Here we go again

ByTrisidium

Here we go again

I think everyone on SFM knew that when the new club won its first trophy, whatever that trophy was, the old “same club” mantra would surface. Over the years, and since the nature of the debate is in the “santa exists” ballpark, we have largely discouraged discussion of it.

On the “old club” side, that reluctance to debate is largely because there is little value in arguing the toss with someone who either ;

  • knows the idea is preposterous, but won’t admit it for whatever reason; or
  • has been lied to by the person at (a) above and can’t be bothered to look at the facts for themselves.

On the “new club” side, the discouragement to discuss is mainly because we are in the main already equipped with the facts, and there seems little need to go over them again and again.

So why republish stevensanph’s blog and Hirsute Pursuit’s response from almost a decade ago?

Well firstly because it is an excellent piece of forensic scrutiny cutting through the fog which had begun to be induced by the MSM merely weeks after they had unanimously heralded the death of the old club.

Secondly because it was written as a response to the (at the time very unpopular) decision we made on SFM to close down the debate on the subject (for the reason stated above.

And lastly because the course of the truth – even if it is only shifted by a few degrees – can get completely lost as time goes by. Consequently, there are possibly many who take sides because of a leap of faith. This is a course-correction that demonstrates the absence of any need to do so.

So here then is a reprise of stevensanph’s remarks from 2013, on his own blog.


The Newco/Oldco debate has been ended over on TSFM, with the deletion of the excellent post from HirsutePursuit marking the end.  While some think we need to keep reinforcing the message that its a totally new club, others are bored of the subject, so I can’t blame TSFM for wanting to move on.

Personally – I have read all the arguments – I am yet to be shown any factual proof that Green’s Gers are the old club.  People will, and can believe whatever they want.  For Rangers fans who want to believe its the same club, then, as long as they are happy, then fine.  However, on paper, and in law, its a  new club, and thats all that I care about!

TSFM posters wanting to continue the debate can do so below following on from HP’s excellent deleted post!

TSFM

This blog, as far as I have been concerned, is widely regarded as a forum for people who wish to highlight the inequalities and skewed reporting of the issues within the Scottish football arena. If it is not, perhaps you can make it clear what you see as its purpose.

Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.

Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.

With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.

If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.

All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.

If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.

All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.

You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.

I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.

The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.

We can – as you wish us to – stop talking about the status of the club incorporated in 2012, or we can continue to argue our respective positions as a crucial factor in this controversy.

In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.

The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.

The Origins of the concept of  a football club having an owner from whom it can be separated and its subsequent misuse by the SPL/SFA in 2012.

The following are taken from a well informed contributor to SFM who points out that pre 2005 no such concept existed in SPL rules and the meaning subsequently applied by LNS and The 5 Way Agreement is a danger  to the fundamental integrity of the Scottish football industry and its member clubs.


The very short version of what follows is this:



The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.

The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.

Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.

The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.

Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.

The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.

LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.

He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.

The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.

He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.

However…

Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.

The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.

Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.

*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.

This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.

It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.

It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.

It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.

Longer version.

The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.

It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.

Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.

In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.

As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.

I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.

We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:

Independent Commission Preliminary Hearing
The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided:

1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.

3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit.

4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.

Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders:

1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required.

2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012.

3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012.

4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.

No further comment will be made.

Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules

So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.

This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.

This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:

History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In recent years the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and it is now called RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). In line with the terminology used in the correspondence between the parties, we shall refer to this company as “Oldco”.


[4] The SPL was incorporated in 1998. Its share capital consists of sixteen shares of £1 each, of which twelve have been issued. Oldco was one of the founding members of the SPL, and remained a member until 3 August 2012 when the members of the SPL approved the registration of a transfer of its share in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Limited. Each of the twelve members owns and operates an association football club which plays in the Scottish Premier League (“the League”). The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”).

[33] It is now necessary to quote some of the provisions of the Articles of the SPL. Article 2 contains definitions which, so far as relevant are:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League

Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited

League means the combination of Clubs known as the Scottish Premier League operated by the Company in accordance with the Rules

Rules mean the Rules for the time being of the League

Share means a share of the Company and Share Capital and Shareholding”.

[37] It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following:
Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club

[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues.

Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”

So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.

However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.

2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;

4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.

The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161

1161Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions

(1)In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
__(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
__(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

(2)In the Companies Acts references to shares—
__(a)in relation to an undertaking with capital but no share capital, are to rights to share in the capital of the undertaking; and
__(b)in relation to an undertaking without capital, are to interests—
____(i)conferring any right to share in the profits or liability to contribute to the losses of the undertaking, or
____(ii)giving rise to an obligation to contribute to the debts or expenses of the undertaking in the event of a winding up.

(3)Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description.

This is subject to provision in any specific context providing for the translation of such expressions.

(4)References in the Companies Acts to “fellow subsidiary undertakings” are to undertakings which are subsidiary undertakings of the same parent undertaking but are not parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of each other.

(5)In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is—
__(a)a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or
__(b)a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that undertaking.

Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed

Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.

If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.

The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,142 Comments so far

John ClarkPosted on12:50 pm - May 19, 2021


Just tuned out from the BDO v RFC 2012 plc(IL).
Yesterday I could only attend the morning session of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc(Il) case. Those giving evidence were Ashworth (formerly of WBA, now at Brighton] , Mr Baird of HMRC, and Mr Dingwall was just being sworn in at 1.30, as I was leaving the house.
This morning , one of the Liquidators (Mr Steven) who presumably was called yesterday afternoon , concluded his evidence at about 10.30. The next witness was not available until 11.00. So, Mr McBrearty took the opportunity to discuss a matter(apparently different valuations of Celtic’s money by the RST and Mr Dingwall raised yesterday by Mr Young QC,. This led on to a three way discussion about the difficulties of virtual hearings, and then a break of bout 20 minutes.
The next witness , at 11.00 o’clock was MR Maurice Rothbart, a managing partner in a firm finance raisers for high net worth individuals and institutions.
His evidence giving finished at noon.
And that’s it for today.
Court adjourned until 10.00 tomorrow.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on3:29 pm - May 19, 2021


If the authorities thought things would quieten down it would appear they were mistaken……

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19313058.peel-road-celtic-chief-peter-lawwells-home-petrol-bombed-early-morning-attack/

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on3:41 pm - May 19, 2021


Incredibleadamspark 19th May 2021 At 12:09

“Not every Rangers fan is guilty of racism, sectarianism (a paramedic doing her job was allegedly subjected to this because of her green uniform), violence or antisocial behaviour.”

Firstly I totally agree with you 100% on the above. I wrote in an earlier post that I personally have met and know many Rangers fans who are really decent people.

What concerns me is the narrative that now seems to be creeping in to the media reporting. That being that had the Scottish Government agreed to allow its own laws to be broken in the way Rangers wanted, then the law breaking that did end up taking place could have been prevented. Why not just stress there should be no law breaking at all? Rangers PR are playing a very dangerous game here in my view, but appear to have enough friends in the media to get away with it.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on7:55 pm - May 19, 2021


I’m shocked and disgusted at the attack on Peter Lawells home, I cannot begin to think what goes on inside the head of the person or persons responsible for this . There was a young child inside that building that could have been injured or worse. This was attempted murder and pre meditated so the highest tariff should be called for when hopefully the perpetrators are caught. I think it was Kevin Bridges that once remarked that attempted murder shouldn’t have a lesser punishment than murder just because they made an arse of it .
My thoughts and prayers are with Peter and his family , what they have just experienced is most traumatic.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:15 pm - May 19, 2021


MY post of 17th May at 17.29 refers.
That was the first bit of the hearing on Tuesday 11 March 2012:
I pick up from the last Q and A in that post.

