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In recognition of the points you made about publishing your responses on line, your letter of 18th September will not be published although readers of TSFM will be able to gather from this reply which is being published what those points were.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
Torquemada says:
October 31, 2014 at 5:27 pm Obviously I was referring to this post:
Doc says:
October 31, 2014 at 11:12 am
But none of you had to wonder, did you? 😀
_______________________________________________________
Sadly, No 😕
We are currently experiencing a subtle attempt to derail the blog in the manner of the selling of snake-oil.
The mods are happy to do a Gordon Brown (light-touch) and keep an eye on it, but would ask those of you with distinguished TSFM creds to tread lightly. Soon as it gets out of hand – and it probably will if the IP addresses are any guide – we will deal with it.
Please don’t get sucked in.
TSFM,
Was wondering how long it would be until you posted the above 😉
TSFM says:
October 31, 2014 at 6:25 pm
__________________________________________
Ahaaaaaaaaaah! Old gut instinct was right 😉
Smugas
We are where we are, TRFC exist, no amount of wishing is going to change that
TSFM says:
October 31, 2014 at 6:25 pm
7 0 Rate This
We are currently experiencing a subtle attempt to derail the blog in the manner of the selling of snake-oil.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yep
They want to discuss anything other than the frantic attempt by the sub 75% Spivs to frighten enough holders to sell so they can acquire another 6%,dis-apply pre emption rights at the AGM, award themselves freebie shares before liquidation and stuff Ashley
They want to discuss anything other than the frantic attempt by the sub 75% Spivs to frighten enough holders to sell so they can acquire another 6%,dis-apply pre emption rights at the AGM, award themselves freebie shares before liquidation and stuff Ashley
————————————————————————
Unlikely,MA can run Rangers with secured loans,liquidation is not in his business plan.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 7:37 pm
…
liquidation is not in his business plan.
===============================================
A new poster – I believe – and with a precise statement, [which is welcomed].
But could you expand on the above ?
TSFM says:
October 31, 2014 at 6:25 pm
We are currently experiencing a subtle attempt to derail the blog in the manner of the selling of snake-oil.
=========================================
Jeezus – they don’t do subtle very well 😆
Quite sure common sense can speak for himself??? But in the meantime, for what it’s worth I agree with him. If the RR contract is as watertight as everyone says why would MA associate himself with a write off rather than just stay on the sidelines and cheerlead?
one nil to M’well at the moment
But could you expand on the above ?
——————————–
His loan would not have been accepted if he had no other plans.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 7:37 pm
‘…Unlikely,MA can run Rangers with secured loans,liquidation is not in his business plan.’
——-
Stated with absolute assurance! But there are other players-notably Laxey Partners for whom certainly Administration , and possibly, Liquidation might give better returns.
Ashley could of course buy them out- if the SFA agrees to change the deal he has with them on the 10%.
But it’s entirely possible that under pressure from his present shareholder supporters, Ashley will go for Administration in the belief that someone will buy the assets and start another new club, and therefore keep a reasonable merchandise market in being.No hassle with running a club, just take the punters’ money.
Smugas says:
October 31, 2014 at 8:03 pm
0 0 Rate This
Quite sure common sense can speak for himself??? But in the meantime, for what it’s worth I agree with him. If the RR contract is as watertight as everyone says why would MA associate himself with a write off rather than just stay on the sidelines and cheerlead?
=================
The Rangers Retail situation isn’t a question of contract, but is tied up by the shareholding structure of that company. Ashley (Sports Direct) shares outvote the “Rangers” interest by 98 to 51, and in any financial matters (what else do they discuss, Theology?) Ashley’s interests have the deciding vote in the event of any tie at Board level. Rangers Retail is as much part of Ashley’s empire as Sports Direct or Newcastle, and has been from the day it was set up. If an insolvency event occurs at TRFC, then Ashley already has the right to acquire all the TRFC shares in Rangers Retail for a percentage of RR profits in the previous year.
In other words, RR has been totally controlled by Ashley throughout- the 51/49 shareholding setup is simply a figleaf to cover that fact. Ashley’s arrangements will survive any insolvency event at Ibrox. In fact a cynic would say that the arrangements are clearly designed for such an eventuality.
But there are other players-notably Laxey Partners for whom certainly Administration , and possibly, Liquidation might give better returns.
———————————————————————
If administration certainly benefited Laxeys,they would not have prevented administration by pumping more money into the company.
