The following post comes about as a result of the research and work put in by Auldheid.
He has drafted the submission to FIFA detailed below after closely looking at their rules, and taking on board the points contained in the Glasnost “Golden Rule” blog. TSFM has attached the blog’s name to the report since the overwhelming – but not unanimous – view of our readership is that the SFA and the SPL have again gotten themselves into an almighty and embarrassingly amateur fankle over this issue.
We believe that tens of thousands of football fans will be lost to the game if the outcome of the LNS enquiry is not perceived to be commensurate with the scope and extent of the rule breaking that LNS found had taken place. In view of this, we believe that we have to do what we can to explore all possibilities for justice for those who love the game so much and yet are utterly disillusioned by recent events.
LNS is not being questioned here. He has found that RFC were guilty as charged by the SPL.
What is being questioned is the SFA’s crucial – and seemingly conflicted – role in the LNS enquiry, as is the effectiveness of LNS’s recommended sanction as either a deterrent or an upholder of sporting integrity.
It came to our notice last week that FIFA have created a web site at
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
that tells us that FIFA have implemented a regulatory framework which is intended to ensure that all statutory rules, rules of conduct and internal guidelines of FIFA are respected and complied with.
In support of that regulatory framework FIFA have set up the above site as a reporting mechanism by means of which inappropriate behaviour and infringements of the pertinent regulations may be reported.
FIFA say that their jurisdiction encompasses misconduct that (1) relates to match manipulation; (2) occurs in or affects more than one confederation, so that it cannot adequately be addressed by a single confederation; or (3) would ordinarily be addressed by a confederation or association, but, under the particular facts at issue, has not been or is unlikely to be dealt with appropriately at that level.
Discussions arising from the previous blog on TSFM, “Gilt Edged Justice”, which was published after Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) ruled on the registration of Rangers players who had contractual side letters that were not disclosed to the SFA as part of their registration, suggest that there may be possible unfortunate consequences for football arising from the evidence presented by the SFA to the LNS enquiry that informed its findings on registration and consequent eligibility. There is also a question of the propriety of the SFA providing evidence on an issue which could have had a negative impact on them had it been found that they had failed to carrying out their registration duties with due rigour over a period of ten years when the existence of EBTs was known to officials within the SFA.
On the basis that the LNS findings require that registration rules be clarified by FIFA and rewritten globally if necessary to remove any ambiguity and under clause 3 above, this appears to be an issue that the FIFA should examine and that the SFA cannot address.
The following report has therefore been submitted by TSFM on behalf of its readers to FIFA drawing on the content and debate following the “Gilt Edged Justice” blog in respect of the possible footballing consequences of the LNS enquiry.
The hope is that by speaking for so many supporters, FIFA will give the TSFM submission some weight, but individuals are free of course to make their own points in their own way. We await acknowledgement of the submission.
The report Submitted to FIFA is as follows;
This report was prepared on behalf of the 10,000-strong readership of The Scottish Football Monitor at http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/
It is our belief that FIFA general rules of conduct were breached by the SFA and their employees in both creating and then advising The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) enquiry into the non disclosure of full payment information to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) by Rangers F.C during a period of player registration over 10 years from 2000.We believe that although the issue has been addressed by the SFA the particular facts at issue suggest that it has not been dealt with appropriately and we therefore ask FIFA to investigate. The facts at issue are that the process and advice given failed to uphold sporting integrity, and that a conflict of interest was at play.
We believe the advice provided and the enquiry set up, where SFA both advised and is the appellant body, breaches not only the integrity the registration rules were intended to uphold, but also totally undermines the integrity of the SFA in breach of General Conduct rules 1, 2 and 4. (See below.)
1. Firstly we believe that the advice supplied to LNS that an incorrectly registered player was eligible to play as long as the registration was accepted by the SFA however unwittingly, undermines the intent of the SPL/SFA rules on player registration and so undermines the integrity of football in three ways.
• It incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
• A club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivized to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
• And most importantly, it incentivises fraud. By deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). Then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
2. Secondly we believe the process followed was inappropriate due to a Conflict of Interest. Had the LNS enquiry not ruled on the basis of advice supplied by The SFA, they and those persons advising the LNS enquiry, could have been subjected to censure and the SFA to potential compensation claims had LNS found that the players were indeed ineligible to play and results then been annulled as was SFA practice when an ineligible player played.