“QC: There was an indicative bid of £25M from Bill Miller, £25 from the Blue Knights, £10M from the Singapore Consortium, Kennedy’s bid at £5M the only one below?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Look at Vol 5 p.3346 Duff &Phelps headed file note, email from Paul Clark to you, PC and DW were appointed on 14 February 2012 , this file note describes the process of valuation the acquisition , on 14 June 2012, just after the date of closing.
W: if the date is accurate does it contain all relevant information.?
QC: You prepared the Note,… does it?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Would you expect it to?
W:That would have been the goal.
QC: Why did you begin the note with setting out the ‘hurdles’ that beset the process?
W:I don’t recall.
QC: “ Ticketus had the right to future ticket sales , the need to seek direction from the Court”?
W: Yes.
QC: Indicative bids were sought by 16 March. What did the bidders say about Ticketus?
W: They did not say anything specifically.
QC: Can you remember what any bidder said about not wanting to be obliged to Ticketus?
W: I can’t comment.
QC: Bids were invited by 16 March, and Final bids in April. The Ticketus question was resolved in March. Do you agree?
W: No.
QC: the Court said ‘in the best interests of creditors. The ‘hurdles’ had been overcome-don’t you agree the other bidders continued?
W: No.
QC: Are you just saying ‘no’ ?
W: It was 12 years ago
QC: —-[ed: I missed the question]
W: …. [ed: I missed the response]
QC: You don’t recall the date?
W: No
QC: You read it in your witness statement! Do you recall?
W: No, I can re-read the statement
QC: How did you go about preparing your statement?
W: I looked at documents etc
QC: In the matter of the ‘resolution’ of the SPL that was to be voted on 30 April 2012 , the ban on signing players imposed by the SFA on 23 April 2012– was there a process to overturn it, do you recall?
W: No
QC: It was overturned on [ ed: I didn’t catch the date in April for sure, My figure looks like 20 but the 2 might be badly written 3]
On the ‘hurdle’ of Craig Whyte owning 85% of the company, what [ ed: missed the question]
W: At a high level.
QC: What’s your ‘high level?’
W: There were one or two issues from CW at a high level.
QC; Do you recall the CVA idea?
W: Yes.
QC: .to sell the shares of the company in Administration?
W: Yes
QC: Do you recall that the shares were controlled by Craig Whyte?
W: Some of the shares, yes.
QC: 85% of the shares that needed to be transferred
W: I see the figure.
QC: Doesn’t that jog your memory?
W: Yes
QC: This stood in the way of being a ‘hurdle’ to the sale policy?
W: I see that written.
QC: Why did you frame your note to say that the purchasers were unable to deliver the shares?
W: I can’t recall.
QC: ..[ed: I missed his question]
W: I can’t recall
QC: Will you now read the file note, and give us your interpretation,please?
W: Yes.[ed: silence for space..]
QC: When you wrote that, a CVA was being considered?
W: It was a consideration, yes.
QC: When a CVA is proposed, creditors might vote against it, do you agree?
W: To a degree, yes.
QC: What do you mean by ‘to a degree’?
W: I’m not familiar with what the CVA rules were 10 years ago., at a high level an insolvency process.
QC:Is that it?
W; [ed: missed it]
QC: Are you really saying that you can’t say what a CVA is?
W: Under oath I wouldn’t risk not getting it right.
QC: I’m only asking you what a CVA is!
W: I don’t know about today. A CVA is a process where creditors agree.
QC: HMRC could vote against it?
W: Yes
QC: Why was it described as a risk to the process?
W: My recollection is that HMRC would consider it prior to the vote
QC: Have you ever worked in an insolvency which involved a CVA?
W; I may have, but I would have to check.
QC: The Joint Administrators instructed agents, valuation of major assets, chattel assets, and how the Administrators chose the agents.. see that?
W: Yes
QC: So, the valuations of heritable and moveable property. What was the purpose?
W: To have the value of those particular assets.- the estimated value of the assets
QC: The Lambert Smith Hampton valuations, vol 5 p 3357– valuations of Ibrox and the Murray Park training centre?
W: Yes
QC: p. 83409 the Valuations: “ Market Value” “….£32 Million “ assuming continuation of business, assuming ‘going concern’ basis, with no liability to HMRC and Ticketus?
W: That’s the value they put on it.
QC: Murray Park….£6 million, on a ‘continuation of use’ basis, like Ibrox?
W:subject to vacant possession.
QC: “ special assumptions…….discontinuation of use..£3.4 million?
W: You can see that valuation is on a discontinuation basis.
QC :Do you understand ‘break-up’ term, not ‘continuing basis’?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: I’m not asking you to ‘recall’-just to read what is there!
W: I …..[ed: he said a few words which I did not catch]
QC: SO, we have a valuation of two properties, on two bases, continued use and discontinued use. What was the purpose?
W: To get better information of values….going forward
QC: Why would you need a valuation on a ‘discontinued basis’?
W: To understand the assets in that scenario
QC: What would that value be used for?
W: To inform decisions
QC: How would they use the information?
W: I don’t know.
QC: Did you know at the time?
W: I don’t know … I… [ ed: couldn’t catch the rest of long ,hesitant sentence]
QC: Why would you need to know the value on a discontinued basis?
W: What do you mean?
QC: How would you use it to inform the path forward?
W: It wouldn’t necessarily be in one specific area.
QC: You just don’t know, do you? Would you use the information to assess how much you could find for the creditors?
W: [ed: I did not catch the response}
QC: Are you doing your best to avoid answering? Mr Walder, before I go to his Lordship….
W: I’m answering as truthfully as I can.
QC: My Lord, may I ask for a short pause?

Lord Tyre: Mr Walder, it’s 6.00pm here …what time is it where you are?
W: 10..00 a.m.
Lord Tyre: we’re pausing for 5 minutes, and can I suggest to to you that you consider seriously.

.[ five minute ..pause, in practice mode] then,
Mr McBrearty: Mr Walder, we’ll look at p.3346, of Vol 5- thi s is just after the acquisition by Sevco: who instructed you to prepare this?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Would it have been Paul Clark or David Whitehouse?
W: They would have wanted…
QC: look again at the “sale process was beset by hurdles”. Why such a defensive way?
W: It was to set the scene, to give context.
QC: Was it a context to justify the acceptance of a £5.5 million offer?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: You were a junior member f the team at the time?
W: Yes.
QC: Presumably you discussed with your seniors?
W: I don’t recall what happened with this file, but generally yes.
QC: Did anyone tell you that you had to begin with ..?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Is there any reason why you are being so cagey?
W: I…. lapse of time..
QC: Who have you spoken to about this case?
W: friends and family.
QC? Former colleagues?
W: I do not believe with anyone.
QC: If I were to look at your cell phone would I find numbers..?
W: I don’t believe so.
QC; Let’s look now at p.3347, “ Sale of Business—Overview” In the last paragraph “ The Joint Administrators engaged in dialogue with all parties…….until such time as a legally binding agreement was reached” Do you recall?
W: At a higher level, yes
QC: What do you mean?
W: It was [ ed: I have no other words of what he said]
QC: Was it a marketing document to make the company seem attractive to bidders?
W: Yes
QC; On 18 February there was a confidential email memo , with the heading “ Communications” : there is “Under no circumstances should employees or ex-employees of Rangers to be made aware….” Your name is there.
What was your role in preparing this memo?
W: Probably pulling it together
QC: Were you primarily responsible “ You produced….” . Accurate?
W: Accurate
QC: Where does that statement come from?
W: I don’t know specifically.
QC: Look at section , p.3622, the first statement “ Founded in 1872, Rangers is one of the ..” Do you recall?
W: No
QC: You mention 54 league titles , and European success.. See that?
W:Yes
QC: Those successes would be an important part of the brand. AT 2.5 you mention Celtic, equal ..”?
W: They were part of the history of Rangers.
QC: 5 million fans etc?
W: yes
QC: the fans underpin everything?
W: Yes
QC: where the revenue comes from?
W: Some revenue.
QC: You’re describing the heritage, the name…?
W: the brand
QC: The fans are an aspect of the brand?
W: Yes
QC: p.3629 ., 4.2 “ Revenue Analysis” 5 main streams. Do you agree tht all derive from the right to use ‘Rangers’ and compete under that name?
W:: Yes.
QC: If we look at p.3644 appendix one, p.3645, what we see is a list of Registered Trade Marks.. another aspect of the brand. Seven pages in total. That indicates the Intellectual Property part of the overall brand?
W: Yes
QC: “ A key strategy note” Vol 2 p.2595. Do you recognise the format?
W: No
QC: We see “this final note should be updated throughout the assignment.'” Do you recall?
W: No I don’t recognise where it comes from.
QC: p.2598, what the Tables show usAssets, value, comments on the progress of the assets, for example “cash at bank” and details.
Half-way down the page see the heading “ Int Prop” and the value is stated as “uncertain there is value in the int.prop,” Do you agree that that is consistent with what you say in the in the Information memorandum?
W:[ ed: missed it]
QC: You set out all the brand values, do you agree?
W: Yes.
QC:.. Go back to 3347, vol 5,, your file note Under ‘process’ “ a total of 36 interested parties signed and were given access to the Data Room. You recall?
W: Yes
QC: on the following page “ the Joint Administrators originally requested indicative offers by 5.00 p.m…..at at 16 March legal action in course ( about Ticketus) on the morning of 16 th. Offers were asked for with the inclusion of the Ticketus problem.” What was the purpose of the revised bid offer document?
W: Counsel advised that the Ticketus obstacle was continuing.
QC: There were 3 bases of offer :p.3686 memorandum of offer of 16 March 2012 . Do you agree?
W: Yes
QC: p.3688 we see the bases spelled out:1- a CVA , 2- A Sale , 3 – CVA with Ticketus continuing
Then at p.3692, we have “ The format of the offer is as follows” This is how the Joint Administrators want the bids broken down : Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, Brand, Intellectual property, Trade Marks. Agreed?
W: Yes.
QC; The Administrators did not get a valuation of ‘Brand’ , Can you explain?
W: No
QC: Was consideration given to such?
W: Yes
QC: Vol 2, p.336- an email from you to Simon Shipperlee and Peter Hart on 17 February:” ..Paul also said to hold off getting the IP done for now” Do you recall that conversation?
W: No
QC: Is it a fair reading that you were going to get a valuation but he told you to hold off?
W: Yes
QC: Page 2645 from you to Nick at NWH consultants,, copied to David Whitehouse, Simon Shipperlee…
W:[ ed: didn’t hear}
QC: Does the name Nick mean anything to you [ ed: reads the email in silence, and then I lost a few questions and answers, then heard
QC …..4908. ‘conference call’. There’s an email from Simon Shipperlee to you : “ .before you joined David Whitehouse said he wants D&P to get a brand valuation”… David Whitehouse told other members before this message was sent to you during the course of the call?
W: [ ed: no idea what his response was]
QC: on 13 March 2012 you instructed a brand valuation asking Matteus Schumacher..[ ed: that’s what the name sounded like to me!]. if he had…by the way ,what was his role in D&P?..
W: I think he was a valuer.
QC: Did he value anything in particular
W: I don’t know
QC: There’s an email from you to Schumacher “ Matteus we need to get a Rangers brand valued. Do we have the external expertise…” Does that jog your memory about what he valued?
W: Matteus was senior, there’s a lot of categories of valuation, I don’t know what in particular..
QC: on 14 March 2012 you emailed Jimmy Saunders and Sarah Bell, p.3371:” I spoke to Matteus and he has people to value brand…… to be adjusted because of Administration”
Is ‘going concern ‘ value what you’re describing here?
W: Yes
QC: was the context “ to show that the Administrators achieved fair value when we sell the assets”
W: That was not the full purpose
QC: Have you mentioned any other purpose?
W: [ed; didn’t hear him]
QC: [ ed: didn’t hear him]
W: [ed: didn’t hear]
QC: there’s an email the same day from you “ 14 March 2012 “ …about valuation, we need the Brand on an on-going basis” and , top of the page, on 15 March an email from Matteus to you “ ..better understanding of context of valuation and on a Liquidation basis” That’s an addition to what you said to Simon Shipperlee and Sarah Bell .Is it a fair inference that someone told you? Sarah Bell?
W: It might have been.
QC: And that basis would be the same as ‘discontinued use’ ?
W: yes.
QC : It’s agreed that on 16 March 2012 D&P paused the valuation work, that it may not be necessary.?
W:[: ed: didn’t hear]
QC: from Simon Shipperlee’s day-book, a note of a conference call: “ tell HMRC won’t mean anything ultimately “ Is it correct that there was no further pursuit of a valuation?
W: I couldn’t say.
QC: Looking back, you had included brand and IP, they would be worth something ,…. and then
considered valuation unnecessary?
W: I don’t recall
QC: bear with me a moment……..look at Vol 3 p.811 .. an email to Charles Walder “…two weeks we need a valuation” Consistent with other comments.