Ashley will go for Administration
———————————
Administration is not liquidation,a cabbage is not a stapler.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 7:37 pm
MA can run Rangers with secured loans,liquidation is not in his business plan.
—————————————————————
Totally agree. There is no chance of liquidation. If Ashley has 3 Board votes (his 2 nominees & Easdale minor) to 2 then he will be able to do any of 3 options, easy peasy, lemon squeezy, depending on what his “Pritchetts” have found/will find out.
Option 1 – Secured loans – Common sense prevails will explain further if he wishes as I do not want to steal his thunder.
Option 2 – If AGM Resolution passed. New share issue of 80m shares @ 20p underwritten by MASH. Either he gains more than 51% of company or he doesn’t and others pump in most of the the £16m.
Option 3 – administration controlled by him after further unsecured loan in return for further IP rights (just large enough to fund administration)to make him the majority creditor. Short term loss will be made up by long term merchandising profit.
His hired business brains will have any number of other options to suit the circumstances that I could not even rationalise.
His reputation is at stake now and he will take no prisoners.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 8:25 pm
‘Administration is not liquidation,a cabbage is not a stapler.’
_________________________________________
But, as Rangers discovered, administration can become liquidation, whereas, a cabbage will never become a stapler.
But, as Rangers discovered, administration can become liquidation.
—————————————————————-
Yep,unfortunately we are not talking about Rangers we are talking about Sevco,two different cabbages.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 8:47 pm
But both from the same ‘patch’ 🙄
As they say, I’ll get ma coat…
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 8:25 pm
‘.. If administration certainly benefited Laxeys,they would not have prevented administration by pumping more money into the company.’
———
It made sense for Laxey to get more shares in their traditional style in order to get a worthwhile cut of the price of the assets on administration/liquidation. They are not going to wait for greater things to come, and Ashley will not spend money chasing a chimera.
It would be helpful if you gave your exposition of Ashley’s plan, as you see it.
David Whelan’s caution to TRFC fans about Ashley’s involvement might be something more than mere ‘mischief making’, as tom english called it this evening!
I am unsure if those proposing administration are fully aware of the consequences to the shareholders of RIFC,if they were they would stop proposing it.
TRFC owes RIFC around 16 million and it is unsecured,a reasonable estimate of trade creditors based on leaked losses may be in the region of 12 million plus redundancies,fees,etc.
30 million is a conservative estimate ,nearly twice its value,so it does not matter which way you splice and dice it,the shareholders of RIFC take a hammering.
The time to pull the plug was way back in January when the only debt was to the plc.
Folks,
Commonsense may be little perfunctory in his statements, but no more or less assured than many of our veterans.
Give him a break and listen to what he is saying – not how he says it.
I would be interested to hear what he thinks Ashley’s end game is – simply because I can’t get anyone in the business to make a guess with any confidence. In fact people I have spoken to in the last four days are scratching their heads, literally. No-one really knows. The best I have had is that Ashley’s best interests would be served by an admin (or liquidation) after he has IP rights.
“The only thing that may be keeping TRFC alive right now is that they haven’t surrendered the rights to MA”.
The obverse side of that coin is that Ashley does have a good rep in the city and that kind of recklessness could damage it.
I’d be happy for commonsense or anyone else to shine a light on this corner of TRFC farce.
It made sense for Laxey to get more shares in their traditional style in order to get a worthwhile cut of the price of the assets on administration/liquidation
———————————————————————
It makes no sense to invest 1 million when administration will return less than one million.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 8:25 pm
Administration is not liquidation,a cabbage is not a stapler.
____________________________________________________________
Every day I learn something new 🙄 :irony:
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 9:25 pm
_______________________________________________
Thanks for that. I do think that you are overstating the effect of admin on the big shareholder blocks. Taking a hit at these kinds of levels is pretty commonplace – and not as major a disaster for them as it is for TRFC. Also, there is no way (for the foreseeable) that people are going to get their money back over this. Exit strategies where optimal value extraction can take place quickly seem a plausible solution, and shareholder value for the big blocks will also be enhanced if the AGM agrees to disapplication of pre-emption rights.
I’m also genuinely puzzled by the notion that TRFC owes RIFC £16m. From a lay point of view, that would seem a shoddy way to run a business, but since RIFC owns TRFC in its entirety, it will be both creditor and debtor. I’d genuinely be pleased to have that explained to me.
would be interested to hear what he thinks Ashley’s end game is
—————————————————————-
Intentionality is difficult to prove,just ask the family of Reeva Steenkamp,and i am unsure how much of MA’s involvement was planned,he may be just reacting to circumstances or he could be creating the circumstances.
