionary”?
Traynor also very publicly, in a Daily Record leader, took the “New Club line” and was simultaneously contemptuous of Green.
What happened to change both their minds about each other? Could it have been (for Green) the PR success of having JT on board and close enough to control, and (for Traynor) an escape route for a man who had lost the battle with own internal social media demons?
Or, given both McCoist’s and Traynor’s past allegiance to David Murray, is it something else altogether?
Whatever it is, both Traynor and McCoist have started to sing from a totally different hymn sheet to Charles Green since the winding up order story became public. McCoist’s expert étude in equivocation at last Friday’s press conference would have had the Porter in Macbeth slamming down the portcullis (now there’s an irony). He carefully distanced himself from his chairman and ensured that his hands are clean. Traynor has been telling one story, “we have an agreement on the bill”, and Green another, “we are not paying it”.
And what of Walter Smith? At first, very anti-Charles Green, he even talked about Green’s “new club”. Then a period of silence followed by his being co-opted to the board and a “same club” statement. Now in the face of the damaging WUP story, more silence. Hardly a stamp of approval on Green’s credentials is it?
Rangers fans would be right to be suspicious of any non-Rangers people extrapolating from this story to their own version of Armageddon, but shouldn’t they also reserve some of that scepticism for Green and Traynor (neither are Rangers men, and both with only a financial interest in the club) when they say “all is well” whilst the real Rangers man (McCoist) is only willing to say “as far as I have been told everything is well”
As a Celtic fan, it may be a fair charge to say that I don’t have Rangers best interests at heart, but I do not wish for their extinction, nor do I believe that one should ignore a quarter of the potential audience for our national game. Never thought I’d hear myself say this, but apart from one (admittedly mightily significant) character defect, I can look at the Rangers of Struth and Simon, Gillick and Morton, Henderson and Baxter, and Waddell and Lawrence (and God help me even Jock Wallace) with fondness and a degree of nostalgia.
I suspect most Rangers fans are deeply unhappy about how profoundly their club has changed. To be fair, my own club no longer enchants me in the manner of old. As sport has undergone globalisation, everything has changed. Our relationship to our clubs has altered, the business models have shifted, and the aspirations of clubs is different from that of a generation ago. It has turned most football clubs into different propositions from the institutions people of my generation grew up supporting, but Rangers are virtually unrecognisable.
The challenge right now for Rangers fans is this. How much more damage will be done to the club’s legacy before this saga comes to an end?
And by then will it be too late to do anything about it?
Most people on this blog know my views about the name of Green’s club. I really don’t give a damn because for me it is not important. I do know, like Craig Whyte said, that in the fullness of time there will be a team called Rangers, playing football in a blue strip at Ibrox, and in the top division in the country.
I understand that this may be controversial to many of our contributors, but I hope that this incarnation of Rangers is closer to that of Lawrence and Simon than to Murray and Souness.
angus1983 says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 22:30
…
can I point out that a porpoise isn’t a fish. There are marillions of Fishes, but a porpoise isn’t one of them.
===========
OK, can’t help myself…
I defer to your fish knowledge angus1983…pedant… 😉
And for relevance, good post BRTH. Yes – nobody trusts the SFA/SPL – and they don’t care !
Danish Pastry says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 09:06
It is fun to follow the fortunes of some wee teams, especially if you can trace your family back to a certain town or particular area of a city. Just as every wee team supporter probably has a big team somewhere in Scotland or the UK, big team supporters should perhaps adopt a wee team, if they don’t have one already. We can probably all find a wee team that is linked to us in some way.
——————————————-
Whilst the proposal is a positive one, I feel I need to stress that I won’t be the only fan of a wee team that finds the idea of having a big team weird and not a little patronising. My team is my team. I dont have another to the fill some hole (a glory hole?). Sorry to go back to a post from this morning but I had to comment. I’m sure the idea is very well intended.
wee team supporters always have a chip on their shoulder.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 17:31
——————————–
TBP, worry not, BOS has more or lest got all of its money back from Murray International; not by having it repaid but by gradually taking an increasing stake in the group in a debt for equity swap.
If the dilution continues at the same rate over the next two years, Murray will have about 10% of the company left if he is lucky.
In passing did everyone catch the excellent article by Rich Wilson in the Herald about how the old lady of Turin’s sins have not been entirely erased? Sound lesson there for everyone, Rich, thanks for sharing it with us.
And as if to remind us of her fallen ways, la Vecchia Signora succumbed earlier today to the wiles of the skirt-lifting, cross-dressing spiv from Auchenhowie/Ilkley Moor.
How apt – perhaps they discussed stripped titles over a skinny latte?
Maybe a bit off topic but Perth Glory have just sacked Ian Ferguson as their manager. CG visited here only last week, could he have been touting for a new manager for his ‘club’?
slimshady61 says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 00:14
————————————————–
But they have left him with Brand Rex, Capito Holdings, Alexander Dennis, and Murray Metals, slim…..as well as all his other little trinkets……all now wholly owned by Murray Capital, the family business. There’s £100million turnover in the above – mostly now in profit, whilst the bank retains the basket cases, like PPG, and are quietly selling off assets, often at big losses.
Alexander Dennis is a classic example of dirty dealing and sheer daylight robbery. I’m sure your familiar with how they were aquired. Of course, Grossart was involved there. Yes, the Grossart that was on the Board at Trinity Mirror, owner of the Record.
———————————
justshatered says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 22:26
————————————————
NTL? £15million, I think. Failed media platform partnership iirc.
Reblogged this on THE MOUTHPIECE and commented:
This blog is the best out there if: 1. You’re Scottish, and 2: You’re a sports-a-holic. Brilliant stuff and keep up the good work.
Morning all,
The word Spiv potentially comes from the word Spiff– meaning a tip or bonus paid to drapers assistants for selling spare cloth or out of date material etc— later a spiff became a bonus paid to the likes of a car salesman—-equally if someone was “spiffy” it meant that they dressed smartly— and between the two these then became SPIV.
For those of a certain age– I suddenly feel like the late Frank Muir on Call my bluff!!
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 22:20
“And no one in charge of Scottish Football said anything.”
—-
Arguably, the problem caused by SDM and his destruction of the old Rangers FC through his recklessness and utterly unbusinesslike emotional lunacy is in fact secondary to the problem caused by the SFA Board, and to a lesser extent, the SPL Board.
For there will always be chancers and rule-breakers in sport. That is a fact of life.
hey can be dealt with, if there are clean and willing and courageous hands to deal with them.
