A guest blog by Auldheid
In the previous blog (http://www.tsfm.scot/how-not-to-govern-scottish-football/), TSFM wrote to Harper Macleod raising questions on their advice supplied to the then SPL Board in February 2013 when the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision re use of EBTs and side letters was announced.
A reply was received from Mr McKenzie on 18th September the gist of which can be discerned in the following reply sent on 4th October.
Dear Mr McKenzie 4th Oct 2014
Thank you for your response of 18th September to my letter of 5th September regarding the consequences of information on the true nature of EBTs for Craig Moore, Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo being withheld from your good selves when establishing in 2012 the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission into the use of EBTs and side letters by Rangers FC from 1999.
In recognition of the points you made about publishing your responses on line, your letter of 18th September will not be published although readers of TSFM will be able to gather from this reply which is being published what those points were.
Anonymity.
It is a matter of real regret that not only was anonymity required, but that Harper MacLeod were used as a conduit to try and elicit a reply from the SPFL or SFA. In terms of anonymity there were three factors at play:
- Security. The individuals asking the questions are aware that any raised concerning Rangers can attract threats from the worst of the Rangers support. We know that they are a minority but nevertheless, as we have recently witnessed, some are ready to turn threat into action. It is a condemnation of Scottish society that fear has played its part in preventing the truth being revealed about Rangers FC’s use of EBTs since 1999.
- Collective. The Scottish Football Monitor is made up of supporters of many clubs in Scottish football and is in effect a collective. The letters reflect to a large extent the thinking and feelings of the majority of readers. If a name is required for any future correspondence from the SPFL or SFA, then it can be addressed to Mr John Macnab, and a Post Box address can be supplied if necessary in addition to this e mail address press@tsfm.scot.
- Accountability. The final factor is the most important because it is why Harper Macleod were approached. It was not just because you were responsible for commissioning the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry, but because there is absolutely no form of direct accountability by either the SPFL or the SFA to the supporters of Scottish football clubs. Correspondence can be ignored or the content not fully addressed and the customer who pays the wages of both organisations has no means of redress at all. Had there been some oversight in say an Ombudsman type role, it would not have been necessary to involve Harper MacLeod and indeed your good self. We sincerely apologise for doing so along with our thanks for actually responding to our correspondence, but we would like the reasons for our approach being addressed by the clubs who make up both footballing authorities. We hope you pass this particular point on to both SFA and SPFL.
Provenance.
You ask what the provenance is of the information/evidencethat you were given. The answer is we do not know, it was taken from material uploaded mainly in June last year for purposes unknown. Whilst its provenance may be in doubt there is no question as to the veracity of the content of the material itself.
This, when put together, sets out the narrative that prompted our correspondence. This question of provenance simply looks like an excuse for football authority not investigating what the material suggests took place when Duff and Phelps were asked to supply all documents relating to EBTs (no distinction being made) from the inception of the SPL.
Even if the material itself could not be used directly, it should have prompted questions that would have either corrected the narrative or established that the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission was indeed misled either by accident or design, when those documents were not supplied.
The SPFL must surely have the powers to seek the original documents from BDO and the SFA cannot be totally impotent in that regard either.
Then there is the personal knowledge of current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie to draw on. A simple statement explaining why he saw no reason to make any distinction between the irregular DOS REBTs that he launched in 1999 and the later MGMRT EBTs of which he was a beneficiary would surely help clear the air?
Existence of Side Letters.
We note that the Commission were aware of the existence of side letters to Moore, De Boer and Flo at the time of its decision of 28th February 2013 and these were taken into account when determining the appropriate sanction. The existence of side letters is not the issue that was raised in our previous correspondence, it was the nature of the EBTs that was the issue raised. In fact it would seem that the Commission themselves were confused by the switching from the irregular REBT ebts in 2002/03 to the MGMRT EBTs that are subject to further appeal with regard to regularity by HMRC.
The side letters to De Boer and Flo of 30th August and 23 November 2000 related to the DOS REBTs that they were both paid under. It is not known if they had subsequent side letters relating to the MGMRT EBTs , which is possible, but as set out in previous correspondence there were two distinctive types of EBTs and the side letters supplied relate to the earlier irregular type.
The position regarding the Moore EBT is interesting in that whatever EBT side letter was known to the Commission in February 2012 it could only have related to payments made to him under an accompanying side letter from the MGMRT ebts after 2002/03.
That Mr Moore was paid under the REBT scheme in 1999 is a matter of supplied evidence. However there is no record of any side letter in relation to the payment under the 1999 arrangement, which may or may not have been reported in the contract lodged with the SPL and SFA. It was the absence of any side letter in respect of this payment that prevented HMRC pursuing the tax due on it as they did for De Boer and Flo in what has become known as “the wee tax case. “ The evidence of deliberate concealment by the Murray Group of the side letters to De Boer and Flo allowed HMRC to seek repayment outside the normal 6 year time limit.
However the absence of a side letter or tax demand for Mr Moore does not mean this particular payment is not deserving of further scrutiny since
- It was an irregular payment that other clubs could not avail themselves of (as applies to the other two EBTs to De Boer and Flo)
- It is not known if it was reported to the SPL/SFA under the registration rules of that period.
Finally thank you for forwarding our letter of 5th September and previous correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer. Hopefully any further correspondence will be between him and ourselves, first to our email address, later to a PO Box if required.
It is the hope of all readers of The Scottish Football Monitor that the SFA will stop hiding behind the provenance excuse, which is destroying any semblance of integrity and proper governance of Scottish football and they will use their powers to properly acquire the information that will set the record straight and in doing so start to restore some of the lost trust which is essential for the wellbeing of Scottish football.