The evidence to my mind suggests the latter,in June 2013 TRFC had spent all the IPO money and knew they had insufficient funds to trade out the year,a perfect opportunity for MA to get his hands on image rights,but he didn’t,and this argues against the only motive being image rights.
Instead he gave TRFC a loan facility bigger than the most recent without security,unusually generous and trusting considering he insisted on 2 watchdogs on the board for the latest loan and security.
I don’t believe MA trusts anyone with his money,therefore i believe he insisted on control of the board away back in June 2013,and got it.
Unfortunately his control was removed by GW and he retaliated by removing the facility and refusing early access to retail dividends,he created a cash crisis under GW and made him out to be either incompetent or a liar to the fans.
So why does he want control if it is not just about image rights,and i believe the answer is to stabilize the business with his loans and take over TRFC when it suits him,the shareholders can hardly refuse.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 9:25 pm
Using your figures, and I’m not disputing them, a total debt of £28m would probably make administration inevitable rather than something to be proposed. I’d suggest that, without, at the very least, an irrevocable guarantee from Ashley for a number of millions, that both TRFC and RIFC could now be trading while insolvent. In that event, unless Ashley actually wants to throw millions at the club, he will soon step aside, a la Bill Miller, and liquidation will be hard to avoid.
To be honest, I can’t see how a club that can’t get credit can run up so much unsecured debt; but this is Sevco, and nothing has yet made any sense, even after the event, as far as I’ve been able to fathom.
I’m also genuinely puzzled by the notion that TRFC owes RIFC £16m. From a lay point of view, that would seem a shoddy way to run a business, but since RIFC owns TRFC in its entirety, it will be both creditor and debtor. I’d genuinely be pleased to have that explained to me.
————————————————————————–
It is standard practice for a Holding company to set up a subsidiary by means of a loan account,normally secured.
There are certain tax advantages in repaying a loan against paying dividends,and it is supposed to protect the assets from risk.
The fact the 16 million is not secured makes the shareholders position irretrievable in the event of administration,they only get afraction of their loan back through a CVA,which crucifies the share price.
Using your figures, and I’m not disputing them, a total debt of £28m would probably make administration inevitable rather than something to be proposed.
———————————————————————-
You are forgetting the 16 million does not have to be paid,if the shareholders really wanted to put TRFC into administration all they have to do is demand their money back,just like a bank.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 10:17 pm
‘.The fact the 16 million is not secured makes the shareholders position irretrievable in the event of administration,’
——-
Some would argue that that is one reason why liquidation would be the preferred option. Although that would require, probably, the seizure of Ibrox etc for non-football playing purposes, i.e future development as ….whatever may be worthwhile, subject to planning etc. Ashley could wait, while Laxey partners would perhaps cut and run in a separate deal with Ashley.
First time round, and with especial note of Bill Miller’s interest, a lot of this was punted around the blog- everything from Tesco to haulage company terminal. The Ibrox site, stadium razed ( except for the frontage), car park, Edmiston House- a fine, prime site.
If there are any people knowledgeable about the City’s 5, 10, 15 year development plans…?
Some would argue that that is one reason why liquidation would be the preferred option.
——————————————————————-
John,you will have to forgive me but i must disagree with you again,the asset value of Ibrox is the same or higher as a going concern,the last break down value of Ibrox was 1.5 million,it is the first figure any administrator calculates,he works up from this datum.
If the land is worth more than 5.5 million then it cannot be sold for less,under any circumstances.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 10:04 pm
‘..So why does he want control if it is not just about image rights,and i believe the answer is to stabilize the business with his loans and take over TRFC when it suits him,the shareholders can hardly refuse. ‘
——-
‘Stabilise the business with his loans’: on the face of it, borrowing money is a hard way for a company to work its way to ‘stability’.Kind of Wonga pay-day loan cycle would almost be inevitable.
Funding salaries, maintenance, player purchase, taxes, etc etc with only ST and other gate monies as income AND with loan interest or capital repayments to be made regularly might just manage to sustain some kind of low level ‘stability’ and keep a reasonable volume of fan support.But not anything like big-money footballing success. A la Newcastle?
So: either quick-kill liquidation with sale of assets and razing of stadium etc,
or, low level footballing stability that will keep merchandise sales at an acceptable level.
And not,definitely not, mega-bucks to give Ally a CL winning team by the end of next season.