It is when there are dark suspicions that the responsible authorities are complicit in the rule-breaking, either because they choose to be or because they are too afraid to exercise their authority by reason of the civil menace and or politico/economic strength any particular wrong-doer is imagined to have, that real and lasting damage is done.
I have argued that the present Board of the SFA and, probably, of the SPL, are unfit for purpose because no one now is prepared to believe that there is integrity there.
It rather looks as though the impetus for necessary change is not going to come from the general membership of the SFA ( which is where it should, of course, come from).
If not from there, then it’s not going to happen, and Scottish Football will stew away in its own mess with nothing in the way of respect and credibility either at home or in the broader world of football.
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 07:05
For those of a certain age– I suddenly feel like the late Frank Muir on Call my bluff!!
==================================================================
Frank Muir was also the star of the Cadbury’s Fruit and Nut Adverts, opening with the line ‘Everyone’s a Fruit and Nut case!’ Every time there’s a rampage through the China Shop by Green or Traynor I will probably think of that line from now on.
good post from BRTH – and my bug bear about the TSFM and how it focuses on the TRFC is that we are missing the bigger picture, that is the complete absence of any leadership or morals from the SFA, SPL and SFL, because for as bad as TRFC are – if the leaders of the game in this country grew a pair, all the side show that is going on in govan would not exist, by the TSFM continually focusing on rangers we are treating the symptoms not the cause – as a wee team supporter I am completely disgusted with the SFA. I know there are many celtic fans on here (I get it) but let’s move away from rangers only and look at why they can do what they are doing – why has no one shut the freakshow down? we need to ask the questions repeatedly and follow up with our respective club orgs – auldhied put together an excellent doc – let’s keep up the pressure with that.
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 00:02
Mr Wooly Bee – right on – as I see it there is no wee team or big team, only MY team (or yours 🙂 ) , every team has its own proud history. ( as an aside I do miss the trips to shawfield – fekin awful view but a typical idiosyncratic scottish lower league venue)
For those that rightly disparage the governing bodies, is their behaviour it not par for the course these days ?
Whether you measure it against UEFA, FIFA or how the corporate sector seems to be evolving.
You go back to the post of H.Pursuit, where he talked about the general ethical malaise in the corporate sector and Scottish football governing bodies being a small part of it. That is to say that the general CEO unofficial remit these days is to be part-spiv and not getting caught is the key.
So with this in mind, is there a much bigger problem in front of us and we only focus upon one part of it because of our particular interests ?
In defence of the point made by Danish Pastry, I grew up in a ‘diddly team’ town. Pretty much half the boys in my school went along to most of that team’s home games, and we supported it directly with our pocket money. (Although there were always a few of the bad lads who claimed to know a mythical ‘hole in the wall’ where they could get in without paying, which sounded credible for a while.) But other than the occasional promotion (and subsequent relegation), and a cup upset (and subsequent thrashing in the next round) there was a limited number of subjects to discuss. We all saw that the older supporters reduced their arguments to whether we were watching the worst side the club had put out since 1963 or 1937, and that didn’t inspire us. So most of us also had a backup, some Rangers or Celtic, some Hibs or Kilmarnock (usually for some family tie-in, others even picked English teams so as not to conflict with their home Scottish team). It made for much better arguments on Monday mornings, and gave us the chance to watch cup finals and the like and have a personal involvement. It didn’t detract at all from our local support.
upthehoops says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 07:15
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 07:05
For those of a certain age– I suddenly feel like the late Frank Muir on Call my bluff!!
==================================================================
Frank Muir was also the star of the Cadbury’s Fruit and Nut Adverts, opening with the line ‘Everyone’s a Fruit and Nut case!’ Every time there’s a rampage through the China Shop by Green or Traynor I will probably think of that line from now on.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is another connection and similarity that can be drawn from the late Frank Muir regarding Rangers, he used to do the “Club” biscuit adverts which were eventually withdrawn due to false advertising. Remember the line “if you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join our Club”. It turned out there was very little chocoalate on a Club biscuit, it was all cocoa mass! hence the advert was withdrawn and Jacobs fined 🙂
But how could they fine Jacob’s? Surely the “club” and the holding company are 2 entirely separate entities? No?
@BRTH,
The legal position of the SFA… IMO
Its their baw.
From FIFA/UEFA edict, football matters are settled within football and recourse to civil court is not allowed. They will not be held to account in the civil courts, or by anyone other than their clubs, via the league bodies – the SFL and SPL.
ratethisthenyabampots says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 09:53
0 0 Rate This
But how could they fine Jacob’s? Surely the “club” and the holding company are 2 entirely separate entities? No?
——————————————
It was Jacobs International Biscuit Club that was fined, the Jacobs Biscuit Club carried on it’s marvellous, unblemished history
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 22:20
“So for example, If Charles Green provided a business plan and projections ( as one must presume he did ) as part of his submission to obtain provisional and then associate membership of the SFA– then surely it is easy enough for the SFA to obtain management accounts from Rangers and then check these against the projections given?”
================================
Just a point of accuracy. It was the SFL who went down the road of provisional and associate membership. The SFA transferred the existing full membership of RFC to Sevco, under the terms of the five way agreement. So unless that agreement provides specifically for the submission of management accounts, then TRFC are in exactly the same position as any other member of the SFA. However I believe that the rules of the SFA allow it to call in the financial records of any member at any time.
Incidentally, you express some sympathy for the shareholders of RFC who lost their money. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the shareholders. The shareholders had at least some say in the governance of RFC. How many turned up at the AGMs, expressing outrage at the way “their” company was being run by Sir David Murray? And I’ll bet there was a good number of Chartered Accountants among those shareholders. If anyone chooses to buy shares in any company, then just sits back and lets the board get on with it, what sympathy should I feel when it all goes pear shaped? That’s precisely how I behave myself, by the way, so I won’t be looking for sympathy or blaming anyone else if I lose my money. I feel we should save our sympathy for the creditors.
The SFA may have an audit power, but they don’t have an audit function. To audit every SFA member would require a large staff of in-house accountants. The responsibility for audit lies squarely with the company and its auditors. If any of the shareholders have a problem with losing their money, I suggest they call on Sir David Murray, or the auditors. Just this once, I don’t blame the SFA. They have no duty towards the shareholders of a limited company, nor should they, in my opinion.
StevieBC – not being pedantic, just trying to shoehorn in a Marillion/Fish pun … 🙂
As for biscuit ads, I always preferred the “My name is Stan, and I’m a fan – and I’m delighted, to eat United!” one. That’s been stuck in my mind for decades.
