Here we go again

Posted on 12/03/2021 by Trisidium

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?

1,142 thoughts on “Here we go again”

John Clark on 21/06/2021 at 13:53 said:

“Mr Young: Can’t just attach brand to an under 19 boys’ club and lo and behold it’s ‘Rangers’.”
+++++++++++
And,of course, you can’t attach the brand to a CG/SFA newly created in 2012 and lo and behold it’s the undead but Liquidated RFC of 1872!!
The sheer nonsense and deceit of it all is still mind-boggling, and the suspicion that there was all kinds of dirty work being done at sophisticated levels of governance…
fitbawfan on 21/06/2021 at 16:10 said:

Buteo Buteo 21st June 2021 At 10:17

The Premiership Support Fund was £20million then was increased to £25.2million, clubs can also appeal for more loans until the end of July.

====

Anyone else getting glitches on the site blocking your posts and asking you to fill in your email address for admin ?
Albertz11 on 21/06/2021 at 19:22 said:

Fitbawfan 21st June 16.10

Whilst clubs can appeal for further loans they are capped at the total losses & additional costs the clubs faced as a result of the pandemic.
The loans are interest free and are to be repaid in equal monthly installments beginning in September 2022 continuing until August 2042.
normanbatesmumfc on 22/06/2021 at 11:59 said:

Wokingcelt 21st June 2021 At 12:10
3 0 Rate This

@HS – got to feel for the boy.
Is it just me or does Scotland’s record for COVID instances in their bubble poorer than other nations?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Maybe they should have followed The Rangers systems and protocols which appear to have been 100% effective!!!

A belated “many thanks” to JC for his court reports and general indefatigable resolution. Oh that there were more like him…..
John Clark on 22/06/2021 at 14:54 said:

Normanbatesmumfc 22nd June 2021 At 11:59
‘.. Oh that there were more like him……’
++++++++++++
Oh, I’d much rather that the spurious nonsense that there is any legal and sporting continuity between RFC of 1872 as a football club and the club newly admitted to Scottish Football in 2012 would be recognised for what it is: deceitful balderdash dreamed up by deceivers and endorsed ,by panicky ,faithless weaklings in football governance ,for despicable commercial reasons.

Bad cess may the whole farce bring upon them all!
vernallen on 22/06/2021 at 22:51 said:

I’m hoping that my hearing hasn’t tricked me in regards to the following. I’ve watched the three Scotland games and felt I heard the national anthems of the opposing teams being booed. Not sure if the opposition fans were sufficient in attendance to be heard, but it definitely sounded to me like booing. In the England game it felt/sounded like both anthems were booed. Glad to hear or receive any clarification on this. If it was booing, and hopefully it wasn’t, it certainly detracts from the overall atmosphere.
John Clark on 22/06/2021 at 23:13 said:

My post of22nd June 2021 At 14:54
‘ Bad cess may the whole farce bring upon them all’
++++++++++++++
And by ‘them all’ I meant only the wretches in the SFA and SPL and TRFC/RIFC plc who so sold out on sporting integrity!

NOT the Scottish national football team or its manager. Our players and management team are free of any involvement in the duplicity and cheatery of the governance bodies and deserve the utmost credit for their endeavours. I have no criticism to make of them, they can hold their heads high in honourable defeat.

No shame in that, as compared with the shame of the Governance bodies in supporting a ridiculous childish untruth that betrayed a level of sport corruption that is , frankly, unforgiveable, and ranks with any of the reported CAS cases of football authorities’ abuse of office that I have read .

We have to remember that a fish rots from the head!
If the current ‘head’ endorses the rot created by a former ‘head’ , the rot is still there.

For as long as the SPFL and the SFA continue to propagate the untruth that TRFC is 149 years old, the rot continues.
Anything that the SFA has to say as a governance body has to be viewed as with a lie detector.
upthehoops on 23/06/2021 at 10:16 said:

Fitbawfan 21st June 2021 At 16:10

Anyone else getting glitches on the site blocking your posts and asking you to fill in your email address for admin ?

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

I contacted Big Pink about this and he advised to fill it in. It allows them to ‘whitelist’ your e-mail address.
upthehoops on 23/06/2021 at 10:24 said:

Albertz11 20th June 2021 At 10:07

Upthehoops 15th June 17.00.

Simply not true i’m afraid.

Amounts borrowed were as follows.

Rangers £3,200,000
Aberdeen £ 3,119,000
Motherwell £ 2,959,000
Hibernian £2,882,000
Dundee U £ 2,818,000
St Johnstone £ 2,600,000
Kilmarnock £ 1,828,000
Livingston £ 1,783,000
St Mirren £ 1,764,000
Ross County £ 1,158,000
Hamilton £ 1,151,000
Celtic Nil

+++++++++++++++++++=

I was simply posing a question based on the info available at the time. What you have posted here was not available at that time.

