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.
“Currently the Club is competing in Division 3 of the SFL, though it is the intention of the Directors and the manager for the Club to return to top level football as soon as possible”
Soon as possible.
The next carve up has just been announced in the accounts, and live on SSN.
FFP, don’t they need to break even over two years? Or does that only apply to those playing by the ever changing rule books.
CG has the gullible pound, he is now trying to convince the world they did not die, and did nothing wrong. SSN hosts are struggling with what questions they can ask him, while maintaining a straight face. It’s only a matter of time until this is a laughing stock live on air.
if oldco and newco are really the same “rangers” and newco is not sevco
Will the 250k LNS “penalty” have to be paid via the 4way/5seats (thanks – ali mccoist)
If they do not have to pay the 250k – as it is a “football debt”
Then why not?
The statement to AIM here:-
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11506139
Mentions 1.9M of ‘finance leases’. Income or cost?
I note that in the notes it says.
17. Post Balance Sheet Events
On 9 January 2013 the Group purchased Edmiston House and the Albion car park for a total cost of £2,412,000. On 28 February 2013, a contract was signed with Puma to manufacture and provide replica strips and other Rangers branded products for season 2013/14. The Club also announced on 1 March 2013 that Blackthorn Cider will sponsor our shirts for season 2013/14.
So am I correct is saying the one off cost for Edmiston and Albion aren’t in the figures to end of Dec 2012 so thats another £2.4m to add to the genral running costs of £2m a month expenditure?
From what I can see they appear to have accounted for the football debts as a total of £2.8m but that year end had paid £1.3m so they have accounted for the Jelvic and Wallace monies within the accounts.
whether or not rangers gained an advantage is not a consideration. they broke the rules. they cheated. they should be disqualified.
when all the other sporting cheats are caught they are immediately thrown out of the competition they cheated and they are then punished.
ben johnson wasn’t asked to show whether he benefited or not from taking drugs. neither was lance armstrong. it simply was not a consideration.
nimmo smith’s remit was to dig rangers out of a hole and he believes he has got away with it..
when is cheating not cheating?
when it is rangers doing the cheating!
the directors of celtic have a responsibility to martin o’neil, gordon strachan and neil lennon and to all the players who played for them and to the celtic support to get these titles. they are rightfully ours.
i will be disgusted if this is not pursued an honest conclusion.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:06
@MaleysBhoys: Deferred tax liabilities of £7,817,000.
@MaleysBhoys: @Atari2600hero number 11 of the notes, away down at the bottom beyond the directors reports etc.
———————————————-
Anyone able to explain what this means in terms that a financial thicko can understand? Does it mean that a further £7.8m will need to be be deducted from the figures presented, or something else?
jimlarkin says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:20
Will the 250k LNS “penalty” have to be paid via the 4way/5seats (thanks – ali mccoist)
——
Mr McCoist:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/ally-mccoist-would-have-walked-if-titles-stripped-1-2818534
“At the meetings for the four or fiveway agreements, which were never agreed anyway, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing regarding title stripping.”
The agreements, according to Mr McCoist, were “never agreed anyway”.
TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:42
Anyone able to explain what this means in terms that a financial thicko can understand? Does it mean that a further £7.8m will need to be be deducted from the figures presented, or something else?
======
All this figure represents is the tax that would have to be paid if the properties were sold at some future date at the revalued figure shown in the accounts. It is meaningless in cash terms. They don’t actually owe this money.
From the Scotsman.
He said: “If there is a cherry-picking of the twelve, there is no way they wouldn’t pick us.”
——-
Is CG hinting at another carve up?
Longmuir statement that he has no idea what Division Sevco will be plkaying in next season roughly translates as …
“Look, just give us some time to try and wedge them into the highest Division possible since, following them ‘getting out of jail’ re LNS Enquiry (!), we need to help them ‘wipe the slate clean’ and get them back where they belong – the SPL or its successsor. You know it makes sense”.
This stinks to high heaven.
neepheid @ 11.52
Thank you
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/rangers-interim-results-everyone-at-ibrox-is-very-happy-what-about-asset-revaluation/
neepheid says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:52
“It is meaningless in cash terms”
—————————————————————————————————————————-
In the same way that the inclusion of the negative goodwill that allows them to quote a £9.5m profit is just a paper exercise.
In their current set up the whole issue comes down to cash flow.
If they are to keep a hold of their money in the bank then they need more money to come in. Either that of cut costs but how can you do that with, grandeous recdevelopment plans, a Tuped workforce and the desire to pay for better quality players to get you through Div 2, where there will be more chance of the current squad dropping points against better opposition than (no disrespect) Stirling Albion.
Otherwise the rainly day money is going to get spent pretty quickly and its back to the fans and the markets to borrow more.
Where have I seen that business model before??
PS if revenue is around £9.5m to the end of Dec 2012 we know that players wages are reported as being £7m per annum. Therefore to achieve the much reported 30% players wages to turnover they need to bring in a further £11.5m over the next few months to hit that target and then maintain that through next season, just to maintan the same squad they have today.