3. Finally we contend that a law should not be applied according to its literal meaning if to do so would lead to an absurdity or a manifest injustice or in this case loss of football integrity.
See http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/4. We therefore ask FIFA to investigate both the process used and advice given to Lord Nimmo Smith to satisfy themselves that FIFA’s intentions with regard to upholding the integrity of football under FIFA rules have not been seriously damaged by the LNS findings and also to reassure Scottish football supporters that the integrity of our game has not been sacrificed by the very authority in whose care it has been placed to promote the short term cause of commercialism to the games long term detriment.
General Rules of Conduct (These are taken from the FIFA web site itself and can be found as part of completing the submission process)
1. Persons bound by this Code are expected to be aware of the importance of their duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities.
2. Persons bound by this Code are obliged to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to them.
3. N/A
4. Persons bound by this Code may not abuse their position in any way, especially to take advantage of their position for private aims or gains.
From the Rangers Press release last night.
‘”Mr Green was the sole director of Sevco 5088 until he resigned and became the founder director of Sevco Scotland, formed by Scottish solicitors.’.
When did Green resign from Sevco 5088? The statement would seem to suggest it was prior to him becoming ‘founder director’ of Sevco Scotland in May/June 2012. And what’s with the ‘founder director’ speak – by that token he was also ‘founder director’ of Sevco 5088.
Or was he – there’s always a bit of Magners in the Blackthorn with anything Chico states. I feel I am beginning to tune-in on his brain waves – gawd help me and pass the tinfoil helmet please. But seriously using Green logic was someone else ‘founder director’ of Sevco 5088 – no doubt we will find out in CW’s next tape release.
However back to the curious Rangers press release. There is no director resignation form been submitted to Companies House whose records still show him as a live director of Sevco 5088. Indeed at the end of December 2012 in his capacity as a Sevco 5088 director he applied for the company to be struck-off.
So if he has resigned from Sevco 5088 it has been since January 2013 and he appears to not have informed Companies House.
So Charlie when did you actually resign from Sevco 5088 – we demand to see the proof – not that we don’t believe what you say – but your memory problems appear to be increasing and we wouldn’t want to think you are telling porkies.
There seems to be so many plates spinning in the air for Sevco:
Questions about cash flow – £1m per month losses and rumors on payment for contractors
Audited accounts to be submitted?
SFA inquiring if TEGF was linked to CG – potential problems re Club licence if links proven?
Questions of CG survival as CEO
AIM reported as being concerned with IPO
Potential Court action TGEF v GC (have papers been lodged?)
Doubt as to who owns the assets
CG looking to terminate the employ of more backroom staff
Season ticket sales for season 2013/14 – suggested price increases – will the fans buy?
It appears that Sevco will have two major fronts to fight – addressing cash flow problems and fighting Court cases into who owns the assets and/or investigations into the sale of those assets.
Given that the business model for the Club is income generation on the basis of selling tickets to see a team play football at Ibrox – as it is likely that there will be a fight over the assets – I am wondering if the Club have enough time and cash to contend those claims?
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/47851056153/the-knife-in-the-dark
Considerably too long to post on here, but on the dimensions, the ramifications and the liquidations of Rangers Football Club and why it is now or never for Rangers to go for a MVL.
Excellent read from Richard Wilson at the Football Life – The Knife in the Dark
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/47851056153/the-knife-in-the-dark
ecobhoy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 09:39
Is it possible for the sole director of a company to resign? From the following:
http://www.easylegalonline.com.au/companies/resignation-of-director/
“Note that you cannot resign as a Director of the Company if you are the sole and remaining director. If you are the sole and remaining director and if no one is prepared to take your place then you must take steps to have the company deregistered or if it has trade creditors, then to be wound up. You should consult your accountant or a lawyer about this.”
Further … “formed by Scottish solicitors”? Why include such a phrase?
Sevco Scotland Started By Donald Findlay Shocker! 🙂
Is this another ” WORLD RECORD” for Rangers,the amount of fans (500m?) at one football club to be lied/duped to at the same time?
In the STV interview, when questioned about CW being involved in Sevco 5088, did CG not say at one point that “he handed it back to CW”?
If CW was not involved why and what was he handing back,well we know it was not the money.