No further questions for today.
Lord Tyre: We adjourn until 9 a.m. his time tomorrow.”

I meant to add that today’s witnesses were the last of the Noter’s (BDO’s) witnesses. There are still the Expert witnesses to come, and then presumably the witnesses for RFC 2012 plc (IL) and any other Expert witnesses.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:30 pm - May 19, 2021


John Clark 19th May 2021 At 20:15
…………………………
Thanks again JC, great reading

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:44 pm - May 19, 2021


From the editor’s meeting at Scottish newspapers. Guys the ad department has been slowing in getting spots sold so we need to come up with something to fill the pages. Any ideas, and after a brief pause and no thoughts forthcoming a decision is reached. O.K. then lets call McCoist, Ferguson and Boyd they should have enough to fill sufficient column space but no tough questions as we don’t want to stretch their insights and we may need them again, again, and again. Oh, well we are at it let’s try this facebook thing. Post something to the effect need comments from SG’s former teammates on the potential managerial talent they spotted and so many other clubs missed. Meeting adjourned, copy deadline is 4 p.m.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:54 pm - May 19, 2021


QC: on 13 March 2012 you instructed a brand valuation asking Matteus Schumacher..[ ed: that’s what the name sounded like to me!]. if he had…by the way ,what was his role in D&P?..
………………………………………………
On the 13 March the media headlines were
The Fighting fund launch.
David Murray, i was duped by whyte.
David Murray could face SFA Directors ban.
The jerome group claiming a share in millions seized from rangers owner whytes lawyers by administrators Duff and phelps.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:15 pm - May 20, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19314737.revealed-finance-firm-talks-betrayal-failure-14m-bid-rangers/
……………….
PROPERTY financiers have told of “betrayal” after revealing they made a £14.185m bid for key Rangers assets before a sale for £5.5m to Charles Green’s Sevco consortium after the club went into administration.

Manchester-based Seaford Finance made the offer on behalf of Canadian clients to buy Ibrox, the Murray Park training ground and the stadium car park.

It was a deal which would involved the stadium and car park being leased back and the bidders believed they were in “pole position” to do a deal.

View Comment

ParadisebhoyPosted on8:38 pm - May 20, 2021


I hope Dundee are promoted to the Premiership . The Dundee Derby is always interesting and will be a welcome addition next season.
It will also mean no artificial surfaces in the top League – and I think a grass pitch should be made a condition if /when Hamilton or Kilmarnock return .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:44 pm - May 20, 2021


Cluster One 20th May 2021 At 20:15
the link: Property financiers have told of “betrayal” after revealing they made a £14.185m bid for key Rangers
+++++++++
Actual words: ” I do recall feeling betrayed by…”
The hack copped out of saying who was accused of betrayal!
And so will I.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:07 am - May 21, 2021


The Peter Lawwell incident the other night has shocked me. I think most of you know I have little regard for him either personally or professionally. Most folk would also agree that he’s not at the top of Celtic fans’ Christmas Card list. However the level of hate, the extent of inhumanity that allows a person to carry out such an attack on others is way in excess of the animosity aroused by Lawwell’s dealings at Celtic over the past 18 years.
Of course the attack may have been a case of mistaken identity or address, or it may have been personal, and unrelated to football.
As a Celtic fan I certainly hope it wasn’t one of our number because that would require a serious rethink on my part about involvement with football. When clubs appear disconnected from the fans, it is often only the fans you can continue to trust. If fans resort to this kind of violence, where three generations of a family could have been killed in the supposed safety of their own home, then it really is time to reserve Saturday afternoons for shopping expeditions. I also fervently hope that the perpetrators are not found to be Rangers fans, because that kind of thing would not only severely damage Rangers themselves, but would be a worrying development in the direction of the Ulsterisation of Scotland, and a threat to the cohesiveness of Scottish society.
I wish to God that this attack had never happened – and I hope to God it is not football related.
Goes without saying that my thoughts and sympathy are with Peter Lawwell and his family.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:55 am - May 21, 2021


Just an observation:

It appears to me that the civil case BDO are currently making against Clark and Whitehouse (of D&P) looks very like the criminal case that Police Scotland and the COPFS were attempting to pursue against the same two men (and others).

However, as I understand it, Police Scotland and the COPFS have already admitted liability in relation to the wrongful arrest and detention in relation to the case. Again, as I understand it, it has been admitted that Police Scotland did not uncover any substantive evidence of wrongdoing – or at least, evidence they were able to put to the court – and therefore there was never any realistic prospect of a successful prosecution.

So you would think it strange, in such circumstances, if BDO succeed in winning substantial compensation from Mr Clark & Mr Whitehouse for their alleged “mishandling” of the events leading up to the liquidation of the old Rangers.

Funny thing is that it may be sad and pathetic, but it would not really be that surprising.

If BDO succeed in this civil case it doesn’t change the fact that Police Scotland and the COPFS were at best, hopelessly inept. Some have suggested there could have been a degree of purposeful ineptitude at play. I hope not, but it is not a good look at the moment.

The primary key to this, in my opinion, is the question of why the old club’s assets were held together. Who benefits from such an arrangement?

If it did not make financial sense to do so, what motivation could the administrators have go down a path that would ultimately mean a lower dividend for the creditors than would otherwise have been possible?

The question too persists over why members of Police Scotland knowingly spoiled the prospect of uncovering evidence by legal means through the illegal seizure of privileged client files from a solicitors office. Even if the evidence was there, it could never be used in court. How could experienced officers make such a basic error?

Of course, BDO’s case may too, fall away. But if it does not, we should all be asking how it came to be possible that Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse were paid substantial compensation, from the public purse, in connection to these events.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on8:31 am - May 21, 2021


@HirsutePursuit – it is of course possible to reach two different conclusions between a reasonable doubt and a balance of probabilities bases of judgement.
I agree with your line of thinking “who benefits from the arrangement”. To this I would add “follow the money”. This drama has more twists and dodgy characters than Line of Duty – although I’m hoping the finale isn’t as much as a damp squib!!!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:52 am - May 21, 2021


Big Pink 21st May 2021 At 00:07

Hopefully the Police will catch whoever is responsible for the attack on Peter Lawell’s home. Best not to speculate on the motives behind it but I think you pretty much covered all the possible bases.

Whatever the motive what type of human being can carry out such an attack with such complete disregard for the life of other humans?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:40 am - May 21, 2021


Wokingcelt 21st May 2021 At 08:31

@HirsutePursuit – it is of course possible to reach two different conclusions between a reasonable doubt and a balance of probabilities bases of judgement.

I agree with your line of thinking “who benefits from the arrangement”. To this I would add “follow the money”.

Following the money can sometimes be misleading WC. Normally it would be a sensible approach, but in this case there is another facet, that being the debt. A very considerable debt which has not, and never will be repaid. A sum that far outstretches anything that an opportunist may hope to make. Somebody won a watch there.
It should also be remembered that the Duff & Phelps dynamic duo, were previously in the employ of David Murray via the company MCA (if memory serves), tasked with structuring the sale, and finding a suitable buyer.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:15 am - May 21, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19318548.key-rangers-administrators-manager-defends-club-brand-giveaway-charles-greens-sevco/
……………………………….
A KEY member of the Rangers administrators team that managed the club’s financial implosion has dismissed criticism over a failure to get a valuation of its brand before selling the business assets for just £5.5m to Charles Green’s Sevco consortium.

Sarah Bell, an insolvency expert with Duff and Phelps said that the brand was not a valuable asset when there was no Rangers team playing.

While some within Duff and Phelps, the company responsible for guiding the club through its insolvency were pushing for a brand valuation, it has previously emerged it was dropped in a matter of days with one manager saying it had been considered “a waste of money”

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:21 am - May 21, 2021


Reading the court stuff from JC brought back memories.
https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/sale-and-leaseback-ibrox-murray-park-albion/
There was talk of a leaseback of Ibrox and Murray park a way back, not much in the SMSM about it though at the time.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on1:55 pm - May 21, 2021


@Corrupt Official – I agree and I was lazily lumping both together. Leaving the taxpayer/the innocent holding the debt is classic shyster behaviour.

In other news I see that Moray has moved down to Level 2 but Glasgow remains at Level 3 with cases continuing to rise. I wonder why that is?

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on2:23 pm - May 21, 2021


Paradisebhoy 20th May 2021 At 20:38
6 2 Rate This

I hope Dundee are promoted to the Premiership . The Dundee Derby is always interesting and will be a welcome addition next season.

It will also mean no artificial surfaces in the top League – and I think a grass pitch should be made a condition if /when Hamilton or Kilmarnock return .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is the Toni Macaroni being reverted to grass this Summer?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:06 pm - May 21, 2021


This afternoon, Paul Clark giving evidence.
A throw-away remark struck a cord in me :in response to a question as to whether in matters of Scottish football he would defer to the Scottish football authorities ,he referred to them as ‘bordering on duplicity’
I make no comment.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:46 pm - May 21, 2021


Big Pink 21st May 2021 At 00:07
There may be more to all of it ‘
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7134265/firebombing-home-james-mortimer-linked-attack/

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:08 pm - May 21, 2021


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57206480

View Comment

ParadisebhoyPosted on6:01 pm - May 21, 2021


Tykebhoy 21st May 2021 At 14:23
Is the Toni Macaroni being reverted to grass this Summer?