Nice to see you back, too, JC. You’ll be pleased to learn that my ravings concerning Rome have persuaded my older son to take his girlfriend there later this year. 🙂
More serious types, please excuse the silliness that accompanies the calm before the (anticipated) storm …
Following BRTH’s post & subsequent replies with bayviewgold’s in particular, I believe the lack of “governance” from SFA/SPL/SFL is embodied in the RFC(IL)/TRFC debacle.
The issues are not mutually exclusive. It is clear that the trinity charged with looking after our game view it through the prism of a ( perhaps any & at all costs) Rangers and Celtic. If you are not much less than 50 yrs old, perhaps not Scots born, all you will have known, DUFC & Aberdeen’s success in the 80’s notwithstanding , is domination by the Old Firm.
You would know they have a huge fan base, regular European participation, the biggest stadia, a plethora of titles & cups and by far the biggest TV draw. It would therefore not be hard to view them as the cornerstone of the Scottish game.
A direct threat to the existence of one would fatally flaw any plan to use them as leverage to a brighter future for all. All that followed RFC’s administration stemmed from that viewpoint. Here is the nub. Such a view of the world lacked scope as the Old Firm via the 11-1 did and would have continued to do what suited themselves.
I despair at the current reconstruction talks – they matter not. I stifle a yawn on the newco/oldco debate, I skip the self aggrandisement debate on the appropriateness of “spiv” as a non de plume for TRFC officials.
There is but one thing that will elevate our game from its current depths. Better players and lots of them. Too many for just 2 teams to accommodate.
The answer is not in Celtic Park, Ibrox or Hampden.
It’s in Belgium.
Few folks on here asking about where the SPL prize money went that was “stolen” according to CG and that neither ND or SR will answer a question on…..
Clue – it was part of the 5 way agreement
From D&P report from 24 Aug
Football regulatory matters
6.2 The sale of the business and certain assets included the sale of the Company‟s right, title and interest in its SPL share and SFA membership. Following the sale of these assets, the sale of Ibrox and Murray Park and the transfer of the Playing Staff to Newco the Company was no longer in a position to meet the criteria for membership of any of the Football Authorities and therefore no longer operates a Football club.
6.3 The Purchaser however required membership of the SFA and either the SPL or SFL in order to continue to operate as Rangers Football Club and participate in a senior football competition in Scotland, and therefore sought agreement with the Football Authorities. The Company was required to be a party to such agreements in order to assist the Purchaser, as required by the SPA.
RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club plc) (In Administration)
Progress Report to Creditors
24 August 2012
6.4 As has been widely publicised, the Purchaser was unsuccessful in its application for the transfer of the Company‟s SPL share and following further negotiations with the Football Authorities, ultimately agreed such terms as were necessary to obtain the transfer of the Company‟s SFA membership and gain membership of the SFL. The terms of these agreements were, inter alia:
6.4.1 that the Company‟s SPL share was transferred to Dundee Football Club.
6.4.2 that the Company‟s SFA membership was transferred to the Purchaser.
6.4.3 that the SFA Appellate Tribunal, which was due to be reconvened following the Interlocuter of Lord Glennie on the Club‟s Judicial Review, was empowered to impose the Transfer Embargo.
6.4.4 that the Purchaser is required to assume liability for all football-related creditors, being all creditors of the Company that are football clubs, the Football Authorities or clubs of the other national football associations. This includes outstanding transfer fees and SFA disciplinary fines arising from the SFA Disciplinary Tribunal commented on in previous reports.
6.5 For clarification, any monies due from the SPL were included amongst the assets of the Company sold to the Purchaser and were reflected in the sale consideration paid. It was therefore for the Purchaser to negotiate with the SPL regarding payment of these monies, which was concluded in the above noted agreements.
So in 6.5 it states D&P gave CG the right to use that money to negociate or “buy” his SFA/SFL membership as part of the 5 way agreement
The above is the only published bona fide account of the 5 way agreement details.
There were fish puns … then there were film/spiv ‘jokes’ … but this latest raft of funnies really take the biscuit.
I dont mind these so long as we dont move on to unfunny German sausage puns – they’re the wurst.
What is the significance, if any, of a ‘Periodic Auction Call’ on the Stock Exchange? I am sure it is not because of the resignation in Rome
ratethisthenyabampots says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 09:53
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 09:58
I knew it wouldn’t be long until the biscuit jokes came out…TAXI for you two 🙂 a couple of crackers! There’s certainly no Happy Faces at The SFA or Ibrox where they like their Jaffa Cakes.
Is this going to overtake the Spiv jokes ?
Far too much Kit for Kat posts on here 🙂
youtawknaboot says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 11:12
Gie it a break 🙂 That’s me I’m finished no more.
6.4.1 that the Company‟s SPL share was transferred to Dundee Football Club.
Does this mean, that because the SPL SHARE was transferred to Dundee that, in actual fact, Dundee finished 2nd in the SPL last year and should have had a go at Europe this year as well as received the 2nd place prize money and are entitled to claim any of the SPL titles/trophies won by RFC (IL) as part of their own history?
it seems to be that TRFC are claiming the history and entitlements of RFC(IL) simply because they were recipients of it’s SFA membership
6.4.4 that the Purchaser is required to assume liability for all football-related creditors, being all creditors of the Company that are football clubs, the Football Authorities or clubs of the other national football associations. This includes outstanding transfer fees and SFA disciplinary fines arising from the SFA Disciplinary Tribunal commented on in previous reports.
———————————————————–
Now this is VERY interesting
Could LNS (if he finds them guilty of incorrect player registrations) simply FINE “the club”
This would then be a debt to the football association and as per this agreement, TRFC would be obliged to pay it?
What would the prize money received by Rangers for 10 years amount to? £10-15M? (plus interest?)
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 10:21
I can see where CG is coming from but why was this substantial amount of money left open for him to negotiate with the SPL ? He was either due it or not due it surely or am I picking this up incorrectly ?
6.5 For clarification, any monies due from the SPL were included amongst the assets of the Company sold to the Purchaser and were reflected in the sale consideration paid. It was therefore for the Purchaser to negotiate with the SPL regarding payment of these monies, which was concluded in the above noted agreements.
================================================
have D&P overstated the assets in the sale? They have stated that this money was due and cg paid for it – expecting them to deliver it. However, considering they broke all the rules in the book to finish second (none payment of paye, ni, vat, other creditors/suppliers, football creditors) then if the SFA/SPL ever get round to punishing them for this then they could actually be fined/expelled.