Endless fun speculating ( and, in my case, certainly, on a very limited basis of knowledge!). Although I take comfort from the fact that even people who move in ‘business’ circles seem not to be able to work out just what exactly is in Ashley’s mind.Possibly not even Llabias or the other guy.
It is Halloween so let us all pretend that Steerpike has not joined us AGAIN and see how far he can go. 😀
borrowing money is a hard way for a company to work its way to ‘stability
———————————————————————–
Its fairly normal John,most businesses run into trouble at some point in time,borrowing money against assets is hardly Wonga,unless you are paying 6% in perpetuity to a bank in Gibraltar.
We can only project with the figures at hand.
Rangers probably lost 7 million last year and had it not been for the boycott,3 million this year and profitability. in the SPL.
Get the fans back and the business is stabilized,MA hopes his loans will kill two birds,and he doesn’t get it wrong too many times.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 10:47 pm
‘..John,you will have to forgive me but i must disagree with you again,the asset value of Ibrox is the same or higher as a going concern,the last break down value of Ibrox was 1.5 million,it is the first figure any administrator calculates,he works up from this datum.’
——–
Not at all,csp.
I have had a lifetime of being disagreed with -even in areas where I might claim to have some knowledge- and the ways of business finance do not fall into that category!
However,the valuation put on the assets by D&P was, by many, thought to be unjustifiably low , even at ‘going concern’ valuation.
But I accept that Administrators cannot be expected to estimate the potential, future value of a bare site, or take into account the possible changes in planning law that might make such a site a very attractive proposition for a developer who can afford to wait a number of years ( or influence people sufficiently to persuade them to grant planning permission sooner rather than later. I do live in the real world) .
Ashley can afford to wait indefinitely for the kind of opportunity that would produce huge returns that might compensate him for loss of jersey and other merchandising sales related to a low level football club.
And could therefore with equanimity destroy the club.
[I smile as I remember ( as you might possibly be too young to do) the fun of watching ‘John Wilder’ in ‘The Power game’. The Ashleys and the Kings and such like have nothing on him as incredibly smart but viciously ruthless exploiters of their fellowman. Part of the fun was watching how he exploited his mistress – a civil servant with access to information on government policy, played by the superb Rosemary Leach. (Jeez, is that not the surname of one of Ashley’s guys?)
@ common sense prevails, given a front loaded buisness model with projected figures of a boycott of 3 million with the fans back on side , all the ducks in a row and prioritisng the objectives how can the sustainable buisness model kill two birds with one stone when two birds in a bush are worth one in the hand. Goodnight Steerpike.
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 10:17 pm
I’m also genuinely puzzled by the notion that TRFC owes RIFC £16m. From a lay point of view, that would seem a shoddy way to run a business, but since RIFC owns TRFC in its entirety, it will be both creditor and debtor. I’d genuinely be pleased to have that explained to me.
————————————————————————–
It is standard practice for a Holding company to set up a subsidiary by means of a loan account,normally secured.
There are certain tax advantages in repaying a loan against paying dividends,and it is supposed to protect the assets from risk.
The fact the 16 million is not secured makes the shareholders position irretrievable in the event of administration,they only get afraction of their loan back through a CVA,which crucifies the share price.
_________________________________________________________
No it doesn’t. And you just said so yourself in reply to John C. There is no net debt for the company. There may be tax advantages but no actual debt.
You do seem certain about what MA WON’T be doing, but howling at the moon a bit when it comes to he WILL do. I think you are just as in the dark as we are, and as guilty of wishful thinking at the blue end of the spectrum as some of our own less temperate posters are at the other end of the rainbow.
However,the valuation put on the assets by D&P was, by many, thought to be unjustifiably low , even at ‘going concern’ valuation.
—————————————————-
John,i have one rule of thumb,i only suggest things that i would suggest face to face in front of witnesses,therefore i would not dream of suggesting anything about the performance of D$P,the sale was good as far as i am concerned.
If you are saying MA can destroy the club then no argument,but you have to provide a financial motive and i cannot see one,he has invested 2.5 million,he may loan 8 million and he makes 3 million a year retail plus.
I am not saying he is Robin Hood nor am i suggesting he is the Sheriff of Nottingham,he just makes more money out of a healthy Rangers.
CommonSenseTravails.
Your friend who has been working with you today is far more opaque and sneaky than you -)
Your ridiculous assessments of business models, both real and imagined, are not worthy of this discussion. If you can’t underpin your thoughts in reality, we can’t accommodate you.
It is a pity because there is some intellectual promise there – however we can’t indulge trolls for too long. Come back when you are willing to engage properly. When you do be honest about your provenance.