John Macnab
TSFM
Bit clearer and must be obvious now
Graham Wallace and Philip Nash must be performing well clearing up the mess
Such sensibility won`t do,
Board wouldn`t stand for it, shocking competence should be punished
They`ll have to go ❗
Neepheid
My hunch (and it was always that) was that Ticketus would not allow themselves to be stiffed with no response and that the only way they would get their money back was bums on seats.
Is MA going to offer wonga terms or want some more assets to fund a pay-off GW & PH?
Maybe he`ll take the Car Park?
:irony:
twopanda says:
October 8, 2014 at 10:46 am
Be in no doubt Ashely will have his eyes on the assets as Plan B, C, D etc if the punting of merchandise operation goes down the pan.
The question now is more about what will others do to stop or aid his plans.
One thing for sure is the club is moving further away from the fans.
Funny that, being Wallace was the one behind trying to open up the communication channels and getting the fans board up and running.
The likes of Ashley doesn’t need or will want the plebs around trying to tell him what to do.
Auldheid says:
October 8, 2014 at 10:35 am
My hunch (and it was always that) was that Ticketus would not allow themselves to be stiffed with no response and that the only way they would get their money back was bums on seats.
===========================
That was my own view, and I found it strange how apparently passive Ticketus appeared in the face of such a large loss. If Bomber is right, then we’ve all (or most of us) been confused by a massive smokescreen, with Malaysians and Lebanese acting as decoys.
I wonder if the whole unvarnished truth regarding the Sevco saga will ever come out? There is certainly a book to be written once it’s all over.
It’s been a wee while since I’ve had a day in Court. So, can I look forward to a requisitioners’ appeal against the Board’s refusal to hold an EGM?
That’s just it though wottpi.
I can’t see how the merchandising can go down the pan unless the fans boycott.
The disconnect that will need addressing is simply that a loss making club will sell more shirts if it is successful. The question is can it be successful on the park whilst still making the same loss, or even better in reducing it (the fans dream model) or, as one would assume and every other club seems to find, does the loss grow relative to the ‘success.’
The interesting turn in the sevco saga is that the sugar daddy has a direct interest in selling the jerseys and the nasty man, although they still speak to him unlike the other nasty nasty man, owns the image rights.
Auldheid is bang on though, the CL for SD riding on the back of RFC* will be helluva lot easier than NUFC.
StevieBC says:
October 8, 2014 at 12:23 am
=====================
I notice that DR article is still pushing the line all the troubles were down to Whyte. (Quote”King and Murray were part of the old board before Whyte’s disastrous takeover” == it was already a disaster when they were on the board, all Whyte did was apply the coup de grace)
Mind you what cows eating grass have to do with all this beats me …
According to the Evening Times article the Sons of Struth are planning to “…assemble in a public place and perform a seemingly pointless act.”
No change of strategy there then.
300K shares just traded at 22.50
Smugas says:
October 8, 2014 at 11:25 am
As has been said before, with the appropriate austerity T’Rangers and around 20k season books plus ‘pay as you goes’ gives the club more than enough cash to compete with Premiership leaders Hamilton and the fallen giants at Parkhead :-).
Seriously just like at Newcastle, with the correct motivation T’Rangers can be put on a financial footing that keeps them in the hunt but not necessarily top dog. Just enough to keep the required number of addicts parting with cash for tickets and strips etc.
All the other tops clubs in Scotland bar Celtic would love in the region of £8m (20k x £400) in season ticket sales.
Someone mentioned that Ashley’s latest ploy of getting rid of Wallace and Nash didn’t seem to have any affect on the share price. That doesn’t surprise me because the shares in RIFC are mainly held by parties who have other motives IMO than merely making money out of the shares.
Most shareholders who didn’t have that motive I would think have long departed the scene except for ordinary Bears whose loyalty has cost them 50p a share since the IPO launch and whose marginal influence will probably be diluted to zilch in coming months.
I do think that Ashley’s move virtually guarantees that Rangers won’t be allowed to die in that a team wearing SportsDirect blue will continue to play out of Ibrox. However I doubt if it will be the same legal entity as the MkII version currently esconced.
Wallace and Nash are merely the voices of the hidden shareholders and their departure means nothing as they will be replaced like for like and the merry go round will continue.
If Ashley throws his lot in with the spivs then, for me, it will be interesting to see what Laxey does especially as any Blue Knight – including DK – must surely realise that they can’t take on Ashley financially.
So if there is any share issue will the City buy into it because Ashley is involved – and his previous with semi-distressed companies is well known – or will the more cautious heads steer clear thus effectively leaving those currently in control with a choice of upping their stake or throwing in their hand.
But the whole issue has interesting issues for Scottish Football in the shape of the SFA and Celtic.
Shirley the footballing authorities have to act and ‘say something’ and especially wrt the mooted 25% Ashley business plan which Rangers have failed to produce to the SFA. Have Wallace and Nash been blocking this? If they have and are being fed to the lions they would normally be replaced by other serving the same Masters. But perhaps Ashley wants his own men there which means he needs at least another 26% of the shareholding under his control on top of the mooted 25% to achieve that.
So lots and lots of moves, rumour and counter-rumour to happen over the next couple of months. And will there be Newcastle players arriving in numbers at the January window?
And Celtic – well if Ashley is going to be a power at Ibrox that raises all sorts of issues for Celtic wrt to how long the current manager has to come good and also the fact that IMO any hope that Rangers wouldn’t make the Premiership next season has been struck a possible body blow.
So that means money needs to be spent in January to fill the glaring gaps in the current team. And that takes us back to RD because if he doesn’t shape-up shortly and requires replacing then I doubt if it would be wise for a possibly outgoing manager to buy a lot of key players.
I have no wish or intention of turning this into a thread wrt RD’s suitability or otherwise as a Celtic manager but if Ashley is going to be a major player at Ibrox then that obviously impacts on Celtic and its European ambitions let alone the league and cups where other teams certainly seem more than able currently to mount a realistic challenge.
http://www.businessinsider.com ‘s take on it.