Sorry Tykebhoy – I forgot all about Livingstone !
Maybe they’ll cover the Tony Macaroni with a giant sheet of Pasta – can’t be any worse than what they’ve got ,

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:16 pm - May 21, 2021


Mr McBrearty QC to witness: ” …you would have been better off closing Ibrox etc”
Witness [Mr Clark] ” Not to be taken lightly. I had a meeting with the First Minister and the police and others: what happens if you close Rangers? Understand the implications. The costs could not be under-estimated”

And ,looking over my notes of yesterday’s hearing , I see that Mrs Bell of D&P said that she had a meeting with a Murdo Fraser. on 27 April 2012.
That name rings a bell somewhere in the corridors of memory. Where could I have heard it before?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:06 pm - May 21, 2021


Bridgebuilding again .
https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-210521/3QVwERdF4P6Ty6NjCkL0kL

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:35 pm - May 21, 2021


It doesn’t mention anywhere that I can see that the video was fake/had been doctored , just that no criminality had been established . From that I take that the video was genuine

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:14 pm - May 21, 2021


Paddy Malarkey 21st May 2021 At 19:06
‘…Bridgebuilding again .’
++++++++++++====
I wish to God they would hire a decent PR person with a bit of savvy and a better writing style!
That must be the worst ‘Statement’ of many poor statements, and there have been many poor statements from Ibrox, with one or two exceptions some time ago now, which made me think they were changing their ways.

But no, today’s piece is the same kind of very badly conceived blustery, aggressive, threatening and poorly written piece that we had become used to.

The consciousness of their own guilt in trying to live a lie is, of course, the force behind the aggressive stance.

They know the truth, but cannot admit it and fear to show ‘weakness’ in case honest folk make them admit it.

That’s a well-known path down which many in history have trodden, to their eternal shame and condemnation.
TRFC will be no different, forever tainted with a deceit even worse than SDM’s

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:45 pm - May 21, 2021


Cluster One 21st May 2021 At 11:1
‘…Sarah Bell, an insolvency expert with Duff and Phelps said that the brand was not a valuable asset when there was no Rangers team playing.’
+++++++++++++++
I have a note of the relevant exchange between QC and witness . It has the exact 22 words that at one point in the exchanges with the QC that were used by the witness.
I have re-read the Court of Session rules governing access to virtual hearings: “Any social media comment in relation to the proceedings of other types of court case during the course of a hearing:
must be fair and accurate
must not be in Contempt of Court
must not be prejudicial to the court case
I have abided by those rules thus far, and will continue to do so.
But I can safely say that while the ‘Herald’s” report is true, it is not reflective of the full truth of that exchange , but is selective.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on11:08 pm - May 21, 2021


@ John Clark – Lady MacBeth has stuck with me from secondary school (look time ago!) as the truism that your sins haunt you and will ultimately destroy you.
With regard to the Herald’s reporting. If I am reading you correctly they have breached the guidelines in their selective reporting. Will they be held to account? Not today or tomorrow but hold fast to MacBeth!

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:52 am - May 22, 2021


Celtic may lose out on a substantial fee should Edouard be sold this summer due to the sell on fee. Any fee Celtic garner from the sale of this player will out strip any fees Rangers have earned in player sales recently. Perhaps the scottish media might look a little deeper before rushing to print.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:55 am - May 22, 2021


The DR appears to be concerned over Celtic losing more of the fee for the sale of Edouard due to the sell on clause. Any fee Celtic get for the sale of this player will outstrip any fees Rangers have earned recently. Perhaps the Scottish media could do more digging before rushing to print.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:49 am - May 22, 2021


Vernallen

Nothing to do with Rangers whatsoever so why the constant need to reference them in every post.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on12:26 pm - May 22, 2021


HirsutePursuit 21st May 2021 At 00:55
It appears to me that the civil case BDO are currently making against Clark and Whitehouse (of D&P) looks very like the criminal case that Police Scotland and the COPFS were attempting to pursue against the same two men (and others).

However, as I understand it, Police Scotland and the COPFS have already admitted liability in relation to the wrongful arrest and detention in relation to the case. Again, as I understand it, it has been admitted that Police Scotland did not uncover any substantive evidence of wrongdoing – or at least, evidence they were able to put to the court – and therefore there was never any realistic prospect of a successful prosecution.

So you would think it strange, in such circumstances, if BDO succeed in winning substantial compensation from Mr Clark & Mr Whitehouse for their alleged “mishandling” of the events leading up to the liquidation of the old Rangers.
………………………………
There is a difference between wrongdoing and not doing your job correctly

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:52 pm - May 22, 2021


Who do you think wrote this:

” Rightly or wrongly, Rangers is about more than football and for 14 years the Scottish Government has been run by a party which traduces the symbols and denigrates the country in which most supporters have been brought up to believe.
This season represented the full return from a collapse many supporters believe was driven by an establishment hostile to everything they represent. They recall a crippling and inflated tax demand which sent the club into liquidation in 2012.”

Would you believe any intelligent person could write such absolute rubbish?
The cause of liquidation being the taxman?? and not the grasping, cheating greed of an oleaginous tax and football cheat who lied to HMRC, to the SPL, to the SFA, and cheated every club and football supporter for a decade or more?

Or, ‘ a full return from a collapse ….. which sent the club into liquidation in 2012?’

Who else but a Scottish ‘journalist’ who can end his piece with “The club’s song is Follow, Follow and my dad and cousin did so to their graves, and no mindless hooligans , partial politicians or sanctimonious commentators will stop its supporters doing the same”

Name and rank of said ‘journalist’?
Well, you’re not talking Sportsound Ibrox Supporters’ Club here. No, indeed, we’re at the high-end of the truth-distorting market: who else but John McLellan, former editor of “The Scotsman” (2009-2012), Scottish Conservative Party media chief (2012-2013) and current Edinburgh Councillor?
( in today’s print version of ‘The Scotsman’)

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:22 pm - May 22, 2021


Wokingcelt 21st May 2021 At 23:08
‘..If I am reading you correctly they have breached the guidelines in their selective reporting. ‘
+++++++++++++++
No, I don’t think so. They used a form of words which reflected a truthful enough answer tin the context in which the question was posed by the QC, but which, in a broader context, would be seen as not reflecting the full truth.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on2:39 pm - May 22, 2021


hello

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on2:46 pm - May 22, 2021


John Clark 21st May 2021 At 18:16

3

0

Rate This

Mr McBrearty QC to witness: ” …you would have been better off closing Ibrox etc”
Witness [Mr Clark] ” Not to be taken lightly. I had a meeting with the First Minister and the police and others: what happens if you close Rangers? Understand the implications. The costs could not be under-estimated”

And ,looking over my notes of yesterday’s hearing , I see that Mrs Bell of D&P said that she had a meeting with a Murdo Fraser. on 27 April 2012.
That name rings a bell somewhere in the corridors of memory. Where could I have heard it before
……………………………….
Murdo Fraser was the MSP, Debenture holder who wrote a begging letter to the admistrators stating that any bids should not involve liquidation…. sorry for the late reply.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on3:57 pm - May 22, 2021


ST JOHNSTONE Did well two cups in one season, Callum Davidson how he never got Manager of the season.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:11 pm - May 22, 2021


Well done St Johnstone. What an incredible achievement. They are also a very well managed club financially so it’s good to see some reward for that too.

I hope they and their fans have a very enjoyable and safe celebration tonight.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:14 pm - May 22, 2021


upthehoops 22nd May 2021 At 17:11
somehow can’t see the town centre getting wrecked, but i bet a few ST Johnston fans will be, celebrating.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:29 pm - May 22, 2021


Cluster One 22nd May 2021 At 17:14

Any large gathering of St Johnstone fans will be leapt upon by many with demands for it to be condemned by Police and Politicians, even if there is no violence. At the end of the day crowds should not be gathering as per the law.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:19 pm - May 22, 2021


On Sportsound today Tom English claimed that St Johnstone winning the two domestic cups was the best ever domestic achievement by a Scottish club. He based his argument on budgets. It is a fantastic achievement, truly the stuff of dreams, but do people agree or disagree? I will leave out anything won by Celtic and Rangers* given the budgets available. Wasn’t Dundee United winning the league a better achievement than what St Johnstone just achieved?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:39 pm - May 22, 2021


On the cup final, I very much enjoyed it as a game of football, and I’m not so old and jaded as not to appreciate the ‘fairy tale’ ending of the season for St Johnstone, while understanding the disappointment of a particular Hibs fan in Australia , the son of a now sadly deceased friend of mine, and my son’s best pal.
But back to the Court hearing;
Here are my notes of part of the proceedings [ Doncaster’s evidence]
“BDO v RFC 2012 plc(IL) Day 6
Court of Session
Wednesday 12 May 2021
!.00 pm kick-off