What I am really struggling to grasp is why Celtic did not access a completely interest free loan which does not have to be repaid until 2044? It is truly baffling.
Westcoaster on 23/06/2021 at 11:04 said:

UTH – “What I am really struggling to grasp is why Celtic did not access a completely interest free loan which does not have to be repaid until 2044? It is truly baffling.”

At first glance UTH you make a valid point. Perhaps to access the loan clubs had to demonstrate that they had no access to further banking finance facilities? Celtic, as a PLC, had informed the market that they had increased their overdraft facilities in their last annual report as a prudent contingency given the projected impact of the evolving COVID crisis. Could that have worked against them?
normanbatesmumfc on 23/06/2021 at 12:10 said:

Westcoaster 23rd June 2021 At 11:04
0 0 Rate This

UTH – “What I am really struggling to grasp is why Celtic did not access a completely interest free loan which does not have to be repaid until 2044? It is truly baffling.”

At first glance UTH you make a valid point. Perhaps to access the loan clubs had to demonstrate that they had no access to further banking finance facilities? Celtic, as a PLC, had informed the market that they had increased their overdraft facilities in their last annual report as a prudent contingency given the projected impact of the evolving COVID crisis. Could that have worked against them?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Or maybe they just wanted to help their “partner in sporting corruption” to get more cheap money. Unless and until CFC publicly denounce the nonsense that TRFC are the same club as RFC, I will see them as jointly corrupt, along with the SFA and SPFL.
Albertz11 on 23/06/2021 at 12:59 said:

Upthehoops 23rd June 10.24.

What info & from which source was there ” a lot of talk”?

By stating that “Rangers accessed £3.2 million while every other club got £1.6 million” allied to “Why was the extra £1.6 million not offered equally among all other clubs instead of being given in whole to just one” the clear inference was that Rangers benefited at the expense of others which is clearly untrue.
John Clark on 23/06/2021 at 13:27 said:

Normanbatesmumfc 23rd June 2021 At 12:10
‘…maybe they just wanted to help their “partner in sporting corruption” ‘
++++++++++++++++++
Certainly the extreme unwillingness of the Celtic board to INSIST on an independent investigation ( perhaps even by the police) into the granting of a UEFA competitions licence to RFC showed a casual readiness to let a few million quid get out of their grasp ,while stringing along the Res 12 guys almost as contemptuously as SDM spat on the board, shareholders and fans of RFC plc.
It would not surprise me if you turned out to be right.
wokingcelt on 23/06/2021 at 22:24 said:

@Normanbatesmumfc
Or perhaps Celtic took the view that they did not need the support from the UK taxpayer – there is no free money, someone has to pay. Many big corporates have returned monies received during the pandemic earlier than required. Others refused to draw down on what was available.
Personally I think corporations taking taxpayer money when not needed may well make economic sense but perhaps not morally acceptable.
Football clubs loading up on government loans when not needed when school kids go hungry…not a good look
vernallen on 23/06/2021 at 22:34 said:

Will Rangers be doing a new share issue, whip around on a monthly basis to repay the 3.2 million. By my calculations that works out to about 13,333 per month over the term. That might be a salary for at least one and maybe two players. Interesting comments on Porto’s dealings with Rangers re: Morelos. Numbers quoted are a long way from what the Ibrox bosses think he’s worth. Also worth noting a clause regarding discipline. And the Rangers want the fee up front unlike the normal 3 year installments. It’s encouraging to see they are getting near to self sufficiency.
John Clark on 24/06/2021 at 00:33 said:

My post at 13.27 today:
a typo: in line 4,’spat ‘ should read ‘s*at’
And how that guy could pull the strings of the SMSM !
Even though his vain boasting and cheating was the cause of death of the Rangers of my grandfather’s day [the Rangers recently described as a ‘footballing, political, social and religious phenomenon’] SDM escaped all blame or shame, while ensuring that his personal fortunes were untouched.

The shte Whyte’s shte was as nothing compared with the excrement dumped on Rangers by SDM-who walked away smelling still of the succulent lamb that he fed to the fawning, truth-twisting ,self-styled ‘journalists’ of the SMSM.
Honest to God, even this many years later, there can be no forgiveness for those ‘journalists’
And, of course, no forgiveness for those in Scottish Football ‘Governance ‘who so disgracefully abased themselves and abused their office by creating the untruth of ‘continuity Rangers’ even though they themselves had insisted that CG’s new club had to to apply for admission as a new club!
Oh, the pernicious nonsense of it all!
We are being told to live with a lie. In a matter of sport?
What is the point, if the sport is rigged?
If the sporting honours of a dead entity can be attributed to and cashed in on by a newly created club trying to market itself as being a hunnert and forty years old?
Gie’s a break!
Everybody knows, KNOWS, that TRFC is not, cannot possibly be, the RFC that is in Liquidation awaiting dissolution whenever the Liquidators conclude the liquidation formalities.