While laudable the 30% criteria isn’t going to wash with the fans.
I really don’t see any way in which Rangers can be shoe-horned into either a top tier of 12, not at the end of this season.
We started out with a system of promotion and relegation. Dundee look certain to be relegated and the winner of SFL1 will be entitled to be promoted into that place. That was the situation at the start of the season, and I don’t see any way in which that could be changed. As the league is staying the same size there is no place for a new team.
It’s just about feasible that they could be leap frogged into the second tier, as it would be moving from 10 teams to 12, so an argument could be put forward that relegations and promotion happens as normal, with 2 teams being “picked” from the lower leagues to fill the other two spots which had just opened up. It would be a ridiculous argument but it would be feasible to make it.
That would mean getting the other teams on-side of course.
With apologies to those already aware of this (I only saw George Monbiot’s Guardian piece for the first time today):
LNS belongs to the same small, erm, debating society as Hamish McLeod Grossart, a debating society that seemingly never debates and that’s notorious for mutual backscratching (e.g. over the Skye bridge protests). Grossart’s nephew’s company owns over 7% of Sevco.
All the pieces matter.
spaldingbhoy says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 15:31
14 0 Rate This
Sean who’s going to be our Omar !
My money’s still on the MBB to come back from sunny climes and blast the evildoers with his sawn-off tape recorder. ‘Craigy’s comin’ yo! Craigy’s comin’!’
Other Wire candidates suggested last night:
Ervin Burrell: Regan
Valchek: Doncaster
Rawls: Traynor (too easy)
Maurice Levy: Campbell Ogilvie (same)
Lester Freamon: RTC
Cedric Daniels: Alex Thomson
Jimmy McNulty: Phil Mac GiollaBhain
Polk and Mahon: David Leggat and Bomber Brown
Jay Landsman: Stuart Cosgrove
Senator Clay Davis: Sir David Murray
The hack Scott Templeton: Keith Jackson.
Stringer Bell: Walter Smith
Stinkum: Chris Graham
Wee-bey: Moses McNeil
Poot in series 1: Ally McCoist
(Obscure but nice, this one) Gary DiPasquale: Sandy Bryson
Bubbles: facepainter shafted by RFC (IL)
D’Angelo: theshield2012
Brother Mouzone: Turnbull Hutton
Carcetti: LNS
Proposition Joe: Peter Lawwell
The Greek: Gavin Masterson
Ziggy Sobotka: Charles Green or Custard the Clown
All unfair comparison is just for comic effect, of course. Nobody’s saying Poot’s really as daft as Ally.
I’m no expert on the stock market but I do know that shares on the AIM can be very volatile .
For some reason RFC shares seem to be immune to either good or bad news-the shares remain fairly stable.
Is this because the majority of shareholders can’t get rid yet or is there some other reason?
easyJambo says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 15:4
Lets go back to season 1989/90.
Forfar field an ineligible player, Vince Mennie, in a league game against Airdrie (which they lost). Sanction – a two point deduction
Rangers field an ineligible player, Bonni Ginzburg, in a Skol cup tie against Arbroath (which they won 4-0) Sanction – a £200 fine
================================================
Do you have a source for this? (Don’t doubt you, just I want to be able to use this in future and would like to be able to back it up if challenged. There are topics, and football’s one of them where Google is not easy for finding stuff.)
Their business model looks especially weak if 12-12-18 goes ahead next season and they are in the 18. It would be hard for Green to significantly increase season ticket prices to watch very similar opposition to this season. The supposed romance of climbing through the leagues also takes a major hit with a real risk of fan apathy. One less home game also I believe.
The fast tracking / ‘Stranraer precedent’ nonsense does need nipped in the bud though. Firstly the reconstruction affecting Stranraer was an increase in the number of leagues rather than the opposite. It was not a precedent at all.
Secondly Rangers are currently placed 33rd out of the 42 Scottish clubs. When they win SFL3 they swap places with the club relegated from SFL2 and climb to 32nd. The 2nd tier of a 12-12-18 should include clubs placed 13th-24th.
Finally lets put the ‘but we would be staying in the bottom tier’ argument to bed. Imagine reconstruction resulting in two leagues of two and forty clubs. By Sevco logic they should be promoted to the top league of two as otherwise they remain in the bottom tier.
Sean McNulty says:
All the pieces matter.
Tru dat.
Please do not (even in jest) link the best television programmer ever with that crowd of shysters coming out of Govan.
You feel me?
8.1 Finance Requirements for SPL and SFL Clubs
Definition: Refers to the audited annual financial statements prepared according to the Companies Act 2006 and relevant accounting standards (UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).
SFL Requirement (same as SPL): Each club shall be required to provide a copy of its audited annual financial statements as defined.