One down – two to go 🙂
Ok its near midnight Friday.
Has he gone yet?
Phil. did he get the rights from Charles?
Need to turn my Sevco finance calendar spreadsheet back to 1m per 6 months or plus squilllions dependent on the answers
Meant to say earlier thanks Martin for the heads up on the Pension fund Charlotte scene setter for Jan 15 need to keep tabs. Was there a case number?
@ Common sense prevails , If Mike Ashley is not Robin Hood nor the Sheriff of Nottingham could he be Little John , Will Scarlett or even Shrek as there is a fair whiff of the troll about the above post. What are your thoughts on the East Fife buisness model for this season ? 😆
somethings afoot
sir donald of fundlay saying not the same club
http://imgur.com/Y1SQ220
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 11:27 pm
….i better not go there…’
———–
No, you had better not.
Carry on by all means with explaining your views on what Ashley is about, and countering one set of speculations with another
But do not demean yourself by even thinking of traducing a now sadly departed honourable and truthful expositor of what, legally, was happening in the saga.
Not being in the top 1% of anything except, perhaps, bone lazy underachievers, you’ll have to forgive me if the following question sounds dumb:
Why would a brilliant and ruthless businessman like Mike Ashley, who by common consent already owns or controls the only parts of Sevco that will ever make money, give himself the headache of owning this bottomless money pit when, either by controlled administration or even liquidation, he can hive it off to people who actually want to keep it alive?
The club cannot die, remember.
Torquemada says:
November 1, 2014 at 12:15 am
Not being in the top 1% of anything except, perhaps, bone lazy underachievers, you’ll have to forgive me if the following question sounds dumb:
Why would a brilliant and ruthless businessman like Mike Ashley, who by common consent already owns or controls the only parts of Sevco that will ever make money, give himself the headache of owning this bottomless money pit when, either by controlled administration or even liquidation, he can hive it off to people who actually want to keep it alive?
The club cannot die, remember.
==================================================
Torquemada
Excellent
The issue in pure clear crystal, I’ve been fumbling to say it well done.
I dont buy this notion that Ashley has an invincible position
It depends entirely on him having clean hands throughout the Sevoc RIFC saga and whether he has or not will be known to certain players
In any event
Ashley has 51% control because he has 42% support
If a better option becomes available to this 42% they will drop Ashley and go for it
And there is one which has eluded them for months
It is to dis apply pre-emption rights, massively increase the share capital, award themselves freebie shares thereby diluting the other 25% including Ashley to well under 10% Then go for liquidation with a significant uplift in their share of the assets
IMO
This idea that Ashley has a stranglehold depends entirely on the majority Spivs failing to get a 75% holding before the AGM
The Spivs may simply be letting him do a stress test on the onerous contracts in exchange for enough money to fund liquidation and an improved contract on the logos
Meanwhile
Ashleys real motive may be to bury his part in this whole saga before it gets into the hands of a court appointed Liquidator
Getting Superstore next door to Ibrox is well worth £2m particularly since the deal may include bring the building up to snuff
John Clark says:
November 1, 2014 at 12:10 am
0
0
Rate This
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 11:27 pm
….i better not go there…’
J.C. To be fair to C.S.P. I felt that he was talking about username ‘Coatbridge’ on Continuing Random Thoughts.
The troll is a consistent nipper of the brain, but I don’t believe he would be that crass re P.Mc.C.
Torquemada says:
November 1, 2014 at 12:15 am
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Torq
Your in our top 1% – and you got there all by yourself. Humility prevents you from advertising the facts though 🙂
On MA, who really knows? There may be a variable embedded in this equation that none of us yet know about. Perhaps knowledge of that will give us a clue.
Personally I think he could be good for the kind of Rangers that most of us – and a silent majority of Rangers fans – would like to see. His motives are inconsequential. If he turns them around as a consequence of making shedloads of cash for SD, then it’s win, win. If in the process he rids the support of the sense of entitlement that has hampered the progress of the new club, it’s win again.
Motivation is another question. I can’t see what his motivation is, and there must be faster ways of making a pound than turning around a cash-starved, debt ridden football club.
My last posting: UserName could be ‘coatbrigbhoy’
the taxman cometh says:
November 1, 2014 at 12:09 am
‘.somethings afoot
sir donald of fundlay saying not the same club.’
———
Well, there we have it.
Our Donald has read the runes, and concluded that Liquidation, and the razing of Ibrox to the ground, is Ashley’s plan.