What’s up today then? – Let’s see
CG to get a “grilling” at a Board Meeting
Well they could have given him a grilling any time in person or by phone over the past weeks – You don’t need a Saturday Board Meeting to do that – so that’s all pants peddled to the MSM
They may need to all check/ confer / agree what they put in and stated in the IPA offer and get all their ducks in a row for the 6 month AIM financial reports / accounts to be confident on Monday and / or;
Have a good ol power struggle which is what Saturday Board Meetings as usually all about before the markets open Monday
Looks like this was all planned– but accelerated on recent tapes
DUPCON 2
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 09:55
Interesting piece Richard. If, and its a big if, you are correct, then on the face of it Sir Walter d’EBT et al would, under the SFA’s own rules, be disqualified from serving as a director in Third Rangers.
However, if, as I suspect, all the footballing activities and assets are vested in The Rangers Football Club Ltd, then the football authorities may have an out. The sole directors of TRFCL are the three amigos, and it could be argued that under these circumstances the rules don’t apply. Sheer sophistry of course, but when has that stopped folk?
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 10:27
In the STV interview, when questioned about CW being involved in Sevco 5088, did CG not say at one point that “he handed it back to CW”? If CW was not involved why and what was he handing back,well we know it was not the money.
———————————————————————————
Yea he got in a bit of a fankle there – sadly interviewer didn’t pick-up on it. But if Green was telling the truth and he was the sole director and subscriber shareholder how could he hand a company back to CW – it begs the question of when did CW become involved with the company.
With so much of what Green says it turns to rat-sh*t on closer investigation.
ecobhoy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 08:17
I think the non-lodging of the additional directors form has a simple explanation. Had the form been lodged timeously, then Whyte’s involvement with the consortium would have been there for all to see from the outset, and all their plans would have collapsed.
Why register it now? Possibly because Whyte can see that Green is burning up money and wants to secure his position now, while there’s still a club to play at his stadium, so he can sell seats to Ticketus to clear his debt!
Could it be that Whyte’s plans are going quite well, and he HAD to lose the Ticketus case to put him in a position to exercise his floating charge? He then ends up owning Ibrox, Murray Park etc, sells off MP, and once Ticketus have been repaid (will take a few years) he’s got Ibrox to himself and a nice little nest egg. In the meantime, Green is making a mess of running the football club, so time to get rid of him!
Or… Could there actually be two, separate, but compatible, scams going on at the same time. With Whyte after the heritable property, and Green making his money from running, then selling, the club? The events of the last two weeks might be as a result of a falling out, but also, perhaps, as has been suggested, all part of the overarching plan, to leave Whyte with the assets, and Green with his TRFC salary and bonuses pocketed and whatever he can get for his shares.
Disclaimer: The above is just my Saturday morning rambling, and is not recommended as a get rich quick plan for anyone 😉
neepheid says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 09:56
ecobhoy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 09:39
Is it possible for the sole director of a company to resign? From the following:
http://www.easylegalonline.com.au/companies/resignation-of-director/
“Note that you cannot resign as a Director of the Company if you are the sole and remaining director. If you are the sole and remaining director and if no one is prepared to take your place then you must take steps to have the company deregistered or if it has trade creditors, then to be wound up. You should consult your accountant or a lawyer about this.”
===============================================================
Good point which again points to the strong possibility that Green wasn’t the only director but that White and Earley were directors as well. But that leaves the problem if those two were directors why did the striking-off application lodged in late December for Sevco 5088 fail to have at least one other director signing it as required legally.
While we are waiting for the board meeting, there may be a solution to any football ground problem that may exist.
The Scottish Government has been using cash and assets confiscated from criminal enterprises to fund 3G pitches across the country……
I’ll get ma coat
ecobhoy says: Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 08:17
——————————
Isn’t the simplest explanation of the AP01 forms not being lodged timeously the simple fact that Whyte had just been banned from having any involvement in Scottish football nine days earlier (tribunal decision on 30/04/12). Therefore it was deemed necessary not to disclose his appointment as a director of a company that was set to own the football club, either with or without a CVA.
Clearly Whyte does now wish to discredit Green after he spurned any suggestion of a financial settlement with him, hence the lodging of the papers at this stage.