Audited financial statements shall include the auditor’s report.These statements will include the immediately preceding season i.e. for season 2010/11 the audited financial statements covering the financial year-end for season 2009/10 shall be provided. Copy of the Audited Accounts as defined. These shall be forwarded directly to the SFA by the following deadlines –
For SPL clubs – by 31 March 2011.
For SFL and SHFL clubs – by 30 April 2011.
——————————————————–
will this rule apply to Sevco and how will they manage that?
From SSN:
Rangers chief executive Charles Green insists the club is in a great position despite reporting a loss of £7million for the final seven months of 2012.
Interim results to 31 December show revenue of £9.5m, with operating expenses of £16.6m, while funds in the bank at the turn of the year sat at £21.2m.
Green believes the club are on a sound financial footing just a year after being placed into administration and demoted to the fourth tier of Scottish football.
Reflecting on the financial results, Green told Sky Sports News: “It leaves us in a very, very strong position because those figures cover the period where we weren’t even a member of the Football Association in Scotland, and we had huge wage bills when we first went in which have been trimmed down.
“It has been a very, very challenging six months looking to where Rangers were in administration to the successful float [on the stock exchange] in December which raised £35million.”
Green insisted Rangers boss Ally McCoist will have funds to invest when the club have their transfer embargo lifted in September and believes that the future looks bright.
“Ally [McCoist] will get cash to spend, but because of the transfer embargo that won’t happen until January next year,” he said.
“But as you can see we are 23 points ahead of our nearest rival and we will win the league in the next few weeks. Rangers is in a great position and we have overturned the problems that brought the demise.
“Murray won the case against HMRC and then on Thursday the Lordship [Lord Nimmo Smith] announced there had been no benefits (from the EBT case) and sporting integrity had not been compromised.
“I think Rangers, Rangers fans and it’s investors are in a great position.”
—
“What does ‘financial fair play’ really mean?
UEFA’s explanation, in 2010, was that the concept would require clubs to balance their books over the medium term, not spend more than they earn, and operate within their financial means.
This is all seen as important for one key reason: because any club that is spending more on players than they can afford, is automatically gaining a sporting advantage over every other club it competes with. Whether the precise system of measurement used by UEFA is perfect is a moot point. But the logic behind the principle however is, I think, broadly sound. And it is this same principle that explains the position of the SPL.
To turn a blind eye, to allow clubs to continually fail to make prompt payments as they fall due, would be to allow those clubs to gain an unfair sporting advantage over all those other clubs that pay their players, the taxman and other clubs on time.”
Any club spending what it cannot afford is automatically gaining a sporting advantage.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To allow clubs to continually fail to make prompt payments gives an unfair advantage over all clubs that do.
However, Mr Doncaster and his members clubs appear not to feel that the present rules contain enough provisions to prevent the above offences.
uefa definition of one way of
– – – – cheating !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
angus1983 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 12:58
“It has been a very, very challenging six months looking to where Rangers were in administration to the successful float [on the stock exchange] in December which raised £35million.”
============================================================
£35m!
Where did that come from?.
easyJambo says:
Sunday, March 3, 2013 at 15:45
154 1 i
Rate This
Lets go back to season 1989/90.
Forfar field an ineligible player, Vince Mennie, in a league game against Airdrie (which they lost). Sanction – a two point deduction
Rangers field an ineligible player, Bonni Ginzburg, in a Skol cup tie against Arbroath (which they won 4-0)
Sanction – a £200 fine
’twas always thus
—————————————————————————————-
Couldn’t Forfar have pointed out that since it was Vince Mennie, therefore there was no sporting advantage?
Nice to see old Charles Green back to doing what he does best. Yapping. Ignoring the fact that the LNS enquiry found Old Rangers guilty as charged and fined them £250,000. This has been heralded as a victory of some sort. Now his new Company has lost £7million in 7 months and he is telling the natives this is a good thing. Financially sound. When will they catch on?
Challenging indeed Charles, you were so busy you forgot that the business not only went into administration, it also failed to agree a CVA and is now in liquidation.
Quite important that bit.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 13:07
angus1983 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 12:58
==================================================================
If that £35m figure was true and there’s circa £21m in the bank,would that mean TRFC have spent £13-14m since Dec 18th?.
Paul McConville has some interesting things to say today 🙂
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/rangers-interim-results-everyone-at-ibrox-is-very-happy-what-about-asset-revaluation/
Post in moderation ???? But why are this outfit
1 celebrating a guilty verdict and demanding apologies from all and sundry
2 paying below average players, above average salaries
3 get special treatment by having grade 1 officials in the 4th division
4 boast record- breaking crowds at home matches ( who cares)
5 seem to be immune from all legal and footballing authorities rules
6 and pass off a £7million loss in 7 mths as ‘good business’
Am I missing something? DOH 😉
torrejohnbhoy says: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 13:07
angus1983 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 12:58
“It has been a very, very challenging six months looking to where Rangers were in administration to the successful float [on the stock exchange] in December which raised £35million.”
============================================================
£35m!
Where did that come from?.