And is getting his bid in for the soul of what used to be RFC to transmigrate to a new ‘Cowdenbeath Rangers’,playing at Central Park.
The trouble is, no one can take the deeply troubled- and brilliant lawyer-( I’d be the first to shout ‘Get me Findlay’ if Chief Constable House’s finest fingered my collar!)- seriously.
But he does, apparently, feel that TRFC is, despite Walter, and Sandy( God rest him) and Bomber and John G and the Armed Forces and BBC Sportsound hacks and the Speirs and the Chicks and the DR and Uncle Tom’s cobblers and all, NOT the Rangers that he revelled in and celebrated in song and dance.
Fair dos.
Many on this blog have been saying as much for a number of years.
TSFM may wish to consider inviting Donald to make the next podcast thingy.
Fairbairn,
We can wait for clarification on the Coatbridge thing, but none has been received up to now.
TSFM may wish to consider inviting Donald to make the next podcast thingy
———————————–
And that would definitely be a belter, and a widening thing, many may not like it but the man would be laid bare as it were
Anyone got any idea what happened to “Eddiegoldtop” (nice guitar, if it’s a ’57 btw). The chap who was sponsoring a top league club. Apparently he was going to be asking some pretty serious questions of the governing body, and was, quite rightly, well received here for doing so?
Not posted for a time…
I have been watching with interest the MA manouveres…
As I see it…why would MA get involved and continue with the shambles that continues to stagger from one farce to the next…well if I had the opportunity I would..
What he has for virtually no cost…is a fan base which we all know no matter where you go…football fans have a habit of placing loyalty before common sense…
So lets say there continues to be a fan base of 25-30k who are willing to give him approx 400 pounds a year per head…and every 2 weeks for approx ten months a year they turn up and hand over some more cash and on a daily basis they are willing to buy merchandise…and various commercial companies are willing to pay to advertise their products..and on occasions TV companies are willing to pay to broadcast games…
In effect he has created the biggest sports Direct store in the UK for very little personal cash commitment…add to this his own appointed cost cutting team…and suddenly you have one big ATM (Ashley Takes Money)stadium…
The man is only interested in making money…the clubs success does not come into it…as long as it continues to be around the cash pay outs from TV..advertising…fans..football competitions etc etc…
Or he could use the club to dump debt onto it from other ventures…and fold it down the line…
He could use it to buy and sell players between the 2 clubs when it is financially convenient to do so…
The possibilities are many…and making money from the situation is there in abundance….
Of course he could just postion it to sell to Tesco…but that would mean he shuts off that recurring revenue for a one off bumper pay day…
As long as his placemen get the cost base down to the bone…he could be drawing in significant revenue for MA…
And of course if the fans want to walk…then Tesco can get the call…
It’s all win win for MA.
I’ve been reading Common Sense Prevails’ (Steerpike?) arguments as to why admnistration does not make sense for the likes of Laxey etc. Basically, it seems to go that they would get less back than they invested.
My take; so long as admin does not turn in liquidation, that is not necessarily the case. Admin would be a route to put the business on a (more) stable financial footing. e.g. pay off overpaid players and other staff, retain others until they can be sold; Lewis McLeod, Lee Wallace, Lee McCulloch (surely still worth a few million? 🙂 ). Put together a team that can challenge but maybe not win everything. Survival is the key. Perhaps, they would divest themselves of Murray Park; there are plenty of places they could train. As stated, the main creditor of TRFC will be RIFC with at least £16m outstanding. I think it is very unlikely that there are trade creditors of £12m, as suggested. I think that figure is unlikely to be more than maybe about £3m, so RIFC will have a great deal of control.
Admin allows Mike Ashley to take full control of Rangers Retail, keeping hold of the licences he currently has attached thereto. This also has the benefit of putting a little cash into the creditors pot. In administration, the club are unlikely to be able to repay the £2m crisis loan, so the AR car park and Edmiston House have to be ‘marketed’. There probably won’t be any takers for EH, but Mike might move for the car park, possibly in exchange for the loan. This removes two sources of matchday income at a stroke putting them in MA’s stable. Ibrox? Sale and Leaseback is the sensible route with RIFC taking the stadium.
It leaves a club/company that is, at least on the face of it, running within its means (if they can actually afford Ibrox).. That, for Laxey and others is a much more attractive asset, than holding a few percent of a monster that consumes £10m per annum for no return.