Eccentric Billionaire Mike Ashley Is Playing With Rangers FC As If It Was A Dying Mouse
Mike Ashley, the eccentric billionaire owner of Sports Direct, appears to have Rangers Football Club, a Scottish team, over a barrel.
On Wednesday, he called for chief executive Graham Wallace and director Philip Nash to step down, demanding a shareholder vote. Here is the official statement from the club. The board said it supports the pair and opposes Ashley’s move.
Here is why Ashley — who is so private that at one point even his own staff didn’t know what he looked like (he’s been called Britain’s Howard Hughes) — could get his way: Rangers is so financially weak at the moment that as long as Ashley is willing to continue buying bits of it he will be able to do what he wants to the club.
Ashley increased his stake in the Scottish club to almost 9% last week, and is its second-largest shareholder.
Rangers’ problem is that, basically, it doesn’t have any money. Its most recent share offering was a failure, according to The Daily Record, and the club can’t currently make its Christmas payroll:
The open offer was under subscribed by just less than £800,000, meaning the club’s board will now have to launch another share issue before the end of the year in order to meet December’s wage bill.
Ashley appears to be the only person willing to spend money on the club. He increased his stake this year but in September reminded Rangers that he was going to be capricious by declining to increase it further. “I can save you but right now I choose not to,” appears to be his message to the club.
He also has one other sword dangling over Ibrox Stadium: He bought the naming rights, meaning that he could rename the venerable ground “Mike Ashley’s Awesome Sports Direct Bowl,” or anything else he wants, whenever he wants. The Guardian reported:
In September club director Sandy Easdale said that Ashley had bought the naming rights to Ibrox from the former Rangers chief executive Charles Green, telling the Daily Record: “Mike Ashley could call it the Sports Direct Arena tomorrow.”
That will horrify fans, who are already threatening a boycott of Sports Direct stores.
The problem is that Rangers’ finances have been shaky ever since the club went bankrupt in 2011. Now it may have no choice but to bend to Ashley’s will, especially if he sells his stake in Newcastle United FC to fund it.
It is difficult to work out the Boardroom balance of power, but if Ashley and the Easdales are in cahoots, they can count on:
Mash 8.92%
S Easdale 5.21%
S Easdale Proxies 20.94% (BP, Margarita, Beaufort)
J Easdale 0.70%
That gives a starting point of 35.77%
On the Board side we will potentially have:
Laxey 16.32%
Artemis 9.95%
River & Mercantile 7.06%
Miton Capital 4.98%
Total – 38.31%
It could be a close run thing if it goes as far as an EGM. Wallace and Nash may end up going to avoid an EGM and to placate Ashley, but there will have to be some other agreement on funding from Ashley or the Easdale proxies.
neepheid says:
October 8, 2014 at 10:25 am
According to Twitter sources (I know!) Bomber Brown revealed to a Sons of Struth meeting last night that Ticketus are now, and always were, behind Blue Pitch and Margarita. Mind you, I’m not sure that even Bomber knows what he’s talking about half the time.
But isn’t it just like old times- Dave King, Bomber Brown, Paul Murray, Ritzvi, Ticketus, Octopus, and all with Craig Whyte’s claim still lurking in the background.
===================================================
It may well be of course that Ticketus has now got its initial outlay back or guaranteed and if that’s the case then perhaps the Sevco 5088 legal claim will now be allowed to proceed either to raise a large go away pay-out or possibly even a court victory depending on what tapes and docs that CW has from the critical period.
As to Brown I have always believed that he did know something – something so serious that he was frightened into silence. He isn’t Brain of Britain so might have misunderstood something in this whole deliberately Byzantine plot – many others including myself have made similar errors by jumping to conclusions based on a single piece of the jigsaw without, even yet, having sight of the whole picture.
However Brown isn’t stupid either IMO and at least showed some principle and conviction in the early days which I think was possibly more than just firing dum-dum bullets supplied by the hapless and penniless Blue Knights.
Martin says: October 8, 2014 at 11:56 am
300K shares just traded at 22.50
==========================
A delayed trade of 250k at 20p (sale?)from yesterday has also gone through.
easyJambo says:
October 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm
I would expect the City guys to vote with Ashley, surest route to financial stability and increase in share value.
Nash and Wallace on the way out.
Does anyone else see Ashley’s interest as a relatively good thing for Rangers? He owns the superstore, merchandising contracts, stadium naming rights and is trying get hold of the Image rights/badge. None of these things are worth anything if the Club goes under or can’t afford to compete with Celtic. And in addition, he hasn’t got Chris Graham’s blessing. That ticks a few boxes for me!
douglas reynholm says:
October 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Does anyone else see Ashley’s interest as a relatively good thing for Rangers?
………………..
Dont know about TRFC but its a good thing for Newcastle FC
douglas reynholm says:
October 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm
I can see the argument that supports your point – with all those benefits, he surely wouldn’t want them to fail. But the part I’m not sure about is whether or not he would be prepared to spend what he would have to if he was the only one spending? I guess that’s what he has been doing at NUFC, so maybe he would. And in theory he would be spending less than at NUFC (as competition is less), but then the chances of getting through CL qualifiers would be less too (as CFC has shown this season) so the benefits reduce accordingly. On balance, I don’t think I see him being the main man.
Notice for EGM doesn’t mention any other shareholders in support
Out of the blue?
Could MA be acting alone?
Forcing an EGM expense and risks
Suggests Ashley has wanted Wallace and Nash out before now
To be blunt
Wallace and Nash would not be there but for the majority support of shareholders
Seems MA wants to wonga exploit the cash crisis to add to his assets collection
Somehow that ambition appears to be being hindered
Frankly
There’s not much point owning RIFC shares if assets and profit centres in other hands
Not sure MA will succeed
mtp
nawlite says:
October 8, 2014 at 1:28 pm
3 0 i
========================
Newcastle fans say he hasn’t spent his own money, everything is funded by player sales………….No idea if they are correct.