CG may have a claim on D&P for selling an asset that they couldn’t provide – no?
BB..I can take no crumb of comfort from that
..& in the words of “Dunkin” Bannatyne…am oot !!
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 11:21
6.5 For clarification, any monies due from the SPL were included amongst the assets of the Company sold to the Purchaser and were reflected in the sale consideration paid. It was therefore for the Purchaser to negotiate with the SPL regarding payment of these monies, which was concluded in the above noted agreements.
================================================
have D&P overstated the assets in the sale? They have stated that this money was due and cg paid for it – expecting them to deliver it. However, considering they broke all the rules in the book to finish second (none payment of paye, ni, vat, other creditors/suppliers, football creditors) then if the SFA/SPL ever get round to punishing them for this then they could actually be fined/expelled.
CG may have a claim on D&P for selling an asset that they couldn’t provide – no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Completely agree. D&P claim to have sold something they did not in fact possess or indeed have any divine right to claim.
It further increases the claims though, that they sold the assets way below a reasonable price. £5.5m was to include all the physical assets, plus £2.5m (we are told) prize money, plus transfer money to come and all the players. Really, what happened was that Charles Green was offered the club for nothing.
briggsbhoy says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 09:35
upthehoops says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 07:15
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 07:05
For those of a certain age– I suddenly feel like the late Frank Muir on Call my bluff!!
There is another connection and similarity that can be drawn from the late Frank Muir regarding Rangers, he used to do the “Club” biscuit adverts which were eventually withdrawn due to false advertising. Remember the line “if you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join our Club”. It turned out there was very little chocoalate on a Club biscuit, it was all cocoa mass! hence the advert was withdrawn and Jacobs fined.
————————————————-
Another connection albeit rather tenuous.
I remember as a kid my Uncle Tam coming home with great slabs of chocolate. They had to be broken into bite size pieces using a hammer and chisel (seriously).
He “procured” these from his place of work which was the Jacob’s bakery/factory where Club biscuits were made. It was on the Gallowgate. I am certain it was where The Hoops Bar stands now. It WAS a long time ago.
Any older oldies than me confirm? 🙂
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 10:21(Edit)
__________________________________________________________
Excellent post EC. That removes any doubt about whether the SFA fines are a responsibility of Green’s.
Since the SFA are seeking to pursue CW for his fines (imposed at the same time) should we infer that Green has already settled his part of the penalty?
scottc says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 11:34
Completely agree. D&P claim to have sold something they did not in fact possess or indeed have any divine right to claim.
It further increases the claims though, that they sold the assets way below a reasonable price. £5.5m was to include all the physical assets, plus £2.5m (we are told) prize money, plus transfer money to come and all the players. Really, what happened was that Charles Green was offered the club for nothing.
++++++++++++++++++
Looking again at what EC posted you are quite correct that CG was given a bargain (or what looked like a bargain at the time) because the sale price is £5.5m but in effect are we not saying that you are getting £2m back on monies due. That money of course should have gone to pay the outstanding football debts. All in all it a total shambles.
LNS certainly can take action against the club, which TRFC under the five way agreement , I think, will be obliged to accept. This is patently unjust, as they are a new legal entity, but it is the understanding upon which the enquiry is taking place.
The scope for subsequent legal action by CG and the Rangers is immense. For example the LNS enquiry may ask that all prize moneys earned in twelve years be returned, or that damages be paid to other clubs who suffered as a result of their illegal registration of players, or they may impose a ban on Rangers entering the SPL for say five or ten years.
The whole sorry mess was so avoidable – but the powers that be chose the shambolic “are they/are they not” the same club confusion and nonsense.
LNS is sitting on his judgement for some reason – he clearly has had sufficient time and the scope of sanctions to give a judgement. I am not expecting it any time soon.
BRTH has in a nutshell,
Any transgressions by Sevco have been aided and abetted by footballing authorities who have seriously overlooked the moral standpoint.We called it sporting integrity but in actual fact it is a case of implementing the rules and abiding by the underlying values which should underpin any decision making..
Had the SFA done so then Spartans would have been in Div 3, and TRFC would still be trying to get their act together with forensic analysis by Mesrs Regan et al of the their application to the Scottish football league.
Had they been doing their job that is what should have happened.
Further to my last post,had TRFC been sent in to the wilderness, ‘tae think again’ then all decision making ,including investigations,would have been allowed to progress in a less hostile atmosphere devoid of intimidation to individuals like Turnbull Hutton, and many others.
As we approach Valentines Day,a celebration of love,then I can safely say that the whole Rangers saga, has been embroiled in an atmosphere of bitterness and hatred.
Such a poisonous atmosphere in our game could all so easily have been avoided.
bayviewgold says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 07:33
( as an aside I do miss the trips to shawfield – fekin awful view but a typical idiosyncratic scottish lower league venue)
————————————-
I miss the climate at Shawfield.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/lithuania-ukio-bankas-suspended-on-failure-to-meet-capital-rules.html
The LNS report will probably be delayed while they try to insert a paragraph about something Rangers didn’t do amongst the things they did, so that they can claim total innocence.
That’s an interesting one, even for Duff and Phelps, we are “selling” the debtors figures to the “Purchaser” rather than collecting the money on behalf of the creditors.
Even better, we are doing it before a CVA is even proposed, far less rejected.
So Charles Green is getting all of Rangers assets, including all properties, “history, goodwill etc for a net figure of about £3m. Which he will then say have a value of £50m, on a bad day.
BDO must be really interested in that arrangement, among the many others.
Neepheid @10:02
I hear what you say re Rangers PLC shareholders but there were some who in the early years who started to ask SDM some pretty sticky questions at their AGM– one person I know had a large shareholding going back to the Marlborough days and before.
To keep that Shareholding percentage he would have had to invest fortunes in the club to match the share issuing tactics of David Murray— as this was the kind of money he does not and did not have his percentage was reduced to next to nothing.
Now this guy asked and asked and asked– who owns what, where does this revenue go, where does this money come from– and was either stoically ignored, fobbed off, cold shouldered and so on– till it got to the stage where he just never went back to Ibrox at all.
A guy with a good business brain, a Rangers FC fan, married incidentally to a Celtic Fan, who had a long association and who wanted to play a part/have a say in taking the club forward in all sorts of ways.
Now– think how he feels today– because he was muscled out of any say at Ibrox by SDM borrowing repeated sums of Bank money to effectively price all the smaller independent shareholders out. As has been commented by others— that appears to be money that was all bank money– the fall out from which we have not heard the end of.