In that Findlay picture link to today’s back page
Ally: The old firm would fill the Maracana
He does realise this is 2014 and the capacity of the stadium is now 78,800 and not the 200,000 from the days when the example would have carried some weight
The 200,000 capacity days are gone (insert OF joke here)
Some thoughts.
I don’t think Mike Ashley has ever been working on his own on this one.
He is known to be loyal to his inner teams and while he is painted as a bete noir by some its probably not the reality.
I’d look at whoever brought Mike into this money making wheeze and that will tell you who else is part of the team and who is and remains the real leader.
Mike Ashley is just taking his turn at the front for a wee while.
There have been so many fronts since Duff and Phelps awarded exclusivity to Craig Whyte’s wee pal and partner Charlie.
And since then we’ve had so many alleged “front men”.
So much confusion.
So much money made (by the cabal) and lost by fans and mug investors.
I said on here a couple of years ago that I thought the dark end of the blue club support would somehow exert revenge but I now think there has been so much confusion expertly and deeply spread that none of the dark side will have a clue who to blame.
Seamless confusion.
Seamless carpetbagging.
Brilliant teamwork.
The Glen says:
November 1, 2014 at 1:27 am
8 0 Rate This
——
His twitter feed has gone quiet since late August. His profile indicates he sponsors more than fitba. Bit of a mystery man/woman but maybe there’s someone behind the scenes who knows more?
Some headlines today. Coming thick and fast from Hong Kong to Wigan, and has that pipe-smoking chap finally exploded Charles’ myth with his new entity stuff?
the taxman cometh says:
November 1, 2014 at 12:09 am
somethings afoot
sir donald of fundlay saying not the same club
http://imgur.com/Y1SQ220
=========================================
You might well be right. A couple of weeks ago I was having a drink and bumped into a long-time friend who is a Rangers man through and through and has been all his life.
We come from the same hard-knocks background of Glasgow’s sooside and then ra scheme and quite importantly he, like myself, was from a mixrd background.
Inevitably, after a lot of family and mutual friends catch-up, we got on to Rangers and the latest developments. He stunned me by saying he hadn’t gone to a Rangers’ game for a couple of years but still watched some local football.
This guy was in with the red-brick facade at Ibrox and Blue Room visitor being a very successful businessman and part of the Ibrox business elite.
After lots of discussion surrounding possible future scenarios for Rangers and Ibrox he said something along the lines of: ‘Plans are afoot and things will change’.
I tried to fish for more but he clammed-up and the conversation moved on and I haven’t subsequently given it a lot of thought. Then yesterday there was the Fleshers Haugh development based on the red and black colours and I posted on the possible significance of that wrt a possible new beginning and break from tradition by some Bears.
But I still didn’t think about my previous conversation with my old mate. But today when I saw the Findlay piece it suddenly flooded back. Findlay is lots of things which I abhor but he is probably ideally placed for any grouping with plans for a new ‘Rangers’ to include and consult with.
I might be making a mountain out of a mole hill but going back to the original conversation with my mate he had a determination about his comments which I can see on reflection.
I have always been puzzled about the seeming inaction of the business backbone of the Rangers support seemingly having disappeared in the last few years. But then the vast majority don’t seek the limelight but a helluva lot of them have done well in business and professions over the years.
They most definitely don’t do conspicuous ‘jetting’ anywhere unless it’s a garage forecourt 😆 But there’s a lot of them and they all know each other on a personal and social level as well as football and perhaps moves are afoot.
Bawsman says:
October 31, 2014 at 4:53 pm
Stollen unashamedly from the Scotsman forum
“Gersatz”
ersatz
[er-zahts, -sahts, er-zahts, -sahts] IPA Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
serving as a substitute; synthetic; artificial:
an ersatz coffee made from grain.
noun
2.
an artificial substance or article used to replace something natural or genuine; a substitute.
————–
See also “bearsatz”
the taxman cometh says:
November 1, 2014 at 12:09 am
somethings afoot
sir donald of fundlay saying not the same club
———————————————–
Interesting….as someone who has taken an unfashionable position (TSFM-wise) on OC/NC one of the OC signifiers (for me) would be continuing identification with the club by the fans….obviously DF isn’t the whole Rangers support (4,999,999 to go 😆 ) but it has made me wonder how many are silently agreeing with him or harbouring grave doubts quietly?
At some point the boardroom shenanigans may create an irreparable disconnect with a significant number of fans if they go on long enough.
You’re right PTA but football fans the world over have short memories the minute a benefactor turns up and buys them a couple of significant players. That’s the main reason I just don’t see goosy’s dilute-and-crash coming off, not by Ashley at least. He’d be burning his own bridge.