Re Mike Ashley, a recent article in the MSM makes for interesting reading. A few points that caught my attention:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2762757/Newcastle-United-fans-left-bitter-angry-confused-Mike-Ashley-s-reign-loses-identity-St-James-Park.html
Ashley is estimated to have spent £250m buying the club and loaned £129m interest free. That level may not buy success in the high spending EPL, indeed it isn’t, but it would make a big difference to a well supported Scottish club.
The Newcastle fans are “bitter, angry and confused” and much of their anger is directed at Ashley who is seen as more concerned with using Newcastle as a Sports Direct merchandising vehicle than as a respected club with its own proud identity.
Newcastle are of course currently struggling at the wrong end of the EPL.
In short Ashley could be quite happy to ditch an EPL club where the fans are disillusioned with a relatively low level of spending which won’t buy the success they crave and instead acquire an SPFL club where relatively modest funds could see them in the qualifying rounds of the CL. TRFC fans may not be happy to visit the Sports Direct shop with all club merchandise at the new Mike Ashley SD dome but they’ll most likely be able to accept that if their club gets anything like the funding that Newcastle have previously enjoyed.
Bawsman says:
October 8, 2014 at 1:48 pm
I accept that, mate. Also, with NUFC he has masses of TV money coming in which he wouldn’t get in the SPFL (unless of course there’s a massive deal waiting for when RFC* come up!!!!). As I say, I just can’t see him being the main man.
Taysider says:
October 8, 2014 at 1:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
TRFC fans may not be happy to visit the Sports Direct shop with all club merchandise at the new Mike Ashley SD dome but they’ll most likely be able to accept that if their club gets anything like the funding that Newcastle have previously enjoyed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Bears may like to think they would get Newcastle levels of funding but IMHO Ashley will have no such plans.
We wee charge at the Scottish Premiership and possible CL for mimimal outlay and a club living within its means is the best T’Ranges fans can hope for.
If he had any desire to win footballing trophies he would have done a lot more than he has at Newcastle.
As referred to the other week, sources close to Ashley said he only bought Newcastle because he though he had a quick turn around flip deal set up but that fell through leaving him saddled with the club.
I am afraid this one is strictly business and the business is Ashley’s drive to make money.
nawlite says:
October 8, 2014 at 1:28 pm
I think you’re correct, I don’t think he wants to be the main man, he just wants to own all the pieces that compliment his Sports retail business!
To be honest I can’t work out the game plan. However he’s not stupid and seems to have the inside track on what’s going on at Ibrox. In my opinion it all points to him knowing that that Rangers will survive and that they will be able to compete with Celtic in the near future. Whether that belief comes from investment he knows is in the pipeline or the fact that’ll he’ll prop them up in the short term I’m not sure.
For those of you who believe in happy coincidence.
And obviously completely unrelated to the dignified People at Ibrox being in an almighty tizzy over the factual account of their demise being covered by the editor of the Livingston FC match program; it would appear the SFA have taken a sudden, and now public, interest in the main share holder of Livingston FC.
I’m sure there is a PhD Thesis on Causality in here somewhere.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/livingston/294837-neil-rankine-his-dealings-with-dumbarton-east-fife-and-livingston/
That would be approx how many shares Ally would have got for 20p at the open offer 🙄
PW1874
Yawn..
This Rankine story pre-dates the Livi programme story by a few weeks
PW1874 says:
October 8, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Suggestions that the SFA put this together because this because of some program notes makes us look slightly ridiculous! However, the outcome here could have a large effect on Mike Ashley’s ability to invest in Rangers.
Ach well, I like to view a conspiracy theory where none exists. I’ll leave quietly.
jimlarkin says:
October 8, 2014 at 7:45 am
bobferris says:
October 7, 2014 at 10:08 pm
There never ever was a club called Inverness Caley!
…………
There WAS a club – known as [Inverness] Caley (Caledonian).
The point being that the article is so factually wrong!
The Club playing in Inverness are not Inverness Caley or Inverness Caledonian or Caley.
——–
No Jim, there never was an Inverness Caley or Inverness Caledonian. The club was called simply Caledonian FC. I share your annoyance at the shortening of the current club’s name to Inverness Caley. They are almost never called Thistle yet that is the last part of the name so why not call them that?
twopanda says:
October 8, 2014 at 1:38 pm
Notice for EGM doesn’t mention any other shareholders in support. Could MA be acting alone?
===================================
You only need 5% of the issued shares to call an egm and Ashley has more than that. I would doubt if he is acting alone but because he has the necessary shares to call an egm he can play his cards close to his chest and not reveal who he is in bed with – if anyone.
However at the EGM it requires 51% of the shares IIRC to fire an existing director. So the big question is does he have that clout. If he does then he and whoever is supporting htem call the shots.
So the egm might just be to make it clear who’s now in control and if it’s true that BPH & M are part of his backing then it would appear to me that there is no change and I would expect Ashley to be suitably rewarded for maintaining the status quo.
And Wallace gets to walk with his bonus and pay-off so what’s not to like?
The question to me is what Laxey and some of the II’s will do – will they csll it a day; cash in their chips and walk? Dilution is a mighty weapon but can Ashley and his cohort actually reach the 75% figure to disapply share pre-exemption rights?
Auldheid says:
October 8, 2014 at 10:27 am
========================
But surely a mid-table (or even bottom-half table) team in the English Premiership makes more money than any Scottish team is ever likely to make even with Champions league football? Sky money, BT money, advertising and sponsorship are likely yo be much higher in the EPL too.