It also seems odd that Green would have claimed to have resigned from Sevco 5088, but there is no TM01 lodged with Companies House to back it up, as well as his signature on the “Striking off” proposal in December.
theglen2012 says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 00:1
smartbhoy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 00:00
——————————
I see lots of this sort of thing on here – if I can ask a question:
You clearly hate Rangers and you think all their fans are stupid, you’re entitled to your opinion. But do you actually want to see a bunch of football fans robbed of the football team that they happen to support?
==========================================================================
Its not a question of robbing fans of their team.
You’re not arguing that Rangers can break rules, indeed in some cases ignore the rule book altogether, and not suffer the consequences because some of the their fans will be upset…are you?
Absurd.
Many people do hate Rangers, others couldn’t care less, but that’s not why they could very well be going out of business permanently.
That’s down to gross financial mismanagement, and the willful breaking of footballing rules and regulations.
The role of Smith and Murray
People act according to the values that drive their behaviour. These values tend to be the basis on which their reputation is built. Those who care most about their reputation also care most about the values that underpin their reputation
So it is possible to predict what line an individual will take if his reputation is established and his values are widely recognised
So how will Smith and Murray approach todays crucial RIFC Board meeting?
Smith
His reputation is built on a solid achievement in football management. This was earned largely at Ibrox where it is acknowledged by the fans. This semi adulation will be a major factor in deciding how he responds to the Green and Whyte debacle.
However he will also have another driver. The FTT may have been “won” but it is not over. So there is a real risk that HMRC may come after Smith for big bucks if they win the appeal. This will encourage Smith to consider the financial impact of any decision on his personal stake in RIFC
These points to Smith voting for any option which removes him with dignity from this mess as soon as possible. He will not want to be tarnished with any role whatsoever in an RIFC liquidation
I wouldn`r be surprised if Smith resigns today and doesnot participate in the rest of the meeting
Murray
His reputation as a decent man of integrity has served him well in business. This is far and away more important to him than his love of the club. He will not be overly concerned at any financial loss he personally incurs. As Chairman he must be seen as doing the decent thing. The biggest catastrophe he envisages is suspension by AIM and an investigation by the FSA.
Murray’s inclination will be to go for the immediate and public sacking of Green coupled with a thorough investigation by some independent body. Anything less will damage his reputation. Richard Wilsons suggests that a members voluntary liquidation (MVH) of RIFC may be the preferred option for the Spivs. Murray is unlikely to support this option with its spiv connotations.
So there is every possibility that if Murray does not get his way today he will also resign.
bogsdollox says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 00:27
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There will always be a Rangers.
They will always be around.
=================================
I wouldn’t count on it.
I understand the ap01 wouldnt have been filed when they wanted into Scottish football, but why now? Why not in December to stop the floatation? The only reason I can think of is that Whyte needed the floatation to go ahead. The way this is playing out, no matter how absurd, makes me think this was the plan all along.
-SDM finds whyte to buy the club for 1quid
-he introduces ticketus who will pay for it all
-Whyte makes a payment of 200k to his mate at Banfield (or whatever the non league english club was) under the guise of youth development.
-RFC enters admin as forseen.
-D&P, working for whyte ensures no one can buy them and there is no chance of a cva.
Whyte buys the club into sevco with his backers (including his 200k which he donated earlier to the non league english club)
-Assets are assigned to sevco scotland.
-Green runs a media campaign to get fans to invest in IPO. Fans invest 10m. Others may or may not have invested another 10m
-Now with money safely in bank its time to remove the assets from RIFC/TRFC. Whyte, now with his floating charge over the assets legitimized by the ticketus court case claims the assets back.
-SFA finally wake up and say, ‘Oi, your not allowed to be involved’, so he is forced to sell for, lets say 20m (paid over say 20 years from the new RFC), the assets to real Rangers men (Murray…? King…? The Blue Knights?)
Result?
SDM is a hero and loses no money
Whyte is rich
Green flogs his shares and makes a nice 7 figure sum for a years work.
Lloyds have their money back and
The SFA have a team called Rangers playing at Ibrox.
A great fraud? Or just great business?
Today
Will it be suspensions and an investigation (conducted by 3rd party) ?
greenockjack says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:25
That would be my more sober bet, and would fit with Mr Malcolm Murray’s corporate philosophy. Of course, it rather begs the question, if that would be seen to be enough, to shore up the levee?