Lord Tyre:[establishes that witness is alone, has arranged not to be disturbed, has his phone in silent mode, and is prepared to take the oath. Oath administered]
Lord Tyre : Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty Q: Good afternoon, Mr Doncaster. [ Full name, age, address, occupation}
You gave an interim statement… on p.66. See that?
D: I do.
QC: Have you re-read the statement?
D: Yes
QC: Are you happy to have your evidence in that statement subject to any answers you make today?
D; I am.
QC: Thank you, no further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young, QC: In para 4.1 of your statement you speak of an initial meeting with the Administrators at Hampden Park a couple of days in?
D: Yes
QC; Para 4.2 , concern about completion of fixtures “ ..Joint Administrators made it clear that they would finish the season. £3 million in the bank” Was that your understanding?
D:…Came away happy that they would be fulfilled.
QC: Based on a note by you?
D: No, I rely on others to keep notes…
QC: In the Administrators’ , Joint Bundle 2 375, you’ll see that PJC, that is, Paul Clark, is saying that not sufficient funds. That seems to contradict you. Is it possible that the Administrators couldn’t give…[ed:?]
D: Entirely possible.
QC: In para 22 of your statement , the context here is redundant playing staff, “unusual: no intention to make players redundant”
D: That’s my belief from that meeting.
QC: Joint Bundle “ p375.- should be ‘Q’ in the margin-we’ve had evidence on this- “Clark said meeting went well” If that’s a reference to ’14’ days could it be that they were NOT considering redundancy?
D: It’s possible.
QC:para 6.2….the attempt to sign David Cousins? The SPL refused to register. Do you recall?
D: Yes
QC: Prior to Administration had there been an attempt to register?
D;.. No
QC: 7.4 of your statement-see it?
D: Yes
QC: It’s dealing with the possibility of selling players on Administration -“ Usual practice is to transfer players of no value…’: You’re not giving evidence of the usual practice?
D: Certainly not.
QC: Were Rangers the first SPL club to go into Administration?
D: I believe there were previous ones, when I arrived.
QC; …[ed: missed the short question]
D: I was on the Board of the English Premier league during which time there were Administrations. I took an interest.
QC: You had experience of what happened in England was that the normal practice in Administration was termination of contract?
D;[ ed: missed his reply}
QC: English clubs in 2007-2009- are you saying that players were made involuntarily redundant in those clubs?
D; [ed; missed his opening words] …….in the English context doesn’t exist
QC: so in Scotland you just had to earn from others? Mr Rod McKenzie?
D: Yes.
QC: The offer from West Bromwich Albion for Naismith: why is this in your statement? Were you asked to do this?
D: I was shown the email between WBA and D&P relevant
QC: but you had no first-hand knowledge, evidence?
D; No. Reading the information presented to me I was surprised.
QC: But you didn’t have any more knowledge?
D: But shown the email I expressed surprise and that’s what I felt.
QC: Look at clubs’ fees- 8.8 The 3rd tranche of advance monies from the Board?
D:.. Correct
QC: You refer to Gretna-Why?
D: Gretna were going into Administration as I was arriving. Mr McKenzie and Mr Blair had made advance to Gretna to help.
QC; That was a loan rather than an advance?
D:.. Beyond me. Ian Blair would be the best person to ask
QC: There were statements in the newspapers?
D: There’s a distinction between an ‘advance’ and a ‘loan’.
QC: Slightly different because it’s a loan
D: Bringing money due to be paid later, paying earlier.

QC: the (Rangers) Administrators were looking for the last tranche? If we look at JB 5 p.3890; these emails are to Ian Blair:
Simon Shipperlee to Blair:….release of advance
..time of next tranche
Hearts application for off-set

come back on point below, reason for stopping 12 June 2012
Response -payment arranged on Monday, revert about tranche, off-set refused
The para above that 13 June Shipperlee acknowledges 27 June update on funds, release of arrested tranche relates to share funds
This relates to McIntyre, earlier arrestment?
D: I can’t help on that one
QC: Do you know when the third tranche was released.
D: at the normal time.
QC: [ed: did not hear]
D; You’d have to speak to Blair.
QC: the SPL did not get back until 6 July 2012, letter from McKenzie, JB vol 5 p. ??40 : no further payment ..claim of breach of contract” Can you help with the detail of this?
D: No.
QC: You don’t mention this in your statement? Is there a reason for that?
D: The issues would have been dealt with by Rod McKenzie.
QC: but McKenzie is doing this on behalf of the SPL because Rangers had sold their assets to another company?
D: [ed. I missed his words}
QC: go to p.4121 McKenzie says the club can’t fulfill its fixtures, therefore breach of contracts, breach significant even in 20 Feb 2013?
D: there were the Sky contracts, clauses whereby both Celtic and Rangers had to be in the contract.
QC: There were other sponsor contracts?
D: Clydesdale Bank was likely to have that in its contract.
QC: 27 July 2012: The settlement of the 5-Way Agreement Were the SPL still under threat because Rangers wouldn’t be in the SPL?
D: It was a real issue, we had to do a deal with the SFL..
QC: Did that post-date the 5-Way?
D: I can’t be sure.
QC: Para 9.5-9.6 of your statement. You make some criticism of the Joint Administrators as to their lack of transparency. Would you agree that they put some bidders in contact?
D: Yes, an American bidder..
QC: Bill Miller. So the SPL could get access to Miller’s intentions?
D: Well, we could ask questions.
QC: The Blue Knights also and ? ?
D: I don’t recall.
QC: Broadly, the role of the SPL – the application to register Cousin, the disciplinary matter in respect of Dunfermline, the investigation into the EBTs, rule changes on Insolvency; do you understand how the Administrators were baffled and confused?
D: No. The matter concerned all members of the SPL.
QC: The bidders were dependent on approval of the transfer of the share?
D:..Yes.
QC: Sale and lease-back of the ground, they would need to approach the SPL?
D: Yes
QC: The Administrators if they wished to run into the following season , they would have to seek approval, a dispensation, a waiver…?
D: Yes.
QC: The obvious comparison is the Hearts Administration. Did Hearts’ under-19s have to play?
D: I can’t recall, I’m afraid.
[ed; there followed a silence for a space of time .]
Then
C: no more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
QC: On matters in England, you answered you have a ‘football creditors’ rule in England? See Vol 1, p.1163: a letter from Packer Young, the Administrators of Portsmouth on 2e September 2010 to all known members. Look at Section 6, on p.1166 : ‘cash flow’ “ in excess of 80 staff..”’ Do you see that?
D: Yes.
QC: On the next page you should see “Players’ Wages……imperative that players be sold” Are you familiar with that practice?
D:Certainly, Norwich I had experience, and Wimbledon too.
QC: p.1168 “ negotiations” see that? ‘List of players sold’ , p.1169 “compromise agreement with the following players” ? So it seems that ‘ “compromises” were possible for the players that were NOT to be sold, to sell players for a fee?
D: Yes, very common, I’d expect clubs to do that’
[ed: silence for a space]
QC: The last point, Mr Doncaster, Joint Bundle p.3526……no, my apologies, page 3256..’arrested funds’- an email from Blair about payment in June , Part 7 of an internal email to D&P “ ..£120,000… not aware of this issue..”
Are you..?
D: No
QC: Thank you Mr Doncaster, no more questions.

Lord Tyre: That concludes your testimony, Mr Doncaster, Thank you very much for making yourself available. You’re free to switch off now and leave us.
D: Thank you, m’Lord.

[ into ‘practice mode’ at 13.58 while next witness -Gordon Stewart- is lined up]

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:36 pm - May 22, 2021


“No criminality has been established”
For criminality to have taken place someone within the vicinity would have to have been offended by what was said . Maybe they had difficulty establishing exactly who was singing the offensive words.
“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
The doubling down of claiming they are now going to take legal action against those who they perceived had tarnished their reputations is laughable. The faux offended would not wish for any independent investigation into the validity of the video taking place.This is the same bullying tactics we saw with Kheredine when he doubted the validity of a 20m verbal offer for Morelos and then backtracked under orders from his BBC masters to claim he had seen evidence (of a verbal offer)
Threats,abuse,lies and cover ups , same old same old.
On the plus side well done to St Johnstone on a fantastic achievement

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:16 am - May 23, 2021


A further bit of my one-fingered typescript of my court notes;

BDO v RFC 2012plc(IA)
hearing on Wednesday 12 May 2021.

At 14.03, Mr Gordon Stewart was sworn in.
Mr Young QC: In para 4.3 of your statement, the launch of “Save Rangers” campaign. If we look in the Joint Bundle, vol 2, p.1892 -the main text, is this the document you are referring to at the start of the campaign , 3 main organisations?
S: yes
QC: Investment, meaningful fan ownership, tied in with RST objective for many years?
S: yes
QC: All monies should stay within the club?
S: Yes
QC: You insisted…Why?
S; I’m trying to remember , long time ago. We wanted no money to go to owners, but just for the club.
QC: Yes, on the page below you talk about being patient, to be ready- you saw you could look forward long time ?
S: Yes. The Administrators said ‘wait till there’s a plan
[ ed: I missed the next couple of exchanges. My next scribble is

… McCoist trusted, Sandy Jardine trusted..[ ed:I can’t tell from my note who was speaking]