I don’t see how it works really, except as a way of having two big selling shirt (and the rest of it) outlets with a captive market instead of one. I can see putting a few million into them to keep the fans interested but I’m sure that rather than spend £30m+ he’d rather let the club go into admin and invest a lot less in the revived club.
coineanachantaighe says:
October 8, 2014 at 3:18 pm
but I’m sure that rather than spend £30m+ he’d rather let the club go into admin and invest a lot less in the revived club.
==============================================
I suppose that all depends on just how onerous the contracts are and whether they can survive admin/liquidation.
bobferris says:
October 8, 2014 at 2:33 pm
——–
No Jim, there never was an Inverness Caley or Inverness Caledonian. The club was called simply Caledonian FC. I share your annoyance at the shortening of the current club’s name to Inverness Caley. They are almost never called Thistle yet that is the last part of the name so why not call them that?
==================================
Cause Glasgow’s oldest professional club has first dibs on that name?
Ooops will that have fans of the newest one after my blood? 🙂
A lateral thought
If a Director is dismissed by the shareholders does he lose any of the entitlement he would be due under his contract of employment? e.g. bonus, share options, notice in leu etc
If so
..then if Wallace is curently on gardening leave with his package the subject of a dispute he may have an incentive to cooperate and go quietly before he is kicked out with less wonga
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Also
When MASH bought the HH shares did it also acquire the HH rights to freebie shares after dilution in exchange for some onerous HH debt ?
nawlite says:
October 8, 2014 at 1:53 pm
5 0 i
Rate This
Bawsman says:
October 8, 2014 at 1:48 pm
I accept that, mate. Also, with NUFC he has masses of TV money coming in which he wouldn’t get in the SPFL (unless of course there’s a massive deal waiting for when RFC* come up!!!!). As I say, I just can’t see him being the main man.
===================================================
Even back when there was decent TV money, Unopposed CL access, full stadiums, quality merchandise, titles/trophys, gullible donors (King, ENIC etc.)RFC still had an annual £10 Million hole.
How will MA make money?
I seldom have much to say in defence of Scottish journalists these days but I think it worth mentioning Angus Macleod who has just passed away.
He was recently editor of The Times in Scotland but most probably know him best from his political coverage in the print media but also on radio and telly.
He was an excellent, knowledgeable and feisty journalist who would let no one stand in his way when it came to getting at the truth and breaking an exclusive.
A wee guy from Lewis with an impish grin and razor sharp mind and total insight into what was going on behind the scenes. He was frightened of no one when it came to ruffling feathers.
I spent many hours in his company at party and trade union conferences and soon discovered that he always had total recall next morning.
A true giant of Scottish journalism who took no snash from craven editors who had their eye firmly fixed on a retiral knighthood. You were one of the good guys with a deep commitment to Scotland and honesty and you will be long remembered.
You did your reporting ‘Without Fear or Favour’ and for me there can be no greater epitaph for a journo. RIP Angus – I’m sure you’ll be back on the croft with the smell of peat from the fire and perhaps from a wee glass as well 😉
GoosyGoosy says:
October 8, 2014 at 3:41 pm
A lateral thought. If a Director is dismissed by the shareholders does he lose any of the entitlement he would be due under his contract of employment?
=================================================================
My understanding is he would retain his contractual rights as an employee. It’s not as if he’s being dismissed for gross misconduct.
As I mentioned earlier I don’t think Wallace and Nash mean anything in this little cameo which IMO is about showing who controls Rangers in terms of shareholding power.
And if media reports are correct what Wallace does would appear to be dependent on DK. It might be that Wallace has ‘gone native’ but I doubt if he did that without substantial shareholder backing.
That’s what has brought the need about to have a show-down once and for all IMO.
A new post from McMurdo, quite rational in tone for him. A few interesting titbits, especially his claim that Ashley can count on over 50% support.
Breaking news from Sky Sports
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte risks up to 28 days in prison after failing to attend a number of High Court hearings in London
More on post at 4.34
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte risks up to 28 days in prison after failing to attend a number of High Court hearings in London.
A judge has ruled that Whyte “seeks to frustrate the court’s orders” in a case involving the finance company firm Ticketus, in which Whyte lost nearly £20m in damages last year.
A transcript of Mr Justice Arnold’s judgment, seen by Sky Sports News HQ, has revealed that solicitors representing Ticketus have repeatedly failed to establish contact with Whyte, calling and sending text messages to his last known mobile telephone number and leaving a voicemail message.
The judgment notes that Whyte’s “track record clearly indicates that he will evade any attempt at personal service.”
Whyte was ordered to attend court on May 7 this year but failed to appear in person.
Mr Justice Arnold’s judgment notes: “He sent a letter to the court shortly before the hearing which purported to be sent from an address in Los Angeles in the United States of America. Enquiries have revealed that he had left that address prior to the date of sending the letter. The letter was sent by email from a particular email address.”
Whyte was ordered to attend court again on July 16 this year, for examination, but failed to attend in person.
Mr Justice Arnold ruled: “It seems to me to be clear from the evidence that the first defendant (Whyte) has adopted a policy of evading service and failing to communicate with the claimants’ solicitors, and in those ways it appears he seeks to frustrate the court’s orders. It seems to me that the order should be for committal for 28 days suspended upon the usual basis.”
The court judgment was made on September 29 at the High Court in London and an order was made to establish contact “first, care of his father, secondly, at his address for service on the court file, which is an address in Monaco, and thirdly, by text message to his mobile telephone number.”
Whyte is understood to have been ordered to attend the next hearing or else face arrest.
Sky Sports News HQ has attempted to contact Whyte, on a telephone number previously used by him, but has yet to receive a reply.
neepheid says:
October 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm
‘A new post from McMurdo, quite rational in tone for him.’