WeKnowSFA @WeKnowSFA 26m
Hearing runours that today’s Rangers game is about to be called off?
WeKnowSFA @WeKnowSFA 1m
Something to do with the public liability certificate
—–
maybe wishful thinking, but if indeed the assets are not owned by who the authorites thought they were, what would happen to the public liability insurance? Would it be void? (In the same manner that if you mis declared something on your car insurance application the insurance company would void your policy)
I would suggest suspension and investigation by whoever at the very least. should have happened last year which would have allowed sufficient time for all issues to have been resolved identified prior to licience being granted
The only dead certainty about today – is that Chick Murray will have en exclusive from Ibrox 🙂
Scapa
One step at a time.
Beyond that ???
joegone says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:31
We are where we are.
Charles Green Denies Whyte/Sevco 5088 Documents Are “Correct or Valid” – But Are They Genuine?
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/charles-green-denies-whytesevco-5088-documents-are-correct-or-valid-but-are-they-genuine/comment-page-1/#comment-67044
Justshattered.
1. “and conspiracy to defraud creditors which to be fair is Craig Whyte’s modus operandi. It also brings into question the role of the”
________________________________
1. After the SFA banning the whyte knight from Scottish football along comes Pinocchio and, incredibly, the SFA, after a due diligence search ( no sniggering in the back please) accept him as a man in good standing and proceeds to grant him a conditional?? football licence!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Kevin Anderson.
2.Pure speculation…
Could the debt dome be converted….not to a supermarket but THE NEW/OLD GOVAN JAIL.
Would it be big enough to contain all the crooks connected to Debt Dome?_________________________________
2. Kevin, after whyte’s performance this week maybe Sing Sing would be a more appropriate name for the crumbling edifice.
theglen2012 says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 00:40
————————
There is no point of me posting every other day and offering nothing more than “well, I don’t think that’s fair..”
==========================================================================
I agree.
So why don’t you argue your case as to why it is that something is ‘not fair’.
Who knows, if your argument is persuasive you may change some minds.
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 09:55
Eye opening post, Richard, suggesting things might be even bleaker for TRFC in the short term than we thought, and even worse in the long. However, one point I’d like to query is that, should they go down the MVL route, the newnewco/club would play in SFL2 having already won the division, despite not completing their fixtures. I posed an unanswered question (probably no one could know the answer) a few days ago and that was, would liquidation, even voluntary, not mean loss of points, creating the possibility, perhaps likelihood, that they would be overtaken by 2 clubs, and they’d miss out on promotion. This could be negated, of course, if no rule exists to cover an MVL, and NewTRFC, in the form of CO, are allowed to make one up!
Palacio67 says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 00:56
Great blog today and tonight, lots of great posts, but one occurrence thats is bugging me what is this SPL2? is this the next step if the current 12 12 18 proposals are knocked back??
======================================================================
I think that was the idea, but there’s no way it can be implemented for the start of next season.
Not enough time.
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/47851056153/the-knife-in-the-dark
Excellent read but fanciful I think!
scapaflow14 says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:28
2 0 Rate This
greenockjack says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:25
That would be my more sober bet,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well I suppose someone should be 😀
The SFA cannot, irrespective of the final determination on ownership, claim to have conducted proper due diligence in admitting TRFC to the Scottish game.
If it were to be proved that an individual banned for life was indeed involved in TRFC then it is time for heads to roll. Ogilivie, Regan and whoever heads the membership/licensing function (is that Bryson?) will have to go.
It would be such a catastrophic failure of process that it would render the SFA unfit for purpose.
A clear out of existing personnel followed by structural and procedural reform would then be required to restore credibility.
Sugar Daddy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:07
The SFA cannot, irrespective of the final determination on ownership, claim to have conducted proper due diligence in admitting TRFC to the Scottish game.
If it were to be proved that an individual banned for life was indeed involved in TRFC then it is time for heads to roll. Ogilivie, Regan and whoever heads the membership/licensing function (is that Bryson?) will have to go.
It would be such a catastrophic failure of process that it would render the SFA unfit for purpose.
A clear out of existing personnel followed by structural and procedural reform would then be required to restore credibility.
=============================
Oh my poor sides!!!!
After all thats happened expect nothing more than a sweeping under the carpet, nothing to see here move on!