So I do have sympathy for people who had investments in Rangers– whether financial or emotional as the guys at the top of the tree have stuffed them– intentionally or otherwise.
Exiledcelt.
Look at clause 6.4.4 as quoted above.
Does this give wee Craighy Whyte an out– because it seems to imply if not state categorically that the New Co will take responsibility for ALL fines arising from the disciplinary tribunal.
Given that Craig Whyte had a say in many things because of his charge, his shareholding which he agreed to sell to Green etc— can he now argue that any fine imposed on him as Director or whatever of Rangers PLC has been assumed by the new co per the 5 way agreement?
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 00:02
24 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 09:06
It is fun to follow the fortunes of some wee teams, especially if you can trace your family back to a certain town or particular area of a city. Just as every wee team supporter probably has a big team somewhere in Scotland or the UK, big team supporters should perhaps adopt a wee team, if they don’t have one already. We can probably all find a wee team that is linked to us in some way.
——————————————-
Whilst the proposal is a positive one, I feel I need to stress that I won’t be the only fan of a wee team that finds the idea of having a big team weird and not a little patronising. My team is my team. I dont have another to the fill some hole (a glory hole?). Sorry to go back to a post from this morning but I had to comment. I’m sure the idea is very well intended.
———-
Well, far from attempting to be patronising I was responding to the blog and suggesting an antidote to this statement:
[quote]To be fair, my own club no longer enchants me in the manner of old. As sport has undergone globalisation, everything has changed. Our relationship to our clubs has altered, the business models have shifted, and the aspirations of clubs is different from that of a generation ago. It has turned most football clubs into different propositions from the institutions people of my generation grew up supporting …[/quote]
I was actually inferring that the teams that do not command the budget and following of say, SPL teams, are where you’ll maybe find football the way it used to be. I don’t see what’s wrong with the word ‘wee’. Diddy is probably rude and patronising, but I merely accused myself of diddyism in the petty and ill-informed, self-mocking jargon of aff the ba. Anyway, I’m guessing your team is huge compared to the team I regularly watch!
My suggestion was not for the followers of lower-division teams to seek out a ‘big team’ (many do, as TW pointed out) but for followers of the big clubs – run as profit-making businesses – to take an interest in their local roots, if they don’t already do so. I hear so many people complain about modern football as being impersonal and detached from ordinary fans, but my impression is that the SFL is where the genuine article still exists. Anyway, teams like Airdrie, Clyde, Dunfermline, Falkirk, Hamilton, Morton, Raith, Thistle were in the top division in my early years. That they have been excluded from the self-interest private members club is not their fault. I’ve never considered those clubs wee teams. My own experience is, for example, with a team like Montrose. I went there in the late 1990s doing some family history research and traced one side of my family roots going way back. Just across from the local museum is the stadium and since that visit I’ve taken an interest in the club. Seeing them on telly this past year has been great. Is that patronising? I don’t think so, and it’s certainly not glory hunting. Notwithstanding everything I’ve written though, I wish the Celts well tonight and hope the lights burn bright in my native East End. There can’t be many teams in in this competition who’ve come this far on such a relatively modest budget and with their financial house in order. That of itself deserves and award!
In keeping with TSFM’s wishes as laid out in this blog post, BRTH’s interjection moves the focus of comments away from being directly RFC*-related and takes us back to the focus of the last blog post re Auldheid’s letter. (See? No matter how much we appear to focus on RFC*, it’s only because all that was done in their case is the most obvious, convenient and recent example of corruption, which always leads us back to TSFM’s aim of focussing on fairness in Scottish football).
Auldheid’s letter and BRTH’s post point back to the cause (the football authorities) of the symptom (RFC*). It appears we are all in agreement on this and also on the fact that the obvious scapegoats (Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster, Longmuir) simply do not have the authority to carry out such subterfuge on their own. This then brings all clubs into joint disrepute, whether the reasons for that be a personal liking for RFC*, a liking for the money that RFC* (alledgedly) bring to other clubs, fear of RFC* and their fans, other.
For different reasons, RFC* and their fans also do not trust the figureheads. Given this overwhelming lack of trust, which is now widely known and reported, is it now time for all fans to start to really push their own/local clubs to dispense with their services? I know this contradicts the view that they did not/cannot act alone, but it could be a bit of a litmus test as to whether a club supported the gerrymandering or not. If fans could push for this WITHOUT mentioning the RFC* issue at all, it may gain more traction. This may be as simple as removing references to RFC* in Auldheid’s letter?
One thing I think we need to consider is the old truism of ‘be careful what you wish for’. If the ‘old guard’ were to be dismissed, RFC* and their fans in their current mindset would be almost certain to see this as proof that the wrong decisions were made in respect of their club……and not in a way that we would agree with! I imagine we would quickly see an ‘appeal’ to any new regime for them to be reinstated to the top tier, etc. Would a new set-up or new incumbents be strong enough to treat a liquidated club correctly? Would the club chairmen underpinning this new set up have seen enough by now to know that Armageddon won’t happen if the liquidated club is removed? If the possibility of the big RFC* gate was removed, could the chairmen come up with a better league structure?
Apologies for long post, just spitballing cos it’s easier than coming up with biscuit jokes!
Exfallfoose 2012 @10-24am
Periodic call Auction………The act or practice of closing a position by selling a security slowly over the course of a trading day…….is somebody selling their shares but trying not to draw attention to it……?
neepheid says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 10:02
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 22:20
“So for example, If Charles Green provided a business plan and projections ( as one must presume he did ) as part of his submission to obtain provisional and then associate membership of the SFA– then surely it is easy enough for the SFA to obtain management accounts from Rangers and then check these against the projections given?”
================================
Just a point of accuracy. It was the SFL who went down the road of provisional and associate membership. The SFA transferred the existing full membership of RFC to Sevco, under the terms of the five way agreement. So unless that agreement provides specifically for the submission of management accounts, then TRFC are in exactly the same position as any other member of the SFA. However I believe that the rules of the SFA allow it to call in the financial records of any member at any time.
=============================
There are two separate process at play here: granting a club membership of the SPL/SFL and SFA, the membership of the latter flowing from the former (automatically from memory for the SPL but perhaps on application for the SFL. Membership is a distinct process with some sparse rules and where discretion exists to do as the SFA please.