========================
£35M is the approximate total reported as being raised by the initial consortium (£6.75M), Pre IPO fundraising (£5.575M) and the IPO itself (£22.4M).
What he doesn’t mention are the costs of fundraising of £4.373M (note 13).
Revaluation of Stadium Murray Park etc – CHECK
Burn up investors money in running costs
(Dave King, Joe Ellis, MIH et al, Debenture Holders etc) – CHECK
Go on Charles a wee tax avoidance scheme and you’ll have the hat-trick. 🙂
easyJambo says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 13:30
=========================================
Cheers.
monsieurbunny says: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 12:36
Do you have a source for this? (Don’t doubt you, just I want to be able to use this in future and would like to be able to back it up if challenged. There are topics, and football’s one of them where Google is not easy for finding stuff.)
==============================
It came from an “Hey Jim” question at the Daily Record sports desk. (I doubt if it was Traynor though, as it was a question from 1996)
For some reason my original response is in moderation (may be something in the link I posted)
monsieurbunny says: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 12:36
Do you have a source for this? (Don’t doubt you, just I want to be able to use this in future and would like to be able to back it up if challenged. There are topics, and football’s one of them where Google is not easy for finding stuff.)
==============================
It came from an “Hey Jim” question at the Daily Record sports desk. (I doubt if it was Traynor though, as it was a question from 1996)
I’ll try the link again
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hey+Jim%3B+Can+you+settle+an+argument+%3F-a061181282
yakutsuki says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 08:43
So, one regular poster on here insists that big attendances are always better, even doon at Govan with their world record crowd swelling tactics. “Two for the price of one!” “Buy one, get one free!” “Free parking for saracens and tanks!”
Well, sorry to call you wrong (Again!) but 7 million LOSS!!! In 7 months??? Another world record looms perchance?
***************
just to clarify (in case you meant me) did not say it was a fantastic business model – spivs never bother with such things – my point was large crowds give you a sporting advantage – issue with both Govan clubs who have used this model is that unlike most clubs who have large crowds, they cannot trun the crowds into money makers……………and still cannot!
I,m a bit baffled.
Why are RIFC releasing results for 7mnths if they’re less than 3 months old?.
If they are 7 months old does that mean the investors tied in for 6 months can sell now?
easyJambo says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 13:58
It gets worse.
“Yes. In season 1989-90 Rangers were fined pounds 200 for playing goalkeeper Bonni Ginzburg in a Skol Cup-tie against Arbroath without permission. Forfar had two league points deducted for fielding the unregistered Vince Mennie against Airdrie – a game they hadn’t even won. ”
So Forfar gained no sporting advantage because despite playing Mennie they lost the game and then got a further two points docked instead of a fine. That season they missed the second bottom spot and relegation by two points.
Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1
@TomEnglishSport Tom, RFIC accounts 31/12 show £251K owing on football debts,yet on 21/02 reports in MSM that Hearts accepted £400k.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:09
0 0 Rate This
I,m a bit baffled.
Why are RIFC releasing results for 7mnths if they’re less than 3 months old?.
If they are 7 months old does that mean the investors tied in for 6 months can sell now?
——————————-
thanks, you read my mind….if these are RIFC’s interims, what about TRFC Ltds results
also, as per my earlier (ignored) post this morning
do TRFC Ltd need to provide audited accounts by April in order to play in the SFL (or SPL) next season
if so, how is this going to be possible given that they don’t have audited accounts for last year?
Couldn’t Forfar have pointed out that since it was Vince Mennie, therefore there was no sporting advantage?
———————————————————————————————————————
:):):):):):)
Great blog by BRTH, would the mods consider this as a future TSFM lead?
We should all try to circulate it as widely as possible.
On reading BRTHs blog, it occurs to me that Mr Bryson has managed to invent a new concept – a statute of unlimitations!
The normal statute of limitations is a consideration that after a period of time it is deemed inappropriate, unnecessary or not worth pursuing a potential wrongdoing, whilst a statute of unlimitations in Mr Bryson’s world, and presumably in the SFA’s / LNS world, is a consideration that a potential wrongdoing can be let off from investigation / judgement for a long as noone investigates it, and to make doubly sure, there is no process put in place to investigate it.
Its nearly funny,… if it weren’t so ridiculous. As someone said earlier, Joseph Heller would be proud that the spirit of Catch 22 lives on. Well, after all, it is the best catch there is.
Not the Huddle Malcontent
The licensing rule to look at is 8.12 especially the exceptional dispensation from producing historical financial records clause.
It is buried in the text but Im betting its new.
The need to produce something by 30th April to get a club licence for next season is what will be concentrating minds.
What SFA will publish is Turnover, Total Wage bill and Ratio of Wages to turnover as well as profit or loss.
What the SFA should be doing is crawling over what is submitted with a fine toothcomb given The Rangers tendency to not disclose important info and deciding for themselves if The Rangers are a going concern, not taking Rangers or their auditors word for it.