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:55
…
This could be negated, of course, if no rule exists to cover an MVL, and NewTRFC, in the form of CO, are allowed to make one up!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do they not cover that by describing it as an ‘insolvency event’? An MVL would most certainly qualify as such
scottc says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:15
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:55
…
This could be negated, of course, if no rule exists to cover an MVL, and NewTRFC, in the form of CO, are allowed to make one up!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do they not cover that by describing it as an ‘insolvency event’? An MVL would most certainly qualify as such
=================================
I believe that to have an MVL the company needs to be ‘solvent’, the powers that be would then say its not an ‘insolvency’ event and so ignore it and move along!
stevensanph says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:24
A great fraud? Or just great business?
========================
You missed the bit where creditors, including everyone in the UK, lose out on tens of millions of pounds.
I think a lot of people forget that basic fact in all of the shenanigans. The whole point was to shed debt, i.e. not pay money which is owed to you and me and everyone else.
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:55
Liquidation is not “an insolvency even” like administration, it is the company selling off it’s assets, dividing up the proceeds and ceasing to exist.
Why would anything happen after it.
Rangers FC Ltd are one of the assets which would have to be sold off. I would imagine that from an SFA point of view they would just take the position that the Ltd Company which was the club still existed, simply with new owners and things would continue as before.
That actually works in the present structure, it did not under the previous one, where there was no “holding company” no matter what people want us to believe. New rangers are in a position that they can be sold to new owners, with the current owner liquidating it’s other assets at the same time, maybe even selling those other assets to a new company, perhaps one into property management.
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:29
Spot on Chip, and lets not forget the millions RFC lost year on year, and we were all told it was Minty’s deep pockets……when in reality it was HBOS who were digging deep, and we all picked up the tab for years RFC spunking millions with the eventual bailout.
Start of rangers board meeting:
Chairman:”We have a request from CEO Green. Mr green?”
Mr.Green:”Can everyone please stand and remove all of their clothing. These three russian ladies will remove your belongings from the room.”
Mr.Smith:”What’s this all about then?”
Mr.Green:”One moment. My friend here is an electronics specialist. He’s going to scan the room for recording devices.”
After departure of all non directors.
Chairman:”Our CEO has an opening statement.”
Mr.Green:”I am not a crook!”
(the previous is not a factual recounting of anything) 🙂
chipmonk
You make a good point.
The gullible or the aware but inactive aren´t confined to the Copland Road or Scottish football.
The whole shooting match is a bogey and propped up by what can truly be called a corrupt establishment. Think of your children, their future and tell me where the real battle is to be fought ?
Talking about spivs, obfuscation and the classic “smoke and mirrors”.
Using names which are similar to others is a classic move.
However, Duff and Phelps had a “binding agreement” with Sevco 5088 for either a CVA or a liquidation sale of assets. the “binding agreement” was for a fixed sum, with fixed terms and was presumably binding on both parties.
Sevco (Scotland) is not Sevco 5088, on the face of it the names are similar (deliberately so), however that is irrelevant they are entirely separate and unrelated businesses. Conveniently if you want to muddy the waters you can simply refer to Sevco, and could be talking about either, or both, or another company with Sevco somewhere in the name.
The bottom line though is that Duff and Phelps had a “binding agreement” with one company, but sold the assets to an entirely separate one, their agreement was breached. That could only happen with the agreement of both Sevco 5088, who gave up their right, and Sevco (Scotland) who took over the obligation.
It could also only happen with the knowledge and agreement of Duff and Phelps, as one of the parties to the agreement.
All three entities had to both know what was happening and agree to it.
A tale of two Sevcos indeed.
Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:22
Quantcast
scottc says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:15
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:55
…
This could be negated, of course, if no rule exists to cover an MVL, and NewTRFC, in the form of CO, are allowed to make one up!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do they not cover that by describing it as an ‘insolvency event’? An MVL would most certainly qualify as such
=================================
I believe that to have an MVL the company needs to be ‘solvent’, the powers that be would then say its not an ‘insolvency’ event and so ignore it and move along!
__________________________________________________
That was what I was afraid might be the case. It might depend on the wording of such a ruling, whether it states ‘liquidation’ causes a points deduction or just ‘insolvency’. If it comes down to interpretation, then it’s SFL2 next season, of that we can be assured (unless there’s another rabbit pulled out of the hat and they move even higher) .