However a LICENCE to play football and the power to grant it lies totally with the SFA. It is a detailed annual process with defined criteria that The Rangers will have to be processed under by 30th April 2013 if last year’s dates for the licencing cycle apply. That is where BRTH’s comment about comparing what the SFA were told and what has happened since comes in.
SPL clubs are governed by UEFA FFP licencing rules which severely curtailed the SFA’s discretion, something that CG should have been told btw when the 5 way agreement was being reached, unless the SFA thought they would be able to persuade UEFA to grant an exception to the 3 year accounts rule. CG should have been told this and made up his mind on the chances of the SFA delivering on their promises re the SPL.
SFL clubs are covered by National Cub Licensing with many of the same provisions as UEFA FFP including the 3 years accounts hurdle, but as its within Scotland the SFA can grant a licence at their discretion, which they did.
There is a very convenient fog of obsfuscation around the membership and licensing process but logically any club applying for SFA membership should first have to undergo the licensing process and then have a licence granted, having met the licensing criteria designed to stop what has happened to Scottish football happening. The granting of SFA membership should be conditional on a licence being granted. Seemples you would think.
In not applying the licence process with due rigour, the SFA are almost as guilty as Rangers for what has happened to our game under their watch (and continues to happen) . As a paranoid Celtic supporter I think they were both in cahoots, the SFA being saturated with Rangers leaning men, certainly since Gordon Smith was appointed CEO and the current President is from the same stable.
That fog will clear because blogs like this are creating the breeze that will hopefully turn into a hurricane as the msm (whom I suspect have already cottoned on to the real story) start to take the SFA’s role in this mess mainstream as the laptop loyal’s power fades.
I covered SFA reform back in June 2011 with emphasis on three areas. See
http://celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=693:sfa-reform-one-down-three-to-go&catid=45:season-2010-2011&Itemid=80
and the Licencing Process in particular is one that needs strengthening. It was ironically a process that depended a lot on trust both in the information provided, those providing it and those examining it. We now know that trust is not enough and further safeguards are required to restore it.
And what have the SFA done to draw attention to their incompetence/dereliction of duty? NOTHING! because to strengthen the process would be an admission of their guilt in not applying it properly in the first place.
I have changed my mind on reforming the SFA since that article, they now need replaced by something fit for a purpose that serves football first and not the greed of those living off football using supporters money to sate their appetite.
The granting of a club licence to The Rangers for next season should be the subject of scrutiny by the media and all supporters, particularly The Rangers fans who at the end of the day will be the ones paying directly for any stitch up. <======= an appeal to Rangers supporters reading to start asking the SFA questions via their trust.
Surely Frank Muir was more of an eccentric gentleman than a back street spiv? Granted he did dress a bit dapper but there the similarity ends IMHO.
Anyhoos, acting in the best interests of the creditors D & P offered monies owed to oldco as part of the sale? This just seems wrong. I’m hoping that the SPL felt this was wrong too and held on to the payments until they were sure who should get the money.
The more I learn of what people get up to in administration/liquidations, the more depressing our society is to me.
I must have “those blue riband blues”.
http://www.dothebouncy.com/home/showthread.php?52938-Romanovs-bank-in-admin&p=589811#post589811
———————————————————————————–
a tad ironic that a sevconian is reporting on ukio bankas going into administration.
why.
because it is of no significance.
just ditch the debt – and carry on as before, as if nothing of importance ever happened
I don’t think enough praise has been given to Celtic Football Club in their magnificent achievement of competing at the highest level in European competition, and virtually debt free. When you consider the level of debt held by Barcelona, Real Madrid and Barcelona the champions of Scotland have managed through resolve to compete with Europe’s finest.
It is a wonderful triumph and had it been say Hibs,Dundee Utd or Aberdeen,I would be saying the same thing.
Well done Celtic and as a Scottish football fan I am so proud that you are representing our country on such a grand stage!
nawlite says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 13:24
————————————-
Interesting that our posts crossed over.
The point that will eventually be realised by everyone is that in football we are all in it together.
We need the chinese walls of rivalry to maintain the illusion of separateness, but as we are witnessing what affects one club affects all and when one club misbehaves all clubs suffer including the misbehaving club.
The SFA have a role to play in making sure clubs behave, they have the power in club licensing to ensure that they do, but have abdicated all responsibility for a Wallace Simpson. They just have not gone to Bermuda – yet.
I’ll take my chances on a new regime that embraces the oneness of football.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 13:35
Thanks Auldheid, that is very interesting. The interaction between licensing and membership is a point that I am not well up on. I will do some research myself and get back to you if I have any points to raise. I entirely agree that the SFA has to be replaced. Compromised, not fit for purpose, and beyond reform
A new iceberg has appeared on Hearts horizon this morning with the announcement that Ukio Bankas has been put into temporary administration. The main reason given by the Bank of Lithuania is Ukio’s failure to restructure their loan portfolio in order to reduce their exposure to companies related to its main shareholder.
The main shareholder is one Vladimir Romanov who holds 65% of the shares in Ukio Bankas. In 2010 Vlad switched all Hearts debt previously held by Ukio Bankas to UBIG (Vlad’s umbrella company for all his business interests), however, in December 2012, he re-assigned the security over Tynecastle and other land assets back to Ukio Bankas with a figure of £6.8M involved. I’m guessing that move was aimed at providing Ukio with more assets to support its loans.
The immediate risk for Hearts is that the administrators insist that Hearts start paying rather than accumulating interest on the portion of debt held with Ukio Bankas, as Vlad has allowed Hearts to do previously. That would be another cost to the club, which it isn’t yet in a position to bear.
Watch this space!
As a postscript Man Utd debt stands at approx £360m
Barcelona debt:578m Euros approx
Real Madrid debt:590 million Euros. approx
Celtic debt approx £130,000
rantinrobin says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 14:30
As a postscript Man Utd debt stands at approx £360m
Barcelona debt:578m Euros approx
Real Madrid debt:590 million Euros. approx
Celtic debt approx £130,000
Celtic’s Net Debt is @ £130k the actual bank debt is @ £10.6m, still in a different level all together though and your point is still valid. Excellent performance by a Scottish club to get to this stage of the competition.
BRTH and Auldheid’s points are well made. The whole Rangers/SFA/SPL/SFL saga is really a microcosim of the wider maliaise which has increasingly infected UK PLC over the last 30 years or so.
There are many symptons:
Non-executive directors who are supposed to look after the interests of shareholders, but who do everything but look after the interests of shareholders.
An accountantcy “profession” which has successfully re-defined “true and fair view” out of existence.