It would also be a very interesting view, watching the SFA if two RFC’s turned up!
Smugas says:
November 1, 2014 at 10:10 am
It would also be a very interesting view, watching the SFA if two RFC’s turned up!
———————–
I think the powers that be and the SMSM would be delighted – just think of all those extra OF games they’d be able to look forward to…… 😥
Steerpike has contacted me and assured me he was referring to Coatbridgebhoy. Fair enough, a wee slip, and I’ll take his word for that. He is currently in moderation – basically for stupidity – but I accept he is not as heartless as it seemed.
My own unfamiliarity with his part in Paul’s blog caused me to jump to the wrong conclusion, and I apologise for that.
The Donald Findlay article in full.
apologies if previously posted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2816759/Donald-Findlay-says-Rangers-new-entity-establish-s-history-tradition.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
TSFM says:
October 31, 2014 at 6:25 pm
We are currently experiencing a subtle attempt to derail the blog in the manner of the selling of snake-oil.
The mods are happy to do a Gordon Brown (light-touch) and keep an eye on it, but would ask those of you with distinguished TSFM creds to tread lightly. Soon as it gets out of hand – and it probably will if the IP addresses are any guide – we will deal with it.
Please don’t get sucked in.
=================================================================
TSFM, I trust this is in no way aimed at me?
You know there is no history with my IP address.
IMO statements like this draw suspicion on anyone who has a different view from the majority on this blog.
But if anyone with a different view is not welcome, just let me know…
Common sense prevails says:
October 31, 2014 at 10:28 pm
You are forgetting the 16 million does not have to be paid,if the shareholders really wanted to put TRFC into administration all they have to do is demand their money back,just like a bank.
________________________________________
That’s true, but it doesn’t make TRFC’s position any better, and they are all that really matters in/to Scottish football (between the two businesses). The important point in my post referred to, and it’s the only point to bother about, is that your figure for TRFC’s debts is far above the value of their total assets, and, for that matter, far above their annual income! In fact, above the total for assets and annual income combined!
As stated previously, if your figures are correct, and again I’m not disputing them; without a rescue by Ashley, and he is the only player in the game with the readies to hand, TRFC must be insolvent, yet still trading! Without Ashley, and I’m not convinced he’s ‘in’, more rather testing the water, administration will be an inevitability, not a proposal.
the taxman cometh says:
November 1, 2014 at 12:09 am
If that is an accurate quote, and it is the Record 🙄 , then it is quite a wow moment 😉 I wonder how the likes of Keith Jackson can spin it. Hopefully as I read more posts here I will be able to read the full story, and maybe find it’s not what the headlines would suggest 😯
“You are forgetting the 16 million does not have to be paid”
OCNC more appropriate for making that sort of point?
Doc says:
November 1, 2014 at 11:05 am (Edit)
TSFM says:
October 31, 2014 at 6:25 pm
We are currently experiencing a subtle attempt to derail the blog in the manner of the selling of snake-oil.
The mods are happy to do a Gordon Brown (light-touch) and keep an eye on it, but would ask those of you with distinguished TSFM creds to tread lightly. Soon as it gets out of hand – and it probably will if the IP addresses are any guide – we will deal with it.
Please don’t get sucked in.
=================================================================
TSFM, I trust this is in no way aimed at me?
___________________________________________________________________
Why would it be? What part of the above do you think describes you?
TSFM says:
November 1, 2014 at 11:29 am
Doc says:
November 1, 2014 at 11:05 am (Edit)
TSFM, I trust this is in no way aimed at me?
________________________________________________________________
Why would it be? What part of the above do you think describes you?
_______________________________________________________
The top 10% ? 🙂
A developing story, but the Record not adding anything concrete to it.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hong-kong-based-rangers-fan-george-4545968
parttimearab says:
November 1, 2014 at 9:53 am
Interesting….as someone who has taken an unfashionable position (TSFM-wise) on OC/NC one of the OC signifiers (for me) would be continuing identification with the club by the fans….obviously DF isn’t the whole Rangers support (4,999,999 to go 😆 )
=================
As self-appointed guardian of Charles Green’s legacy, I really have to point out that your figure is out by a factor of 100- the true Charles Green figure for the “Rangers” world-wide fan base, excluding the defector Findlay, is 499,999,999.
TSFM says:
November 1, 2014 at 11:29 am
Why would it be? What part of the above do you think describes you?
===================================================================
A straight answer would suffice.