Good point about sevco 5088 being completely different to sevco scotland
– in the same respect that rangers football club is a completely different club from the rangers football club
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:0
If there is an MVL then it would be RIFC PLC, not the limited company. The limited company would be one of the assets being sold, it would not be suffering an insolvency event, it would simply be getting new owners.
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:06
1 0 Rate This
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:0
If there is an MVL then it would be RIFC PLC, not the limited company. The limited company would be one of the assets being sold, it would not be suffering an insolvency event, it would simply be getting new owners.
======
An insolvency event involving a holding co will affect the club as well there has been precedent and it’s why the rules are written as they are – rules used to obfuscate what a club is key phrase “operating the club”
dreddybhoy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:16
What precedent, apologies but I’m not aware of that.
Chipmonk, this is how I expected it to pan out, just thought I’d put it up for discussion 😉
On the other hand, if a team fails to fulfil their fixtures, are they then left with the points, and position, at the time of their last fixture? I say this as the suggestion seems to be that, in the event of a MVL, they would cease to play, because, I suppose, there would be no more money in the pot, and, possibly, no access to Ibrox. If RIFC go into liquidation, even voluntary, I would presume that the flow of cash to TRFC would stop, would this not then create insolvency at the ‘club’? On the other hand, I suppose, if they can still play at Ibrox, or quickly secure an alternative ground, the club could charge at the gate (no STs) and finance the rest of the season that way. With the prospect of a new regime they can trust, I’d expect the bears would be only too ready (see what I did there?) to come along in numbers to keep their club alive. But this might not be possible.
Again, I’m not suggesting any of my points are valid, correct, or even forged 😉 just putting them out there for discussion; or to be ignored 🙁
Sugar Daddy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:07
Duff and Phelps certified to the SFA that the new owners were fit and proper. I await with great interest the statement from D&P announcing that they were duped….
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:29
If, Rangers International go into an MVL it wouldn’t simply happen overnight. The assets would have to be disposed of. The club would still have owners until their shares were sold to someone else.
At the moment the club is sold then it has new owners, however it does still have owners. They would presumably take on the clubs commitments, including paying the bills. The selling price would have to reflect that, it could be £3.
The only real issue would be if no-one wanted to buy the limited company / club. I believe the “next” owner has been known for some time, and that this structure was put in place to make such a sale easy and straightforward.
I think it’s actually straightforward.
1, Sell the club to a new owner
2, Sell the properties to a different owner (could be yourself)
3, Take the cash (including any still in the bank) and divide it up amongst the shareholders
4, Walk away
I am not saying an MVL will happen. However it could, without the limited company / club suffering an insolvency event.
Rumours that Mr Malcolm Murray was not in attendance for all or part of the meeting, the outcome from this meeting may not be what folk think/expect or dream of, Plenty more drama to come
Scapa
From where doe this rumour originate ?
scapaflow14 says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:40
The Boss on RM, principally. Like everybody else, he is not always right, but he does seem to get info from sources at, or close to, the top.
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:21
dreddybhoy says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:16
What precedent, apologies but I’m not aware of that.
—————————————————–
Southampton? Not Scottish law (nor the SFA etc!!!!) but the holding company / clunb construction didn’t save them
http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=1325
If Rangers 2 move into an MVL then presumably unless an immediate buyer of TRFC emerges and that seems impossible given the chaos over who owns what the rest of the fixtures would have to be cancelled. I believe that there is a clear rule on failure to fulfil all fixtures leading to an expunging of all results in the league that season. Unless of course a brand new special Rangers rule – yet another one – is invented to cover such an eventuality.
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:36
Not disputing what you say, but with TRFC a loss-making business, would the liquidators continue to fund it? If they did, wouldn’t that be similar to how D&P administered the original event? Assuming the MVL was sought by those investors only interested in making/losing less money, are they likely to employ such benign, towards the club that is, liquidators as the Duffers were? No doubt they could offload players to cut costs, but that would mean letting their most saleable assets, on the club side, go, so no advantage to the shareholders might be gained by keeping the club going. Again, only throwing these points in for discussion.
stevensanph says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 11:24
I understand the ap01 wouldnt have been filed when they wanted into Scottish football, but why now? Why not in December to stop the floatation? The only reason I can think of is that Whyte needed the floatation to go ahead.