Their failure to do this over the last ten years has ruined our game, the SFA must justify in public any decision they make to grant The Rangers a licence.
I have not read latest figures yet but have seen suggestions that to survive without burning investor’s money costs must be cut and ticket prices raised. This is the kind of thing that a licence should be made conditional on for the games sake.
Football needs protected from an unbridled The Rangers but no one is stepping up to the plate.
Some pertinent points
1. It appears that someone is burning 17 million to maintainn Rangers with no hope of any retur. We will never be told who or why. Given the rank corruption and collaboration of the establishment in Scotland thrugh the judicial appointees it is quite possible that this cash has been officially sanctioned in some way. There are clearly forces at play e which deem the survival ofthis football club to be of supreme importance.
2. Why does anyone trust judges. The initial inquiries into both Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough were nothing other than state sponsored cover ups yet were both judge led. Similarly with the Hutton enquiry and the Lockerbie trial. All things being equal judges will uphold the law. When vested interests dictate they will always side with the establishment. For whatever reasons the establishment deems the survival of Rangers a priority and so has organised matters to ensure this. Hence the plethora of oddeven inexplicable punishments or lack of and judgements or lack of.
I just don’t see what the importance of the club is. They are being protected and sustained by powerful forces indeed.
Looks like Green is expecting his renamed Sevco Scotland company to be on a fastrack to the middle 12 of the reconstructed leagues. What a charmed life he leads:
“Green said that a place in a cross-border European league would be his other preferred outcome for the club, a possibility boosted by the SFA’s continuing presence in talks on the subject.
The Rangers boss also added that he expected any selection process for the middle division in a 12-12-18 league reconstruction to see his team chosen.
He said: “If there is a cherry-picking of the twelve, there is no way they wouldn’t pick us.””
Captain Haddock says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:27
Its nearly funny,… if it weren’t so ridiculous. As someone said earlier, Joseph Heller would be proud that the spirit of Catch 22 lives on. Well, after all, it is the best catch there is.
————————————————
Catch 1690 😀
Coat on, exit stage left
What happened to the “bond” or deposit to HMRC, the League etc, I’m sure there is a rule or precident for those subjects……….sorry forgot. None of this matters as long as we still have the peepil.
gerrylentils on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:38
6 2 Rate This
“ben johnson wasn’t asked to show whether he benefited or not from taking drugs. neither was lance armstrong. it simply was not a consideration.”
————-
The drugs were performance enhancing drugs. It’s all in the name
Good try though!
Message for Corsicacharity ……….watch this space.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/216299-rangers-legends-to-take-on-manchester-united-in-charity-match/
Rangers Legends to take on Manchester United in charity match
A Rangers Legends side will take on a Manchester United Legends team in a charity match at Ibrox.
STV understands the game, which will raise funds for UNICEF and Rangers charities, has provisionally been scheduled for Monday, May 6.
Nearly 50,000 were in attendance last March when a Rangers side, featuring the likes of Brian Laudrup, Paul Gascoigne and Michael Mols, defeated AC Milan Glorie 1-0.
Current Rangers boss Ally McCoist scored the only goal of the game against a Milan team which included Paolo Maldini, Jean-Pierre Papin and Zvonimir Boban in its side.
wottpi on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 12:14
PS if revenue is around £9.5m to the end of Dec 2012 we know that players wages are reported as being £7m per annum. Therefore to achieve the much reported 30% players wages to turnover they need to bring in a further £11.5m over the next few months to hit that target and then maintain that through next season, just to maintan the same squad they have today.
While laudable the 30% criteria isn’t going to wash with the fans.
————–
Add the £8.1m of deferred gate receipts and you get £17.6m. If you are correct with the estimated wage bill of £7m, does that not make it 40%?
Not that far off and to do that in the first year isn’t too bad.
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:53
“ben johnson wasn’t asked to show whether he benefited or not from taking drugs. neither was lance armstrong. it simply was not a consideration.”
————-
The drugs were performance enhancing drugs. It’s all in the name
Good try though!
——————————-
More accurate perhaps to say that they are ‘commonly known as’ performance-enhancing drugs, it’s a sweeping general term, even if it describes something generally acknowledged to be an appropriate description. Just as, to the lay mind, the definition of what constitutes ‘blatant cheating’ may at times seem obvious…
torrejohnbhoy on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:13
3 0 Rate This
Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1
@TomEnglishSport Tom, RFIC accounts 31/12 show £251K owing on football debts,yet on 21/02 reports in MSM that Hearts accepted £400k.
———-
The £400k wasn’t football debt, it was a scheduled payment.
gerrylentils says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:38
i will be disgusted if this is not pursued an honest conclusion.
————————————————
Prepare to be disgusted. Nothing short of a mass boycott by fans of the other teams will change anything. Money is the only language which will make them listen as per the fans revolt that prevented the catapulting of New Rangers into the SPL and Div1. If there is no significant reaction among fans to the LNS shenanigans then they will know all the letters that were written in anger last summer were empty threats and they will know they can do what they like with impunity. It will be game over
UEFA are not coming to save us. The UTT will be obfuscated and ignored if it returns an undesirable verdict, which given the previous form is by no means certain. Fans must make this happen
Please do not be distracted.