Governing/Regulating bodies who far from providing Governance and enforcing Regulations in their industries, seek to protect organisations and individuals who break the rules on a grand scale.
Perhaps the most twisted example of this malaise came yesterday, with the sight of Johnny Cameron, of all people, debating business morality with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why should we be surprised when essentially public bodies like the SFA or NHS behave just like the private sector? Haven’t we been told for decades that the answer is more “professional” private sector style management?
Football does need to sort itself out, but the root of the infection is much deeper, and much more difficult to deal with. Until some politicians get it, and apply Voltaire’s maxim (“From time to time it is necessary to shoot one to encourage the others”) and some very important people get some significant jail time, then the deeper infection will continue to spread.
sorry for the typos, didn’t proof before hitting send lol
Whatever happens to Rangers over the coming months, and whatever might happen to any other clubs in difficulty in Scotland and further afield, there are and will be many losers in the whole deal.
None more so than the ordinary fan.
These fans that go see their team week in week out, and then get stuffed by guys at the top of their club who, individually, take an ‘I’m all right Jack’ attitude, are each due some degree of sympathy from all other ordinary fans regardless of club allegiance.
@BRTH,
“…So I do have sympathy for people who had investments in Rangers– whether financial or emotional as the guys at the top of the tree have stuffed them– intentionally or otherwise.”
Well put.
Back in early September last year I posted on here that there was no doubt in my mind that it was the SFA who should be held wholly responsible for what happened to Rangers FC and its subsequent impact on the Scottish game.
Companies will always do what companies always do (i.e. try to generate ever increasing profits for shareholders) as that is their ‘only’ business, however, the SFA is supposed to be there to stop them when their corporate greed begins to impact on the game as a whole.
In this instance the SFA appear to have been operating a ‘laissez-faire’ model of leadership, basically allowing clubs the luxury of self-regulation without any due diligence or other measures to prevent clubs racking up clearly unsustainable levels of debt.
Once the brown smelly stuff hit the big swirly thing down Ibrox way, they could’ve mitigated some of the impact on other clubs by a simple application of the rules. Unfortunately, for all of us, the choose not to, preferring instead a vain attempt to maintain the status quo.
The SFA has singularly failed the game in Scotland. In my humble opinion, this system of governance is broken and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t sort it now.
Time for a complete clean out methinks.
http://theinternetbampot.wordpress.com/2012/09/
This one sounds ominous
Now when did Vlad takeover Hearts? February 2005 seems to ring a bell 🙁
Has all the speculation on the forthcoming demise of Sevco gone quiet, or is this just the calm before the storm?
Perhaps a la the start of the Olympics, they’ll sneak out some nasty news when everyone else in the footballing world is watching the important stuff at Parkhead?
@rougvielovesthejungle
I’d forgotten that cynical move during the Olympics Opening Ceremony- I’ll keep an eye on Twitter post kick-off tonight.
rougvielovesthejungle says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:05
2 0 Rate This
Has all the speculation on the forthcoming demise of Sevco gone quiet, or is this just the calm before the storm?
Perhaps a la the start of the Olympics, they’ll sneak out some nasty news when everyone else in the footballing world is watching the important stuff at Parkhead?
———
Been wondering about that myself. If someone knows something it will have more impact after this evening. So if I was sitting on a story I’d wait until the post-match interviews and analysis were over. On the other hand, it might just have been a case of Chinese whispers 🙂
Potentially bad news for Hearts, which, if they can find a consortium, may in the long run be good news
http://www.scotsman.com/news/vladimir-romanov-s-ukio-bankas-in-administration-1-2786810
Be interesting to see how the SFA/SPL treatment of Hearts, as this story unfolds, will compare with the treatment of another club?
neepheid says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 14:16
Check the exchange between the Celtic Supporters Trust and the SFA at
http://www.celtictrust.net/?func=d_home_article&id=375
where Regan answers questions on licencing/membership. The CST letter and SFA rsponse is under the links “here” in green.
Hearts unsurprisingly have now issued a fairly bland statement.
So that’s ok then? Aye Right! What the statement doesn’t say is that Ukio hold a security over Tynecastle.
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:04
6 0 Rate This
This one sounds ominous
Lithuanian prosecutors investigate large-scale asset embezzlement at Ukio Bankas
VILNIUS, Feb 12, BNS – The Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office on Tuesday launched a pre-trial investigation into possible large- scale embezzlement of assets at Ukio Bankas, whose operations were suspended by the central bank earlier in the day.
The pre-trial investigation was started based on information provided by the Bank of Lithuania about suspicious transactions concluded in 2005 through 2012 and revealed during an inspection, the office said
Now when did Vlad takeover Hearts? February 2005 seems to ring a bell
—————
Help ma boab. Serious stuff. Hopefully, that’s not to do with Hearts.
Where’s Vlad? Does he comment on this type of thing?
I think the problem with the authorities is that the SFA has lost track of what it is supposed to be. Which begs the question, What is the SFA supposed to be?
The leagues are basically cartels, put together to maximise profits. The SPL and SFL for instance see themselves as competitors and they bicker constantly about revenues etc. That is legitimate enough as long as the SFA performs its function correctly.
The SFA SHOULD behave like a regulatory body to ensure that there is equality of opportunity and to ensure that the self interest of the powerful are not driven through the rest like a tank. They should (imo) be the guardians of fair play and sporting integrity, acting in the manner of OFCOM in oversight of the leagues.
The problem is that the current SFA see themselves as enablers and not as overseers, and being run by the same people as the clubs and leagues (with top-heavy representation on boards and committees) lacks independence.
Auldheid’s resolution, (for which we have yet to receive a reply from any fan group) sought to have the SFA affirm their position as an independent watchdog, the guarantor of fair play and equality of opportunity, eschewing commercial consideration as a priority, although not ignoring it altogether.
The SFA may not however see themselves in the role described. If not, one has to ask just exactly what the point is of having them at all? If their main purpose is to help clubs achieve maximum revenues, wouldn’t they be better served by cutting down on overheads and just bringing the shutters down at Hampden?
Over the past 25 years, one “exciting” new initiative after another has been trotted out in an attempt to improve the quality of the game from grass-roots level upwards. Each one proved to be a damper squib than the one before as the commercial interests trumped everything else, ensuring the ridiculous sight of clubs facing each other up to seven times in a season.
That is what the SFA have overseen. They are in fact worse than a man down and simply cannot be trusted to fulfil their historical function. Meanwhile the game that many of us love has changed so far beyond recognition that I wonder if we only continue to support it out of habit alone. Certainly the clubs will hope that we continue to do just that.