QC: para 4.12 , pledges by 8 March 2012 from individuals
Alan McKenzie £1 million
p.3449 Mr X is in Australia?
S: I had no personal contact with him
QC :The McKenzie letter- an offer on some conditions?
S: Yes
QC: Some of the pledges were hoaxes.. from Celtic fans?
S: Yes, some.
QC: But some would be genuine but when pay-up time came some couldn’t deliver?
S: Yes.
QC: Some would back out if they didn’t like…[ed: didn’t hear his final words]
S: Yes
QC: 5.3 to 5.6. [ed: silence while the reference was found]
QC: [ed: I missed his short question]
S: [ed: and missed the short reply]
QC: ..pre-Administration , planning for fan ownership?
S: Yes.
QC: £30 million might be raised?
S: Yes.
QC: p.916 ‘under Andy Kerr assembly’ … who is Andy Kerr?
S: Head of the Rangers Assembly.
QC: Fans wanted to help, not all the way to fan ownership scheme?
S: The Assembly was controlled by the club.
QC; Fans would not contribute if monies were going back to Murray?
S: In 2010, yes. In 2012 times had changed.
QC: He wanted money to pay off debt?
S: But during an Administration you might have to pay [ed: I missed his words] ,,rather than buy players?
QC: Para 5.11- a rights issue made by SDM 2004/205. £1.2 million of supporters’ money, and look at JB p.1184: here is an internal email of 19 december 2012: “ 1. PC had a long chat with SJ
2. Sandy manages archive
disastrous £50 million offer, only £1 million in” Do you agree with that statement?
S: Yes. Can I elaborate?
QC: Yes.
S: SDM said he would underwrite . Let the rich pay!
QC: para 5.2: this is the IPO. You say “ ordinary fans £5million worth of shares,” That’s a better estimate estimate than pledges?
S: Yes. The IPO was at 4 weeks notice. To get that amount in was useful and impressive.
QC: There was a lot of groundwork in 2010, fans were primed for shares?
S:.. Yes.
QC: Do I understand that the organisations were in Blue Knights communication?
S:…. Yes
QC: No formal decision or agreement about what would happen if the Blue Knights…[ ed: I missed a bit] ..Very informal?
S:…Yes
QC: Money to purchase no…. [ed: missed the question]?
S: Money after purchase
QC: You were being assured that they had the cash?
S: yes
QC: Were they optimistic of a CVA?
S:….Yes, a CVA rather than Liquidation
QC: Were the pledges dependent on a CVA rather than other routes?
S:…. We never put any.. [ ed: didn’t hear the end of the sentence]
QC: Did the Blue Knights share with the groups?
S:… Not with me.
QC: Did they keep the groups up to date with the levels?
S: I don’t know.
QC: One obvious suggestion is that you should have made your own bid?
S:….. We shouldn’t compete with Blue Knights fans-we would piggy-back.
QC: Were they confident the Blue Knights would …..[ed: missed the end of the question]
S; Yes.
QC: If instead of Sevco the Blue Knights had won favour the groups would have been happy?
S: Yes.
QC: Let’s say the Blue Knights have the winning bid and the Joint Administrators came to fans and said “ we’ll sell the stand to you for £10 million?
S : No.
QC: Because there would be no point if the Blue Knights had the other [ ed; didnt hear the end of the question]
S:…..Yes.
QC: You would have been looking to buy the whole for £10 -15 million? ”Save Rangers” did not go into the Data Room?
S;…. No
QC: Were you aware of dates? [ed: my scribble looks like ‘dates’ but might be ‘data’]
S: No
QC: Assuming that the Joint Administrators were aware of the “Save Rangers” and thought you were part of the Blue Knights, why would they come to you?
S:…..We were told better not to, just save our money to buy players.
QC: para 6.11 . Where did you get the £10-15 million figures?
S; Just a ball-park figure.
++++
And here I have to stop: I hear the siren calls from Mrs C, and not being ,like Ulysses, secured to the mainmast with ears unplugged , I am free to respond to the compelling blandishments .
I’ll finish off the report of Stewart’s evidence tomorrow.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on2:02 am - May 23, 2021


I believe Michael Stewart was correct when he suggested they should wait until the end of the season before handing out awards. The job done by St. Johnstone’s manager guiding a low budget club to two cups certainly bears noticing. What would the outcry have been like if a certain manager won two cups, but, didn’t win the league only to lose out in the awards department.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:24 pm - May 23, 2021


My post of 23rd May 2021 at 00:16
Here is the rest of my note of Gordon Stewart’s evidence during the BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL),on Wednesday 12 May 2021

QC: para 6.11 . Where did you get the £10-15 million figures?
S; Just a ball-park figure.
QC: Turn to Ibrox and Murray Park, in your statement you mention ‘sale and lease-back’ at para 6.8.
Is it true that historically fans had concerns about Ibrox being separated,
S: 2003 matter- I couldn’t really add to my statement.
QC: Okay. But more recently concerns about Mike Ashley taking security over the stadium?
S: Yes, fans were very emotional.
QC: The fans simply would not accept a commercial organisation having ownership of Murray Park or Ibrox?
S; Yes.
QC: At 6.19.. “ if the Joint Administrators had approached us…we would have been interested.. we could have achieved “ Have you got any knowledge of whether the Joint Administrators knew formally about the pledges?
S: No.
QC:.The £10-15 million you mention, is that for the purchase of Ibrox?
S: [ed: I missed the response ]
QC: not tied to any valuation?
S: No.
QC: Ina break-up of assets sale Ibrox is only worth £3 million. Why would the RST be willing to pay £15 million?
Mr McBrearty [ objecting] Don’t answer ! M’Lord, that’s not a proper question- the witness is not an expert in property valuation.
Lord Tyre: In fairness, Mr Young…mention the ‘going concern’ valuation.
Mr Young: [ ed: addressing the witness] If it can be used for football, £30 million, without football, only £3 million.
S:.. Fans wouldn’t purchase it unless to play football.
Lord Tyre: I think that’s what I understood.
Mr Young: We know that Sevco bought the whole club for £5.5
S: Could you repeat the question again?
QC: We know Sevco bought all of the assets for £5’5 million. Would there have been fan concern at paying £15 million for only part- why did the fans no go for a bid?
S: We didn’t know. We thought it would go for far,far more.
The purchase price is all gone to the Creditors.
QC: It took 2 months to get the ‘pledges’ in?
S: the IPO money was raised within one month.
[ ed: I missed the next couple of exchanges because I had to answer the door to let the plumber in!]
QC: look at para 6.25- will you read it to yourelf first?
S:{ed:reads silently] Ok.
QC: What is the point being discussed here?
S: …about selling the club to a third party, fans wanting to make it legally our stadium
QC: If saving the stadium would not have been possible?
S: well, we wouldn’t have bothered; few fns think it is a new club.
QC: [ed: missed it]
S: [ed: missed the response]
QC: Would it be fair to say that the bidding process went on for a time?
S: Yes.
QC: There were concerns that the Football Authorities were not helpful?
S: Oh, yes.
QC: A longer period of Administration ?
S: [ ed: began to answer but Mr McBrearty intervened]…
McBrearty: Hold on, that’s hypothetical..
Lord Tyre: I’ll let it be asked subject to relevance and competence
[ ed; whatever the question and response I don’t have a note of it.I had to reach for a new sheet of paper and the question and answer were over before I was ready. Whatever it was, it was the last of Mr Young’s questions, and it was Mr McBrearty’s turn]
Mr McBrearty:Mr Stewart, you were asked about various investments…the IPO had brought in only £1 million. In your view how was that different?
S: Sir David Murraybwas going to underwrite that offer, so fans said, what’s the point in us getting involved. But in Administration we had to start thinking…[ed: I couldn’t catch his next words]
QC: The club was facing extinction in 2012-what difference would that have made?
S:::: It would be to keep the club going
QC: The IPO of 2012: your view was that £5 million raised by fans?
S: yes
QC; But Charles Green had bought the club?
S:: Yes, it was back on its feet.
QC: There were vexatious edges?
S: at least 100 ‘Craig Whyte’ pledges.
QC: You accept all of that?
S: Yes
QC: What would you have thought if the Administrators had put out an appeal to the fans, the offers are not at the right level, an appeal to purchase Ibrox? What would you have thought?
S: I would have struggled with the separation of assets, it would have been a difficult sell..
QC: the emotional owning of Ibrox outright.
S: Not having the football? It would get a bit more complicated.
QC: Would the fans accept third party ownership of the stadium?
S..: No.
QC: What would fans do in their discontent?
S..:…. boycotts of the club..
QC: There were times in the past when fans found things objectionable ; fans unhappy about an asset sale.Fans wouldn’t like the idea of Liquidation?
S: Yes.
QC: An asset sale not acceptable?
S: Yes.
QC assets would not be owned by the new company?
S: but the fact that the club would have been saved …that must have been acceptable?
S; Yes
QC: there were taunts about Sevco?
S: you get over it!
QC; 54 titles etc?
S: asset stripping would have caused problems.
QC: Fans would not have accepted a new
[ ed: again I was interrupted by domestic matters and missed the next couple of questions . I got back on the phone and put it on ‘speaker ‘ again, to hear..]
QC: Just a moment , m’Lord… Mr Stewart, you were asked how long it might have taken to plan to buy Ibrox. Look at 2.1, 2.2 of your statement.
AT 2.2 there is “ Supporters Direct”’s part: were they are a resource available to them…the proposal to go to them to purchase..
Mr Young QC: [objecting] M’Lord- I asked no question about Sport Direct.
Mr McBrearty: [ed: missed it]
Lord Tyre: I took the question as following on from the Sports Direct reference. Put the question again, Mr McBrearty , and Mr Young can question it if he need s to.
McBrearty: Mr Young suggested it might take time to raise money from the fans. If the Administrators had drawn up a lease-back ..
Lord Tyre: I’ll allow the question.
S:: m’Lord, I don’t…..
Lord Tyre: The question is: if the Administrators had provided a lease would that have helped in terms of the time-scale?
S: Yes.
Mr McB: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr Stewart for making yourself available. You’re free to switch off and leave us.
S: Thank you.
Lord Tyre: Court adjourned until 5.00 pm.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:57 pm - May 23, 2021


Did I hear the commentator at the Brechin v Kelty game while referring to Barry Ferguson’s celebrations after Kelty’s goal, say that the delighted Barry Ferguson is worth millions?
Didn’t he self-declare personal bankruptcy, unable to pay huge debt, giving the same two-fingers to the tax-man as he gave to the Scottish national team?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:57 pm - May 23, 2021


Another fallout from the RFC/TRFC/RIFC saga ?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:29 pm - May 23, 2021


John Clark 23rd May 2021 At 15:24
QC: The club was facing extinction in 2012-what difference would that have made?
QC: There were times in the past when fans found things objectionable ; fans unhappy about an asset sale.Fans wouldn’t like the idea of Liquidation?
S: Yes.
…………………………………..These days the fans don’t believe a club can become extinct. And the fans don’t remember the idea of liquidation.
……………………
Thanks again JC

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:34 pm - May 23, 2021


Sorry , it appears I forgot this bit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57221516

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:16 am - May 24, 2021


Paddy Malarkey 23rd May 2021 At 23:34
‘…Sorry , it appears I forgot this bit’
+++++++++
I’ve just this minute taken a break from typing up my notes of the BDO hearing on 12 May ..and I read what’s on the link you provided.
My gut feeling? There has been dirty, dirty work at the crossroads.
Are we really back in 1560?
For the sake of a cheating football club now dead ,and the phoney TRFC?
Honest to God, there’s a Scandinavian ‘saga’ there.(I reserve the authorial rights!]
And what a burden of guilt lies on the shoulders of those in football governance who kow-towed for the basest of reasons to those who lied and cheated, and who continue to permit a new football club to claim to be what it is not.
Craven cowardice incarnated, and, of course, they know it.
May they never sleep easily, aware of their fundamental rottenness.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:54 am - May 24, 2021


As they just couldn’t wait for the “year” to end before giving out manager of the year maybe they could make amends by issuing an outstanding achievement award to St Johnstone football club .