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:17
0 0 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:13
3 0 Rate This
Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1
@TomEnglishSport Tom, RFIC accounts 31/12 show £251K owing on football debts,yet on 21/02 reports in MSM that Hearts accepted £400k.
———-
The £400k wasn’t football debt, it was a scheduled payment.
============================
I dont have time just now to explain this, however I’ll just say…….Wrong
iceman63 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:39
I just don’t see what the importance of the club is.
——————————————————————-
How important is your club to you? To others around you? To the community? To local business?
That is not in question, given the size of the club, Rangers are very important to a lot of people. No matter the size, much smaller clubs are extremely important to the fans and the local community.
The open question is this:
At what cost should they be allowed to continue as a negative entity? Where is the tipping point?
Religious signing policy? No!
Rioting fans? No!
Financial irregularities? No!
Songs of hate? No!
Breaking sporting rules? No!
Combination of all? No!
So exactly where is that tipping point?
It is not about to whom or why Rangers are so important, it’s about much you are willing to accept for them to continue being that important.
Like a mother who has just seen her son sentenced to life in prison for a heinous crime, she cannot believe he did that and even when faced with the evidence, still loves him just the same. You somehow expect that response from a mother. What you do not expect is the jury, the judge and the media to sympathise with her and give him a 12 month suspended sentence because he is such an important part of his mother’s life.
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:17
torrejohnbhoy on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:13
3 0 Rate This
Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1
@TomEnglishSport Tom, RFIC accounts 31/12 show £251K owing on football debts,yet on 21/02 reports in MSM that Hearts accepted £400k.
———-
The £400k wasn’t football debt, it was a scheduled payment.
*************
I am hoping this was 100% sarcasm as no way you can be serious……………….
Shield2012,
I try not to too pedantic, but come on, a debt is something that’s owed. A scheduled payment would only be paid if its owed to someone. It was CG himself that said there were no debts, but he seems to be never done paying someone some owed payments. Or can words now mean only what some people want them to mean?
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:17
The £400k wasn’t football debt, it was a scheduled payment.
============
Can you please explain why, if you owe someone money, it isn’t a debt? If I buy a sofa on instalments, my payments may be scheduled, but it’s still a debt- isn’t it? I owe somebody the money, after all?
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:17
torrejohnbhoy on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:13
3 0 Rate This
Barcabhoy @Barcabhoy1
@TomEnglishSport Tom, RFIC accounts 31/12 show £251K owing on football debts,yet on 21/02 reports in MSM that Hearts accepted £400k.
———-
The £400k wasn’t football debt, it was a scheduled payment.
*************
I am hoping this was 100% sarcasm as no way you can be serious……………….
Meant to add………….
For my next scheduled house payment, I will ensure when it is debited from my account that I declare I am debt free…………..until my next scheduled house payment…………..
And of course my mortgage is not a debt – its just a set of scehduled payments 🙂
iceman63 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:39
“2. Why does anyone trust judges. The initial inquiries into both Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough were nothing other than state sponsored cover ups yet were both judge led. Similarly with the Hutton enquiry and the Lockerbie trial. All things being equal judges will uphold the law. When vested interests dictate they will always side with the establishment. For whatever reasons the establishment deems the survival of Rangers a priority and so has organised matters to ensure this. Hence the plethora of oddeven inexplicable punishments or lack of and judgements or lack of.
I just don’t see what the importance of the club is. They are being protected and sustained by powerful forces indeed.”
——————————
Good post. I struggle with this. Why indeed? I wonder at fear of orchestrated intimidation (who are these people?) a perception of commercial necessity for scottish football, rolled up trouser leg establishment club behaviour or a combination of all three.
I’ve been astonished at various aspects of this saga. I thought attendances at Rangers matches would massively decrease. How many would wish to support a club with such brand values as theirs so clearly exposed? I was wrong. I thought the football authorities and to a lesser extent the MSM would actually look to apply rules with a reasonable degree of fairness and integrity and see that this happened.
Now I feel that the only force that is seriously pushing for integrity is us, concerned fans (with the very few in the MSM who do have integrity) with the authorities wondering what they can get away with before enough fans withdraw their support from a product where rules are optional and only to be applied with meaning to lesser clubs.
bill1903 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at
Rate This
I’m no expert on the stock market but I do know that shares on the AIM can be very volatile .
For some reason RFC shares seem to be immune to either good or bad news-the shares remain fairly stable.
Is this because the majority of shareholders can’t get rid yet or is there some other reason?