_________________________________
And written in a style that makes me wonder who actually wrote it. I’m not a regular reader of his stuff, occasionally read what posters on here have directed us to, but there’s something different in the style, and not just the tone. I’d guess at a PR piece for the Ashley camp, handed to him by someone in that camp. I suspect it’s Ashley’s, or his team’s, style to have someone indicate he has more than 50% backing from shareholders whenever he makes a predatory move.
neepheid says:
October 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Good post nh
Shows the propaganda war started and the mouthpieces vent `their` wisdom (to order)
McMurdo would say that wouldn`t he 😉
Bad mouths Wallace from `inside source` Jack perhaps, and bumps up MA
And CONTRADICTS himself by the claim that Wallace has been paid his bonus. Was this not earned on performance and fulfilled his contract?? So why replace him? Cos he was paid? Nonsense
Further
Trouble is, As far as I remember
Bears had 12% of the IPO shares. How many they still have I do not know
How Bears vote could matter (which McMurdo aka PR is really angling for)
How can McMurdo claim MA has 60% shares already in the bag?
And claim the rest will fall in behind to back MA?
Does that mean all major shareholders all of a sudden want Graham Wallace and Philip Nash replaced?
No reasons or rational given.
No information on who might replace them and what they would do?
These are some claims by McMurdo!
Not a good record so far
mtp
A view from Newcastle:
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/just-mike-ashley-putting-much-7905034
apologies if previously posted.
Two Panda
Phil has a new blog up
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/send-in-the-clowns/
FWIW if Ashley really had 60% of the shareholding support for sacking Wallace & Nash it wouldn’t need an EGM. With North of 5% of the shareholding, and his other RIFC interests, why isn’t Ashley on the RIFC board, enquiring minds want to know?
As I have said before, I can’t think of a more publicly viscous battle for control of a company since Al-Fayed & Rowland duked it out over Harods!
Nothing is quite what it seems in this affair
coineanachantaighe says:
October 8, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Without first checking, my thinking was a lot of outlay for not that big a return, which was not that far off as it turns out see
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/25/newcastle-united-make-profit-for-third-year-in-row
in previous year profit was lower.
How long NU can stay up on the profit making basis Ashley has created is another risk.
For a good bit less outlay MA might think he can get a better return or more guaranteed regular return at lower risk in Scotland.
Whilst not a strong case as long as Newcastle Utd stay in EPL, it cannot be ruled out.
A club with a large loyal fan base that might actually win something and still be profitable is something MA is only partly used to at Newcastle.
If I were a Rangers man and running the SPFL and SFA he would seem a partner to court.
Shocking stuff in my opinion on Sportsound tonight. The natural progression is Ashley equals Champions League football and returns Rangers to ‘the pinnacle of the game’. Also no questions re-King’s fit and proper status. Worst for me though was the suggestion Rangers don’t want to issue accounts because they can’t make themselves look like a going concern…but that is fine it would seem.
Does Dave King or anyone else among the ‘real Rangers men’ really believe that Sevco Scotland is the same entity as RFC in liquidation? I personally doubt it. No one will speak against the myth, thus far, but if it suits them these ‘real Rangers men’ could do just that, and by neutralizing Sevco Scotland they could lead the fans to a newco newco. A few more years of lower league fitba must be better than being hostage to the current myth makers? The battle now must be for the hearts and minds of the support. A courageous pied piper could lead the fans to a newco newco and appeal to have physical heritage and legacy objects reunited with the supporters, at some point.
This could mean leaving behind Ibrox and the rest, for the time being, but what would Ashley and the rest then do with their meaningless assets? Onerous contracts would be of no value.
It’s the only path to freedom for the Ibrox faithful, surely. Ironic then, that the persecution of the Livi mag editor only strengthens Green, Ashley, and the rest of them — fans trapped in a lie.
The SFA could resolve this tomorrow, of course, by making a definitive statement. Tough love, cruel to be kind, whatever — it would change the landscape completely.
Good Evening
World exclusive breaking news on SSB tonight.
Ticketus behind it all and there is a lot more bad stuff to come.
You could not make it up. What have RTC/TSFM been telling them for the past 2 years?
If they had spent more time listening and less time dog whistling the penny would have dropped a long time ago.
Ashley is no saviour and the bears will come to regret his involvement in my opinion.
scapaflow says:
October 8, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Two Panda
Phil has a new blog up, http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/send-in-the-clowns/
FWIW if Ashley really had 60% of the shareholding support for sacking Wallace & Nash it wouldn’t need an EGM. With North of 5% of the shareholding, and his other RIFC interests, why isn’t Ashley on the RIFC board, enquiring minds want to know?
As I have said before, I can’t think of a more publicly viscous battle for control of a company since Al-Fayed & Rowland duked it out over Harrods!
Nothing is quite what it seems in this affair.
______
Scapa, & thanks, back on same wavelength. Personally, couldn`t agree more!
Had read and read Phil’s posts with interest. I find Phil’s observations interesting, credible comment, and believe he is unfairly side-lined by vested interests and blind prejudice IMO.
And VERY correct, if MA had such shareholding support (in the bag with the rest following)
There would be no need for EGM.
Hence one reason for my post on McMurdo`s recent post credibility.
mtp
Auldheid says:
October 8, 2014 at 6:09 pm
===================================
Fair points, though that doesn’t show how much money Ashley is making out of his connection with Newcastle – just how well Newcastle are doing. Of course if Newcastle got relegated things might change but I really don’t see it.
He has enough hassle from Geordies at the moment – imagine what he’d get if he ran T’Rangers and the league and Championship football didn’t appear on a regular basis. And unless he was prepared to put really big money in it couldn’t be guaranteed.
I think he’d be much happier just to keep enough control (perhaps also putting just a few million in) to keep things steady and make sure his sports goods franchise continued to rake the money in.