View Comment

bect67Posted on6:57 pm - May 24, 2021


John Hughes steps down. Barry Ferguson steps down.
I would be surprised if the Hughes to Celtic backroom staff (which is doing the rounds) is true – but Barry Ferguson to Ross County anyone?

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on8:06 pm - May 24, 2021


Bect67. 24th May 18.57.

Not Ross County but Alloa.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:18 pm - May 24, 2021


Bect67 24th May 2021 At 18:57
Add Mickey Mellon stepping down at Dundee United to that list , along with Peter Grant from Alloa and Jim Duffy from Dumbarton and we have musical chairs in Scottish managerial circles .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:20 pm - May 24, 2021


My post of 19th May 2021 At 20:15 refers.
[Mr Walder (in California) began giving evidence at 5.00 p.m UK time on Tuesday 11 May, and that post has my note of that evening’s hearing.
On Wednesday 12 May , again at 5.00 p.m , his evidence-giving hearing was continued. This present post is my report of that continuance]

“Continuation at 5.00 pm UK time on Wednesday 12 May 2021 of Mr Walder’s examination which began on Tuesday 11 May 2021.
Mr McBrearty QC: Mr Walder, if we look at Vol 3,p.1094- Wage reductions email: which players agreed to wage reductions and the exact agreement, for example, are players entitled to leave at the end of the season at a reduced sale value… email: Singapore consortium enquiring about nature of agreement, information in the Data Room. Were wage reductions still to be in place when a new purchaser took over?
The wages would have returned to normal?
Walder: That was the case
QC: Individual assets: for some?
W: Yes
QC: Steve McKenna?
W: Yes, I recall the name, but not details
QC: He followed up on his bid. Look at the email in Vol 3 p.3548: you should see 3 April an email to you from Chris Tulip [ed: ?] “Murray Park I have been asked to value £10 million, 22 acres”?
W:…Yes
QC : “ heads of term are well known”
W: Yes
QC: p.3547 your response on 3 April “ Thank you for your proposals…proof of funds provided…”
W: Yes.
QC: p.3546, email from Steve McKenna himself “ Charles offer is based on planning permission for 22 acres..”
W;…Yes
QC: Confirming to you?
W: Yes
QC; Attempting to gain planning permission over some of the area, leaving room for football?
W: Yes
QC: McKenna emailed re offer for the car park, debenture seats and land at Ibrox. Your response to that …and an email from McKenna to you on 17 April?
W: Yes, an email from you to Steve”
QC: he states he has 3 offers for Murray Park. At p.3479 “Your offers have been noted but note that the Joint Administrators are looking to sell all of the ssets on a ‘going concern’ basis or a CVA Their strategy…”
W: I…
QC: His email is ‘noted’ and you’re not interested?
W: [ ed: I don’t know if he made any response
QC: Later McKenna made a bid with a third prty looking for lease-back of Ibrox. Vol4 p.3577 an email to you on 11 May: total payment of £9.5 million over a period of time?
W: Yes
QC: and then about debentures
W: Yes
QC: then restructure of leadership at Rangers?
W: Yes
QC: Then an email to Charles Walders from Steve McKenna “.can you give me a call?” and then an email from M. Rothbart forwarded to you 10 May and we have there “Dear Steve , I have revised …… an offer Ibrox Stadium and training ground £14.185 million, lease-back £1.8 million per annum, club entitled to buy back after 10 years, rent review every 5 years from Maurice Lambard..” See that?
W: Yes.
QC: So a proposal of offer for sale and lease back of stadium
W: Yes
QC: Other assets generally?
W: Not specifically Murray Park
QC: Spreadsheet 46: various tabs, tab headed ‘Assets’, title at the top shows “ D &P buyers list”?
W: Yes
QC: Do you recall the purpose of this spreadsheet?
W:…To track interest from potential parties
QC: The tab to the left, headed ‘Club’–Brian Kennedy, Sounness ,contacted D&P…. Looks as though that’s the tab showing bidders for the club as a whole?
W: Yes
QC: Look at number 3 on the other tab: Alan McBeth of DTZ property consultants “ Client interested in Murray Park” next column, stay away from Rab ( Celtic fan), 2 or 4 columns headed ‘Contacts’ What’s inserted there 15 February , the day after the Administrators were appointed “Advised Alan McBeth we’ll be pursuing ‘going concern’ but will come back to you in due course’
Number 10 on spreadsheet: ‘interest in Albion Car Park’ : comments made: 21 February email re going concern, but if assets sold on break-up will get back” Consistent with previous.
Rodney White of McGrigor’s: Murray Park interest 1 March “CXW called, not for sale, i.e for future reference. ?
W:…..Yes
QC: the Joint Administrators were not thinking of separate sale of assets, agree?
W:…Yes
QC: Kenten? Who is he?[ed: the name sounded like Kenten, Kenton, some such]
W: with D&P
QC: Did you work with him?
W:.. Yes
QC: Did you take advice from him?
W:…. There was contact with Paul
W: Let’s look at the email chain: Vol 4, 9396 , email Paul Tenten to PC, copied to you: “Hi, Paul, review of Rangers process with Paul Kenten . Dual track process and IPO and share issue 100 000 mad fans who could put up 500 quid each” Don’t rush the sale process. The more time we have the more bids we might get. Charles will be able to provide more detail” Remember Paul Murray? Who he was?
W: Yes, formerly involved with Rangers , leading the Blue Knights
QC: Associated with the Blue Knights
W:…Yes
QC: Vol 2, p. 3791, at the top: an email you sent to David Whitehouse, copy to Paul Clark 3 March “ prior to meeting with Paul Murray .. see…” and you refer to your email of 01 March to Paul Clark: “I had a conversation with Paul Murray…He’s keen to meet you. He has been a vocal critic of Craig Whyte” The security was a problem and Murray was concerned that Whyte would not deal with him. Any CVA would have to be higher than Liquidation?
W: Yes
QC: Vol 3, p.2887, email 29 March from you to Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, and others: “ The process letter has been sent to…..Blue Knights/Ticketus I have tried Ross Brian [Ticketus] I have spoken to Brian about whether he has spoken to CW about his shares”
W:…Yes.
QC: following page, it starts “Paul Murray: I spoke to him to allay his fears that Whyte wouldn’t sell to him, that Whyte would block … Paul asked why we had not got the shares already.”
W:…. Yes.
QC: Let’s look at p.1594 [ed: I may have misheard that reference] email from Paul Murray copy to C Walder? See it?
W:…Yes
QC: “ Gents, where are we with Whyte and the transfer of shares?” You’re not a recipient of that email?
W:.. Yes
QC: David Whitehouse to Paul Murray “ copy to C Walder who had a sensible discussion with CW about transfer”
W:. That rings a bell.
QC: [ed: I missed the question]
W:…[ed: and missed the response]
QC: email 02 April “ of course I am. I spoke to Mario and he said CW was not handing the shares over” Who was Mario?
W:.. I can’t recall
QC: an email from you to Paul Murray “ this is contrary to what Ticketus said last week”
W:…. yes
QC: You then emailed Ticketus and they remained confident they would get Whyte’s shares. Paul Murray emails you, copy David Whitehouse….. why didn’t you commence action against Whyte?
W: [ ed: I have no note of a response]
QC: to get the shares from Whyte?
W: [ ed: I have a ‘yes’ as the response]
QC: So 7 weeks in, there is dissatisfaction about the shares? Look at Witness statement , page 427. I’m going to allow you to read it to yourself
W:…Yes
QC: 7.21, 7.22, see that okay?
W: Yes
QC: Is it fair , 11/12 April to say concern about the viability of bids from Blue Knights and Ticketus together?
W: There was uncertainty.
QC: Ticketus were going with the Blue Knights?
W: Yes
QC: There was a lack of cohesion between Ticketus and the Blue Knights?
W:….Yes. Question marks.
QC: The Singapore consortium withdrew?
W: .. I don’t recall whether they did or were unsuccessful
QC: Vol 4 p.236 email from you 15 April to D&P colleague. “ Paul Saunders [ ed; sounded like that] called. Ticketus refusing to release his shares to PM. It feels like CW has everyone where he wants..”
W: Yes.
QC: your last sentence was your opinion?
W: yes.
QC: vol 4, 316, a day on. email from you to D&P colleague 16 April “ update. Singapore intend to withdraw. Not happy that they would need to rely on a creditor. Administrators should be guaranteeing…”
W; Yes
QC: both Paul Murray and Saunders , both unhappy?
W:….Yes
QC: 20 April, Singapore withdrew over concerns about the deliverability of shares and Whyte. Friday 20 April: email from you telling of that?
W:….Yes
QC: Bill Miller, the preferred bidder at one stage?
W: Yes
QC: He pulled out 08 May 2012. look at 4.2475 , email from Archie Paton at Tupco.com “ we’re on the calc. Ken is just running through the figures” Was Paton an associate of Miller?
W: Yes
QC: Was ‘Ken’ Ken Olverman?
W:.. [ ed; I have no note whether there was a reply]
QC: It’s a fair inference it was Ken Olverman?
W: yes
QC : Paton seems to be asking if Roberts is saying Bill Miller is no longer interested “ just had Bill and …” That was Miller out?
W:…Yes
QC: email to Simon Shipperlee , he responds to you. Page 2582 your response to him: 10.30, Friday night “W just called me blaming it on the forecast , apparently figures that were not in the data room., and unbelievably W is blaming me” Do you recall?
W:… er, er…
QC: 2591. email from David Whitehouse to Ally McCoist , “ Bill is back in” Does that ring a bell?
W:…No
QC: P.2595 email at top, from Ken to you, copy Peter Hart 12.34, 5 May “ Hopefully narrative makes clear” email address to Archie, the same Archie?
W: Yes
QC: “the model was rushed not fully reviewed” So you had been asked to get on with Ken to review and send more financial information?
W: Yes
QC: Vol 4 p. 6209 On 6 May: from DW to you, copy Paul Cark, Sarah Bell.. “Bill’s nervousness is around the £30 million cash hole…..if purchasers are making wrong assumptions ….the bidding is running away from us.” A cash hole?
W: I disagree
QC: Why?
W: Based on my view ..
Q: Why can you disagree when you’ve agreed all the other emails?
W:…I don’t recall feeling it was running away from us.
QC: p.2623 This is an email from you on 6 May “David, John ( Pritchard, adviser to Bill Miller) not responded. He is due to call Ken directly. The issue is this £30 million cash hole…They need me there…We need to get to the bottom of cash hole. Timescales are tight” Recall?
W: Yes
QC: p. 2622 6 May – “David- please get Ken to get Walder into the case [ ed: or my scribble might be ‘call’] There is no cash hole “ Do you think that is a fraught email from Mr Whitehouse?
W: [ed: I can’t tell whether there was a response]
QC: Some confusion as to company’s cash position?
W: The cash position is related to post-Administration period, related to diligence…
QC: Do you agree there was confusion?
W: ?
QC: post-Administration…
QC: “ I am conscious of the £20 million cash hole?” Was there confusion?
W:…. As it relates to ? [ ed: didn’t hear ] ? Yes
QC: What was the attitude of the team? Did they share the confusion?
W:…. No.
QC: 8 May was when Miller pulled out. Email at top of the page, you to Peter Hart and Simon Shipperlee “ I should probably fly up to keep David happy” That’s what you’re telling us.
Your response “Ha Ha, Agreed. I’ll fly up later tonight”
QC: There was a need to agree that the three of you be covered?
W : I don’t recollect, it could be me agreeing to other aspects..
QC: getting up early?
W: I don’t recall specifically.
QC: Bill Miller pulled out. Agreement with Sevco on 12 May. By that time Miller was not the only bidder. From your interim statement , Brian Kennedy was still a bidder. Have you forgotten that?
W: [Ed: missed his reply]
QC: What do you recall of Ally McCoist?
W: in what respect?
QC: Following Miller’s dropping out. At 7.76 , you “ Ally McCoist, Brian Kennedy still bidders” ?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Your interim statement -Singapore withdrew Do you remember when Brian Bohan [ed: sounded like that] 9 May 2012 was “ one of the…..they did not want to be a bidder as such but would step in..”
W: I agree.
QC: Do you recall another bid?
W: No.
QC: Vol 4 p.2929 email : was sent on 9 May to Ryan Murray from Howard Clark Burton on 9 May “ non-disclosure agreement”
p.2928 , the reply “ Howard you’re very late…if time allows….signed Paul Clark” Do you recall?
W: I don’t recall
QC:…..Mr Frank Stronach , possible bid?
W: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: Do you recall contact with Alistair McCoist, Walter Smith?
W: No
QC: if the suggestion was that Charles green was the only bidder, that would be wrong?
W:: I agree.
QC; No further questions.