———————————————————————————————————————-
bill The share is illiquid…ie there are no buyers and not really any sellers. The fans will not sell, The institutions will not sell and most of the rest of the equity via the founders etc is locked out. Look at the trading numbers…..they are minimal.
barcabhoy says: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:33
————————————
While the accounts are made up to 31/12/12, the statements from the Directors and CEO are dated 4th March. Hence there is no conflict in the statement re the £400K paid to Hearts.
“I am glad to report that, as of the date of this announcement, only £251,000 remains to be paid in relation to the £2.8m of football debts we undertook to pay in the SFA licensing agreement”
The £251K is not due to be paid until October 2013.
LNS says that senior members of xRFC are incapable of correctly completing dozens or more of player registrations over many many years. Senior accountants, lawyers, business men, administrators claim to be unable to handle the intricacies of registering football players. They are thereby calling themselves chumps.
As if LNS’ reproaches in this regard were not enough, the football manager is sent out to say similar: that time and time again over many years they were just not able to register players in accordance with the rules. Nobody with any sense believes this. But anyway, who could ever again rely on advice from such people? Added to this, the gleeful broadcasting of their own stupidity indicates a total lack of self respect. This is a very sad state of affairs for a once massive club, and for Scottish football. The point of no return for both is very near.
Captain Haddock on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:34
2 1 Rate This
Shield2012,
“can words now mean only what some people want them to mean?”
———-
This is certainly the case when you read the conclusions, from the LNS Commission, written by BRTH and others.
I’m sorry but we have to accept that we read and take in the words that reinforce our own beliefs. We generally ignore the rest or throw words about like corruption, establishment etc.
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 16:06
I’m sorry but we have to accept that we read and take in the words that reinforce our own beliefs. We generally ignore the rest or throw words about like [*insert words that suit your beliefs here].
* amended a bit to make it more general
———————————————–
I agree with this. Discursive psychology is pretty much based on this being the case, and it’s a good thing to acknowledge, in my opinion. It doesn’t mean that we can’t try to see past our individual prejudices and try to take a wider perspective of what is good and what is bad though.
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:53
1 18 i Rate This
gerrylentils on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:38
6 2 Rate This
“ben johnson wasn’t asked to show whether he benefited or not from taking drugs. neither was lance armstrong. it simply was not a consideration.”
————-
The drugs were performance enhancing drugs. It’s all in the name
Good try though!
——————-
So Rangers went to extraordinary lengths of duplicity and deceipt to waste money on a tax evasion scheme to employ dozens of highly paid international players they couldn’t otherwise afford, that weren’t even enhancing the team?
What silly sausage thought that having better quality football players gives a football team an advantage? Hope it wasn’t the world’s greatest conflicted football administrator
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:53
gerrylentils on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:38
“ben johnson wasn’t asked to show whether he benefited or not from taking drugs. neither was lance armstrong. it simply was not a consideration.”
————-
The drugs were performance enhancing drugs. It’s all in the name
Good try though!
—————————-
And the more expensive imports weren’t for performance enhancement?
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 16:06
===========================================
Financial doping?
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 14:53
gerrylentils on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 11:38
6 2 Rate This
“ben johnson wasn’t asked to show whether he benefited or not from taking drugs. neither was lance armstrong. it simply was not a consideration.”
————-
The drugs were performance enhancing drugs. It’s all in the name
Good try though!
———————————-
So did Rangers field teams of placebo’s? 😀
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 16:06
1 5 i
Rate This
Captain Haddock on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:34
2 1 Rate This
Shield2012,
“can words now mean only what some people want them to mean?”
———-
This is certainly the case when you read the conclusions, from the LNS Commission, written by BRTH and others.
I’m sorry but we have to accept that we read and take in the words that reinforce our own beliefs. We generally ignore the rest or throw words about like corruption, establishment etc.
—————————————————
Yeah, something like:
“While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate,
“we nevertheless take the view that the non-disclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side-letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA.”
And so hey presto! deliberate concealement, deception and obfuscation becomes acts where there is no question of dishonesty.
If we can do it then surely football authorities and judges can do it too. And anyone else with an interest in upholding this baffling doubelthink.
The FTTT and LNS judgements remind me of a game I used to paly when I was a kid called ‘Consequences’. You would fold a piece of paper in five places and pass it round your friends. The first one would write such and such a famous person e.g. Maggie Thatcher, the second would write “met…. such and such a person e.g. Michael Foot with a rusty screwdriver.. the third and fourth parts would be where they met and what they did and the final part would bt rgw consequence of this meeting.
The comedy value of the exercise was derived from the fact that invariably the consequence bore no relation to anything that had been written beforehhand thereby creating a surrealist monty python type skit. Well it seems these legal judgements are written in pretty much the same mannaer, with a lot of long winded legalese and a final summary and jdgement that bears no relation to the points made in the main body. Except it’s not one bit funny.
On the BDO intervention thing. How can something “worth” £40m be “bought for” £5.5m.
I would have thought “when its losing £12m per year” a fairly persuasive arguement, no?