Naturally I am going to be unsurprised if I turn out to be wrong. Who the heck really knows what will happen? 😈
Herald suggesting Ashley (known as Cashley in Newcastle 😀 ) looking to increase his shareholding in Rangers to 25%
Wonder what the SFA make of that?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/mike-ashley-calls-rangers-egm-in-power-battle-for-ibrox.1412753062
He would still need the EGM to effect the removal of Directors. Otherwise he would not be able to get the motion on any board agenda and boards don’t have to take every decision according to shareholder representation; in fact they rarely do. The current board only have about 1% of the shares. Without an EGM the discussion regards the removal of Wallace and Nash will not happen
upthehoops says:October 8, 2014 at 6:38 pm
“Shocking stuff in my opinion on Sportsound tonight…….”
__________________________________________________________________________
I’ve just listened to Sportsound Podcast and I agree the speculative discussion was disgraceful.
So much for the BBC’s published editorial guideline of using the names of the companies when discussing company / shareholder / financial matters rather than the vague and inaccurate term of “Rangers”.
Is it worth complaining to BBC Radio Scotland (again)?
SSB Caller
“I call on Mark Guidi to oust these people”
Thats it fixed then
But if it isn`t
“There is going to be anarchy shortly…within the law”
Lawful anarchy ?
keith jackson @tedermeatballs · 11m 11 minutes ago
Statement released tonight by George Letham and Paul Murray confirming Daily Record’s exclusive this morning. Which is nice.
Issued on behalf of Paul Murray and George Letham: “We want our fellow supporters to be clear on the current position and to correct …
“… inaccuracies in certain parts of the media today. We confirm that we are in discussions with the Board regarding a proposal..
“…to provide the Club with a funding package to be provided by like minded individuals including Dave King…
“The discussions should remain confidential and we will provide more details in due course.”
easyJambo says:
October 8, 2014 at 9:06 pm
…
“The discussions should remain confidential and we will provide more details in due course.”
===================
So, no rush is required then down Govan way ?!
You would think that if a real, tangible proposal was on offer it would be publicised ASAP to get the bears onside ASAP.
Just reeks of more PR mince. 🙄
Just waiting for that other Blue Knight – Brian Kennedy – to appear from the sidelines…it’s long overdue…
Bears now evident as a monetised commodity to be traded, nothing more
mtp
Did someone sew a boomerang into the jacket lining of Paul Murray before he left the Ibrox building in disgrace over 2 years ago? He seems to continually return to the point of origin. Never seems to really do anything of substance though. Why can this man not stay away from this car crash? Strange.
upthehoops says:
October 8, 2014 at 6:38 pm
‘..Also no questions re-King’s fit and proper status. Worst for me though was the suggestion Rangers don’t want to issue accounts because they can’t make themselves look like a going concern…but that is fine it would seem.
Danish Pastry says:
October 8, 2014 at 6:45 pm
‘..The SFA could resolve this tomorrow, of course, by making a definitive statement.’
————-
There was a voice on Sportsound tonight (was it Chris Mclaughlin?) that I heard saying that he had spoken to someone in the SFA today and was told that the SFA was ‘not of a mind to get involved at this stage’, but might have to get involved later.
Did I hear correctly? And if I did hear correctly, where was the follow-up question about precisely when and in what circumstances they could and would get involved?
As for the rest of the discussion, situation normal.English was scornful of the suggestion that King is at all in the same league as Ashley or even interested in putting in ANY of his own money, and the others were able to see only Ashley’s ‘wealth off the radar” and fantasise about a big chunk of that coming RIFC’s way!
Carfins Finest says:
October 8, 2014 at 9:49 pm
…Paul Murray…Why can this man not stay away from this car crash? Strange.
=========================
Mibbees this time he has got some gingie bottles to invest in ra ranjurs ?
I’ll get ma empties…. 😕
easyJambo says:October 8, 2014 at 9:06 pm
Is the RIFC Board not required to disclose such negotiations to AIM before it appears (i.e is planted by their PR firm :slamb: )in the SMSM? 😡
“Angus firmly believed that the mission of a journalist was to hold authority to account and this he did unflinchingly throughout his career.” ( Tribute to the late journalist from his own newspaper).
Of how many of our present crop of sports hacks could that be said, I wonder, in respect of the way they ducked seriously challenging blow-hard SDM, the ‘wealth off the radar’ Whyte, the Sevco5088/SevcoScotland switcheroo, the 5-way agreement, even wee things like Grade one refs for 3rd division matches,….
StevieBC says:
October 8, 2014 at 10:02 pm
5
0
Rate This
Carfins Finest says:
October 8, 2014 at 9:49 pm
…Paul Murray…Why can this man not stay away from this car crash? Strange.
=========================
Mibbees this time he has got some gingie bottles to invest in ra ranjurs ?
==============
He’s like the wee guy at the Casino who continually gets cleaned out and then reappears wi a fiver bet….
As I read the Murray king letham stuff it’s almost like a pathetic play to say ok mr Ashley we’ve got a second bidder at £30m, no really truly honestly, this is for real this time, they’ve got their own paper and pens and everything. So if you would just give us £31m that would be just swell!
scottc says:
October 8, 2014 at 8:42 pm
To formally remove them, yes, but that isn’t the way these things are usually done. All the factions seem to have their people on the board(s). So if Ashley really does have the proxies of 60% of the shares on this, then I don’t see how the board can be behind Wallace & Nash. Neither Wallace, nor, Nash appear to be exhibiting the symptoms of that dread social disease, Rangersitis, so I would expect that if Ashely really does have those proxies, then some of the board would be telling Wallace & Nash the game was up, and if Ashley is going to drip feed money into the business to keep things going then taking a hit on Wallace & Nash’s settlement package would be loose change, surely?
Further what of the Chairman, Mr Somers? If Ashley has no confidence in Wallace or Nash, then he can equally have no confidence in Mr Somers?