Lord Tyre: Mr Young?

Mr Young QC: Are you happy that the statement you signed is still okay?
W; Yes
W: This is a series of emails on 3 April between McKenna and you. The one in the middle “ the funding of £10 million proof of funding” Was it ever sent to you?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: JB , p.4672- this is where you are narrating the main reason why the Singapore consortium pulled out “ Sharsad Can you recall whether Singapore criticised the Administrators..”
You reply that you don’t recall
4.6257 email to you and David Whitehouse from Paul Clark, reference to Frank Stronach
4.6258 7 May- you tell Paul Clark that you’ve spoken to Stronach , but he didn’t want to speak to Stronach. Have you any other recollection of speaking to Stronach?
W: no
Mr Young: That’s all.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty QC: No questions, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: You’re free to sign out, Mr Walder. Thank you.
[And to the QCs]: we revert to normal timings? 10.00 a.m tomorrow.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:08 pm - May 25, 2021


Mike Ashley v Rangers in court again tomorrow.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list

Does anyone know what has actually been decided in this case yet? Is Ashley entitled to damages as ruled by the court and Rangers are appealing? It seems to have gone on forever.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:31 pm - May 25, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19325751.rangers-administrator-denies-craig-whyte-calling-shots-5-5m-sale-charles-greens-sevco/
…………………..
A FORMER Rangers administrator has denied controversial former owner Craig Whyte had control of the selling of the club after its financial collapse and has defended a failure to seek a break-up sale including Ibrox to bring in more money to pay the thousands owed millions.

Paul Clark, who was one of the joint administrators of Rangers when the club financially imploded denied failure as an “ordinarily competent administrator acting with reasonable skill and care” through not controlling the sale process, not getting a valuation report on the club brand and not securing Mr Whyte’s shares.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:33 pm - May 25, 2021


upthehoops 25th May 2021 At 17:08
……………….
Judge gave both parties a period of meditation to see if they could come to an agreement. Ashley has the money to bide his time.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:00 pm - May 25, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/19325815.sfa-chief-defends-rangers-george-square-unrest-dismisses-politicians-unfair-calls-strict-liability/
……………………..
SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell has absolved Rangers of any blame for the trouble that flared in Glasgow city centre after the Ibrox club were presented with the Premiership trophy earlier this month and dismissed politicians’ demands for “strict liability”.

MSPs James Dornan, Patrick Harvie and Humza Yousaf all called for strict liability – which punishes clubs for supporters’ actions with fines, point deductions and stadum closures regardless of the preventative measures they have put in place – to be introduced following the unrest.
………………………………..
The SFA are very afraid of strict Liability.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:22 pm - May 25, 2021


Cluster One 25th May 2021 At 17:33

Judge gave both parties a period of meditation to see if they could come to an agreement. Ashley has the money to bide his time.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

So I’m guessing they haven’t been able to agree if it’s still running? Also, whatever the outcome I assume it will be kicked down the road to the next appeal stage.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:06 pm - May 25, 2021


upthehoops 25th May 2021 At 18:22
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/103.html&query=(SDI)+AND+(retail)+AND+(services
………………………………..
Any member of the public wishing to attend a remote hearing should provide an email address and contact number to be sent an appropriate link for access. please contact QBMastersLisitng.@justice.gov.uk putting the hearing date and time in the subject box.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list
4.5 Notices of judgment

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:31 pm - May 25, 2021


John Clark 24th May 2021 At 22:20
………………………….
Thanks again JC

View Comment

vernallenPosted on2:27 am - May 26, 2021


Its now been a week and a half since the George Square demonstration. Is there any news on a spike in covid cases in and around Glasgow. Surely the main stream media will be giving this issue their full and undivided attention.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on6:58 am - May 26, 2021


Vernallen 26th May 02.27

No spike in cases which is similar to the March celebrations.

View Comment

bect67Posted on10:43 am - May 26, 2021


Albertz11

Haud oan a meenit!

I’m reliably informed/have it from my sources that the increase in cases in Clackmannanshire was down to the local Sevco Loyal running riot after the recent triumphalism!!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:50 pm - May 26, 2021


https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19329152.rangers-administrator-says-valuing-club-16m-waste-money-sevco-got-nothing/
…………………………………..
A former Rangers administrator has insisted valuing the club brand was a “waste of money” after it emerged that it was effectively given away for nothing before being valued at £16m.

Paul Clark, who was one of the joint administrators of Rangers when the club financially imploded in 2012, has spoken out as he and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps are being made sued for £56.8m by Rangers oldco liquidators BDO which says their flawed cost-cutting strategy meant creditors lost millions from the handling of the club’s financial implosion.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:54 pm - May 26, 2021


vernallen 26th May 2021 At 02:27
…………………………….
Last time it was reported there was a spike and that police attending the first carnage had reported an increase in officers with covid positive who had attended.
Not heard much reported this time though.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:05 pm - May 26, 2021


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56465540
Dozens of police officers have been forced to self-isolate after some positive Covid cases two weeks after Rangers’ title win.

The Scottish Police Federation (SPF) said a number of officers who attended illegal gatherings of fans on 7 March have tested positive.
……………………………….
To late to Edit.

View Comment

bect67Posted on8:59 pm - May 26, 2021


Albertz11

See Cluster One’s post @ 18.05.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:39 pm - May 26, 2021


Bect67
March ?

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:37 pm - May 26, 2021


Glasgow and area are extremely lucky to have escaped a spike in covid case since the two George Square demonstrations. Has testing continued to see if the virus is spreading or has testing fallen off. Where I live we were in relatively good shape and boom a rash of outbreaks saw us having cases numbering in the 100’s on a daily basis. This led to a rush of testing which taxed the system greatly. Cases are now falling in dramatic fashion and so has the testing numbers. These items make it difficult to get a true reading on what’s actually going on. The post regarding the number of police self isolating was interesting. Would this lead to another unseen cost attributed to the demonstrations. If you have a number of officers off surely the overtime must have been available in abundance. Just another cost someone has to bear in relation to the demonstrations.

View Comment

LurkioPosted on12:07 pm - May 27, 2021


https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/790.html

The SDIR v TRFC case was an appeal by SDIR to confirm that TRFC could not profit from the Elite/Hummel deal. TRFC had interpreted an earlier injunction differently from SDIR and sought to sue Elite for monies due.

The three judges concluded, by a majority decision, to accept the SDIR appeal and their interpretation of the earlier injunction.

View Comment

Comments are closed.