On LNS (well done again BRTH) there is a general feeling of why come to the verdict he/they did? As Shield says above you then insert the phrase that you personally feel fits best whether its corruption, commercial benefit, fully vindicated and justified, a desire to just move on, that its aye been or whatever.
The key thing for me, and the distribuion of my future earnings, is not really the verdict per se, widely and regrettably forecast as it was. I was, perhaps unreasonably, expecting some kind of plausible reasoning in behind it. Similar but entirely coincidental to a recent food scare, its kind of like being asked the question why shouldn’t the beef bolognese you’ve just eaten (and have been eating for the last 10 years) not have horse in it? I’m also guessing it wasn’t declared on the ingredients list either. Still, no commercial advantage over the other honest firms that went bust trying to compete eh!
Finally on promotion, I do believe Doncaster already wrote off the Stranraer precedent as rediculous or words to that effect. Or was that nasty grubby old oldco too Neil? What possible benefit could there be to all 41 member clubs to leave them in the new third eh. Apart from the money obviously. Unless Neil’s been away selling some other ‘mix’ recently.
shield2012 says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 15:01
Hear what you say but wondering how the £8.1m figure for deferred income is arrived at.
It is detailed as being
“Deferred income comprises season tickets, sponsorship, hospitality and other elements of income which have been received in advance and will be recognised as revenue as the season progresses.”
Now the 7 month revenue to end of 2012 can be seen here expressed in £100,000
Gate receipts and hospitality 6,411
Sponsorship and advertising 381
Broadcasting rights 391
Commercial 552
Retail 941
Other operating income 848
Total 9,524.
The £6.4m must include the bulk of the 38,000 season tickets.
As people have said if you take 38k x an average price of £200 = £8.36m
10k pay as you go at £15 = £150k per home game so you can bank the money for games to end of year.
Add the two but take off the £6.4m already accounted for as revenue.
So you have a few million spare to mark as deferred income but not £8.1m
There has been no call for next season’s season tickets so that can’t be in the £8.1m because it is supposed to be mae up from money received.
The Puma and Blackthorn deals don’t start until next year so it can’t be that.
Therefore where is the other £5m or £6m coming from?
Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia) says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 16:45
“While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate…”
———————————-
But was there honesty?
A good test is “did you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
Sean McNulty says:
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 12:32
With apologies to those already aware of this (I only saw George Monbiot’s Guardian piece for the first time today):
LNS belongs to the same small, erm, debating society as Hamish McLeod Grossart, a debating society that seemingly never debates and that’s notorious for mutual backscratching (e.g. over the Skye bridge protests). Grossart’s nephew’s company owns over 7% of Sevco.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
I think I know the source of this info and I would be grateful if you or anybody else could provide further details and/or link to Mr Monbiot’s piece.
The links to the Spec are interesting, but it’s Grossart’s links to his Uncle Angus, and therefore (-S)DM that would give it more spice.
Has Charles been let loose again?
“blackmail or terrorists”
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/216330-charles-green-rangers-will-not-grant-security-over-clubs-assets/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Rangers chief executive Charles Green has claimed that financial institutions will never be given a hold over the club’s assets as part of loan arrangements.
Mr Green also stated that he would not give in to “blackmail or terrorists” when referring to a bill dispute with Singaporean finance firm Orlit Enterprises.
According to the Rangers International Football Club plc results for the second half of 2012, it had taken out loans of around £1.8m and entered into £1.8m financial leasing arrangements.
Mr Green stated that all the loans, which included £275,000 from himself and fellow consortium members Brian Stockbridge and Imran Ahmad, had been taken out at the time of the asset buyout last year.
He also told STV that the finance leases were for improvements to Ibrox stadium.
Mr Green added: “Some of these leases that we took on board following the acquisition. One of them was for the sound system in the stadium whole another was for the catering equipment round the stadium concourses.
“What we did was we sat down with both of these companies and did a new deal just for those items. No one has got security, no one will ever be given security – Murray Park and the stadium are unencumbered. No one has got a charge over them, we have got no bank debt, no institutional debt and we are never going to have any.”
He stated that the £1.8m loans have been repaid in full and were mainly put forward by interested investors who wanted to see whether or not the consortium was successful in securing the future of the oldco through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA). The CVA deal was rejected and the newco purchased the club’s assets in a £5.5m deal.
Earlier this year, Channel Four News reported that Rangers faced a winding up order from Orlit Enterprises over a dispute relating to £400,000 it claimed it was owed by the Glasgow club.
At the time, Rangers rejected the claim from Orlit and stated that the threat of an insolvency petition from the firm was “bizarre”.
On Monday, Mr Green said: “That (the winding up threat) was them making demands which were outwith what I had agreed with them for fees in raising equity.
“As far as I’m concerned I’m not going to give in to blackmail or terrorists. The bottom line in I agreed, with a number of people, when introduced to investors we would pay an introductory fee.”
He added: “These people are demanding more than was agreed and I’m not going to pay it – never. I will not pay them anything other than what I’ve agreed to pay.”