But, I have trouble making any sense out of this whole Ashley drip feeding money scenario. We are told that various parties benefit from a number of financial tape worms that were implanted into the corporate body, why on earth would Ashley feed in money, only to see a hefty chunk of it disappear to parts unknown? He owns honest to God assets, that he can get a decent return out of, whoever runs the business, why take on the extra hassle?
There are still big pieces of the puzzle missing
It feels like there is a PR war of attrition operating around the Govan club.
I don’t claim to know anymore than any other Bampots, and I wouldn’t claim to have a clear idea about what is going on just now either. So what’s new ? 😯
But what cannot be denied: Ashley is a seriously wealthy individual who can probably get the end result he wants – if he so chooses.
Whereas the likes of ‘Smiler’ King just talks mince, or is ‘quoted’ in the SMSM repeatedly taking a position. Trust funds anyone…? 😳
If King ever puts his short arms in his ‘deep’ pockets wrt TRFC, then I’ll eat my chapeau ! 🙂
Spoke too soon.
Latest p!sh from Keef [I know I shouldn’t! ]
Wallace is good : Ashley is bad.
And in keeping with the context of the article – a rather nasty wee Freudian slip perhaps from the bestest sports churnalist in Scotland :slamb:
“…But Wallace and Nash were against flogging any more of the family silver to the Londoner…”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mike-ashely-demanded-ownership-rangers-4404886
StevieBC says:
October 9, 2014 at 3:47 am
Spoke too soon.
Latest p!sh from Keef [I know I shouldn’t! ]
Wallace is good : Ashley is bad.
And in keeping with the context of the article – a rather nasty wee Freudian slip perhaps from the bestest sports churnalist in Scotland :slamb:
“…But Wallace and Nash were against flogging any more of the family silver to the Londoner…”
——————–
Stevie, the ‘family silver’ bit goes back to D&P, doesn’t it? I am still surprised by how they saw fit to include all the intellectual property as part of the cut-price job lot.
These have turned out to be the real money-spinning parts of old RFC. Perhaps D&P never envisioned Sevco Scotland rebranding/phoenixing the way it did? Or BDO allowing newco to promote itself officially as the exact same club?
If Ashley has the stadium naming rights, and is going for crest and logo, I suppose the next bit the club might pawn is the trophy cabinet. If he ends up with all those things on the cheap, and has the freedom to use them with Sevco claiming to be ‘the same club’, he’ll have the others checkmate. But he’s only in this position as long as the SFA will not resolve the facts about Sevco Scotland/TRFC/RIFC. Perhaps it’s part of the non-transparent 5-way, that the authorities at all times must view newco as oldco?
If King and the others did the unthinkable, though sensible, and started a newco newco I’m sure an legal appeal could be made the for the ‘family silver’ to be returned to the fans of the newco. It’s probably fair to say that fundamental football family heirlooms should not be used to hold fans to ransom.
PS JC, he did indeed say that he had contracted the SFA. They’re still hands off, in public at least. Must be desperate for someone, anyone to keep the ship afloat. Cue more discretionary rule interpretation to allow MA majority ownership?
IIRC in the days following the asset sale to Sevco (Scotland) a bampot noted their suspicions that the RFC crest and image was not sold as an asset to the new owners of the club/company. There was a suspicion at the time that Mr Green had purchased that particular asset.
Does anyone remember what the Rangers strip looked like when the club entered Div 3 at the start of the new season – the stars were conspicuously absent from the crest. of course, they have since returned.
The belief that the club/company does not own the intellectual property rights for the crest were raised again by Phill this week. That’s the first time that I remember seeing that particular story in print (so to speak).
Assuming that Mr Green is the proud owner of the crest – perhaps Mr Ashley is beginning to see the extent to which some of the crown jewels are locked up and off of the table.
It begs the question – who owns what assets? Where are the deeds?
Returning to the crest, is there any way to understand who currently owns the rights?
scapaflow says:
October 8, 2014 at 11:46 pm
But, I have trouble making any sense out of this whole Ashley drip feeding money scenario. We are told that various parties benefit from a number of financial tape worms that were implanted into the corporate body, why on earth would Ashley feed in money, only to see a hefty chunk of it disappear to parts unknown? He owns honest to God assets, that he can get a decent return out of, whoever runs the business, why take on the extra hassle?
There are still big pieces of the puzzle missing
=======================================
Listening to Sportsound last night you would believe a clear path to success has been laid for Rangers, and for Ashley to benefit. Rangers are a cash cow apparently and will sell many jerseys when they are in the Champions League. Ashley is going to speculate to accumulate to achieve that goal then everyone will be happy, and Rangers will be ‘back at the pinnacle’ of the game. I thought we were finished with this type of nonsense and I could understand if it was Chick Young and Keith Jackson, but not the so called quality journalists they had on.
However, let’s get to the pieces of the puzzle that are missing. Firstly, they need to release audited accounts. Despite the view on Sportsound they can’t do that if the accounts look bad there can be no AGM without them. Where does that then leave them? Even if Ashley does come in how much would he be willing to speculate with and who would he entrust with the money? Promotion from the Championship must be achieved then the top division will need to be secured almost immediately after that. Then there are three qualifying rounds to negotiate. Celtic won’t roll over to have their tummy tickled through all of this and it is now clear other clubs are more than capable of giving TRFC a game.
Shocking, shocking levels of journalism in this country.
Apologies, I forgot to post the link to Phil’s article on ownership of the crest: http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/quite-an-image/
Long Time Lurker says:
October 9, 2014 at 7:13 am
—————–
Morning Long Time. After his 120-plus days, wouldn’t Graham Wallace have an excellent overview? Could be a question for the next shareholder shindig.
PS Ok, re-read Phil’s image article. He’s said it all. Me shut up now 🙂
PPS And the late Paul McConville’s piece: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/what-has-charles-green-bought-for-his-5-5-million-an-instant-profit/