==================================================================
Holding back the form would also be a way of avoiding accusations of “Phoenixism”
Scapa
Thank´s
Like most, Boss has an agenda (pro-Green).
Would be surprised if MM didn´t attend but it shouldn´t be long until we hear the respective accounts.
I´ll wait and see what transpires rather than speculate.
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:36
===========================================
That is also my thinking.
scapaflow14 says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:40
true, lol
Did St Mirren change their mind about league reconstruction before Charles Green visited ?
There has been some bear on bear fighting in Coatbridge just now there are burst coupons and polis everywhere! The police are questioning Sevco fans in small groups on every street between the Segton and The Orange hall
watching HIbs v falkirk – fantastic stuff – is this what we can expect every week in the middle 8 league??
cup final after cup final every week?
chipsandblog says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 14:09
Did St Mirren change their mind about league reconstruction before Charles Green visited ?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Apparently Green was only there to cast his expert eye over the two Newcastle loan players at St Mirren as they are both earmarked for gain valuable experience playing for T’Rangers in the 2nd Division next season instead of playing in the SPL.
What is the deal with signing loan players when the embargo covers this window, I understand they can sign out of contract players when the window closes but can surely any loan signing would need to be completed during the window????
So is Green the chief Scout now ?
TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:54
=======================
What happened under a different association is not precedent in Scotland.
Hi,
Confession time.
Am watching Hibs v Falkirk at present moment.GREAT game.First time I’ve ever watched a Scottish game not involving a Glasgow team.
Am 59yrs old.
Does this make me sad or bad.
Armeggedon?
Loving it.
chipsandblog says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 14:30
0
0
Rate This
So is Green the chief Scout now ?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
yeh, and fast as well, he apparently sprinted to paisley from ibrox in a world record time!
When the directors finally take to the box at Ibrox, I bet the snappers will be busy. I will not be in the least bit surprised if we see stories tomorrow about who is next to whom, who is/isn’t there, just like the bad old days of the Moscow May Day parade 😉
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 14:33
What happened under a different association is not precedent in Scotland.
—————————————
I suspected not. I suspect that, if rules required to be bent, even a Scottish precedent would somehow not be deemed to be a relevant one.
allyjambo says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:59
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 13:36
Not disputing what you say, but with TRFC a loss-making business, would the liquidators continue to fund it?
============================
Are you suggesting that they would just shut it down, rather than sell it as a going concern.
I suppose that’s possible, I just don’t think it’s likely.
If they were to do an MVL I would suggest that they already know who the buyer is. Doing it in the hope that someone will come along and buy the Ltd company would seem a bit rash. Though I suppose if they intended just cashing in and selling the stadium etc it wouldn’t really make a great deal of difference.
It just seems more likely to me that they would want to keep the ltd company / club going, as that would make the other assets worth more.
So, I suppose that an MVL at the PLC could lead indirectly to an insolvency event at the Ltd company. The most straightforward one being it just being wound up.
chipm0nk says:
Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:39
Rangers FC Ltd are one of the assets which would have to be sold off. I would imagine that from an SFA point of view they would just take the position that the Ltd Company which was the club still existed, simply with new owners and things would continue as before.
That actually works in the present structure, it did not under the previous one, where there was no “holding company” no matter what people want us to believe. New rangers are in a position that they can be sold to new owners, with the current owner liquidating it’s other assets at the same time, maybe even selling those other assets to a new company, perhaps one into property management.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So realistically the assets could be broken up and sold separately.
Ibrox to new landlord
Murray park to private developer
Car park to a different landlord
Edminston house to another different landlord
Etc, etc.
But who then owns the history, the contents of the trophy room and the auld bike, surely right now (going by Greens ridiculous claims) the parent company bought the history, not the club so if everything was split up the club will be what it always was a brand new club but now with one years history?
I don’t see any reason why TRFC couldn’t just be sold off.
I wonder why anyone would want to buy it.
Even getting it debt free it would still burn cash unless a complete restructuring is carried out.
Who would be daft enough to throw cash away like this?.
You’re talking millions with no real possible chance of a return for years,if ever.
Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain 3m
I am sure that if anyone at Ibrox had signed contracts with uitlities as “Sevco 5088” then that’s just an Honest Mistake.