The only regulatory process which is likely to take place in Scottish football is the one that took place in the summer despite the SFA’s best efforts. It will ultimately be up to fans to force the authorities to do the right thing for the game, because it is clear that they will not do so themselves voluntarily.
I often think that we always get the government we deserve. Perhaps we get the football authorities we deserve too. The lack of response to Auldheid’s resolution proves that we don’t have enough power as a group to help galvanise and motivate fans in this country to have them prevent the SFA from following the same commercial masters as the leagues.
Not yet anyway.
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:24(Edit)
So that’s ok then? Aye Right! What the statement doesn’t say is that Ukio hold a security over Tynecastle
_______________________________________________________
Which UKIO? UBIG or Ukio Bankas?
Assuming the HMFC statement is correct that should make a material difference to potential consequences – no?
Could the fallout from a Hearts crisis be the driver for change at the SFA/SPL/SFL ?
At the moment it doesn’t look great for Hearts, but hopefully it will be be OK.
But if not, then shirley the club can simply demand the same preferential treatment given to TRFC over the last year ?
If/when the they try to deny Hearts similar treatment, then the football administrations would look even more blatantly incompetent than usual – and that could be the end game for the current post-holders and structure of Scottish football administration ?
Some ‘external’ event such as this, IMO, has to arise which could then force radical change on the administrations.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 14:12
Interesting that our posts crossed over.
I’ll take my chances on a new regime that embraces the oneness of football.
—————————————————————————————————————
Agree, Auldheid. I, too, would relish the opportunity to start afresh with new people and a new approach in place, but is it reasonable to try to limit the ‘take my chances’ part of it?
What I mean is ‘where will these people come from’ and ‘who are these people’ (copyright acknowledged)? Are we back to talking about the likes of Turnbull Hutton? 2 problems with that, IMO. Prersumably, a current chairman couldn’t do the ‘authority’ role as well as continuing as chairman of their club. Why should the likes of TH have to give up a role they’ve chosen? Also, if we see (ex) small club chairmen appointed, it opens the risk of eejits like Craig Burley claiming they don’t have the skills required. I think different, of course (why IS he still a pundit after that comment?!?!), but such coverage would shirley accompany the first decision against a ‘big’ club. (e.g. if RFC* appealed to the new body – as I suggested earlier – and were refused).
Should the new incumbents then come from outside the game? This happens fairly regularly in business to varying degrees of success. With mention of Johnny Cameron above, it’s pertinent to point out that the failed RBS went for the non-banking experience of Stephen Hester to help them recover – successful or not? Time may yet tell.
My own view is that football is different and we need people who care about the game/the sport. We don’t need people who are good businessmen in isolation. Last Summer’s shenanigans showed that’s what we already have, imo.
So, anyone know any great businessmen/leaders out there who care about football, care about customer/fan service, believe in treating their paying customers like grown ups, believe in working with their customers to improve the business and recognise the need for fair competition within a stable wide bedrock of equality?
Danish Pastry says:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:19
I get the sense that the internet chatter is building that a big story re RFC oldco or Sevco newco is about to break.
Alex Tomo appears to be dropping big hints.
I was also interested in the reported comments posted on CQN by O.H.Flatterly, as there was some suggestion on KDS that that source is trusted and that they have been bang on the money in the past.
I was also interested in the tweets from @jiltedjohn1 with Alex Tomo and others,especially the following exchange.
Gordon Is A Moron@JiltedJohn1
@alextomo This mean your going to miss TRFC club anniversary of administration and other bad news coming out for the poor bears this week?
23hThommo@scottsweapon
@JiltedJohn1 other bad news my hole. #fantasist
23hGordon Is A Moron@JiltedJohn1
@scottsweapon Come back in a week or so Mr Weapon 😉
I can’t remember when – perhaps 4 – 6 weeks ago CorsicaChairty posted on TSFM that there was much internet chatter that goverment agencies were interested in people associated with RFC and that Strathclyde Police were being kept at arms length from the investigations. I also find it interesting that @corsica1968 has recently started to tweet. I’m assuming that @corsica1968 and CorcicaChairty are one in the same.
I also get the sense that after the result of the FTTT was published and following on from the huge surprise that the FTTT found in favour of MIH, that there is more caution when people are dropping hints on possible future events. (I am not bieng cricial of RTC here).
I have no hard facts, other than my own assumptions and guess work that something is about to break.
On another point – good luck to Celtic tonight, from a Dons fan 🙂
The SFA has utterly failed.
It has not applied its own rules regarding licensing and registration even though prior to this case it was scrupulous in the extreme in applying these rules – to all clubs other than Rangers. terest which were always at its core ( basically the entire edifice is run by vested interests in behalf of Rangers and always has been – up to and including refereeing – though tsfm has declared such discussions out of bounds) has been thrown into an unavoidable sharp relief ( though any neutrality in the past was heavily undermined by the conduct of Farry, Peat and Dallas, each with the backing of the MSM despite their clear breaches of rules and blatant partisanship) .
It was never fit for purpose – though in truth outwith any decisions with any possible adverse impact upon Rangers – most issues were generally handled fairly. This blatantly corrupt body has been left purposeless with the demise of Rangers and, I suspect, utterly bemused by the vehemence of the attacks upon it by The Rangers, whose existence they fostered and created in the face of all rules, and of all reason.
Many posters believe, correctly in my view, that our focus should be more here on the actions and misdemeanours of the governing bodies rather than on the continuing, and seemingly endless, saga at Ibrox.
However, there is a real difficulty in separating criticism of Rangers from the SFA. This is a direct consequence of the unhealthy (unholy) relationship which has always existed between the two, With the death of Rangers, and the failing mental and physical health of its replacement, I believe that the SFA as constituted has no essential purpose any more. It has been used solely as a vehcle for the promotion of Rangers and those in place now have no overriding purpose. Its whole raison d’etre has gone.
It ought to be replaced by an independent governing body: though of course that’s what it has always claimed to be.
A suggestion.
What about elders?
I think there could be merit in – as part of wider reforms – formation of a group of elders that oversee any changes to the game. The group could be comprised of retired people from the game that have a track record in speaking up for whats good for the game, and whats bad about various aspects. The SFA/SPL can set up commissions that are Independent of the processes within the administrative bodies, so I would think they could retain the services of a group, with such powers as are appropriate, at arms length from them that could act as overseers of the long term wellbeing of the game in Scotland.
Just kiteflying.