I’m hoping that Lord Tyre will find in favour of BDO, and that D&P made an arse of the Administration. [which I think they did]

I doubt though, that the judgment will result in the award of the full financial claim made by BDO.
nawlite on 24/06/2021 at 13:34 said:

You may remember I had complained to the BBC following their 6.30 news report of 8 March, where they referred to Rangers’ ‘relegation’. After they had acknowledged the inaccuracy but refused to broadcast an apology/correction I took it further to their Executive Complaints Unit. Today I received the following reply.

“Dear Mr (me)

Reporting Scotland (6.30pm), BBC One Scotland, 8 March 2021

I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Executive Complaints Unit’s investigation into your recent complaint about the headline on the above edition of Reporting Scotland. I am sorry this has taken longer than we initially led you to expect. I have taken you central point to be that it was inaccurate to refer to Rangers FC’s “journey from financial collapse and relegation back to the top of the Scottish game”. I also note you believe it is necessary that “the BBC broadcast an apology to the same audience it had misled”.

As you are aware, BBC Scotland has acknowledged the wording used by the presenter in the headline at the start of the programme was incorrect, in that the club was not relegated. In 2012 Rangers FC, under the new ownership of Charles Green, had its application to join the Scottish Premier League rejected and had to apply to join what was then the Scottish Football League. The club was offered a place in the Third Division. I think it is worth noting the subsequent report by Chris McLaughlin gave an accurate summary of the situation. I appreciate you think further action is required but we would usually only consider a broadcast correction to be necessary when the inaccuracy in question has resulted in serious unfairness to an individual or organisation, or when it is so material to the issues under discussion that it has a significant effect on the audience’s understanding. Neither of those conditions applies here. I therefore believe the action taken is sufficient for me to regard this matter as having been appropriately resolved.

I should explain that the Executive Complaints Unit publishes the outcome of its investigations every fortnight and a summary of our finding in this case will be published in the complaints section of the BBC website, bbc.co.uk, later today. This ensures the error you identified will be corrected as a matter of public record. I hope that goes some way towards addressing your concern and I would like to apologise, on behalf of the BBC, for the lapse in editorial standards on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel
Head of the Executive Complaints Unit”

The following is what will be published in the BBC Complaints section of their website.

“Reporting Scotland (6.30pm), BBC One Scotland, 8 March 2021

Complaint

A viewer objected to the presenter’s reference to Glasgow Rangers FC’s “journey from financial collapse and relegation back to the top of the Scottish game” on the basis that the club had not been relegated in the course of this process. The ECU considered the complaint in relation to the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

Outcome

In 2012 Rangers FC, under new ownership, had its application to join the Scottish Premier League rejected and had to apply to join what was then the Scottish Football League, resulting in the offer of a place in the Third Division. This differs from relegation, which is the transfer of a club from one division of a league to a lower one. In the context of the club’s recent history, the difference is a material one, and the ECU judged that the reference to relegation fell short of the BBC’s standards of due accuracy in news programming of this kind. However, it noted that the situation had been accurately summarised in the report which followed the presenter’s introduction, and that BBC Scotland had acknowledged the inaccuracy in correspondence with the complainant. In the light of these factors, the ECU considered the issue of complaint to have been resolved.”

To be honest, the wording is pretty much what I had hoped might be broadcast to the 6.30 news audience, so I’m happy enough with the wording, though I still feel it IS appropriate that they should broadcast the correction – the BBC should NOT be happy at misleading its audience imo.

The good news is that because it took them so long to reply, I had already referred the matter to Ofcom some weeks back. Apparently, they deal with the company complained about and don’t respond to the complainer so I’m not sure I will be able to update much.
John Clark on 24/06/2021 at 17:20 said:

Nawlite 24th June 2021 At 13:34′
‘.You may remember I had complained to the BBC following their 6.30 news report of 8 March, ””
+++++++++++++++++
Very, very well done , Nawlite, on forcing the BBC to correct an incorrect report.

The determination to continue to maintain the Big Lie is still there though, in the glib use of the phrase “In 2012 Rangers FC, under new ownership, ” as if CG had become the owner of ‘Rangers’ , buying it out of Administration.
Their bloody-minded refusal to acknowledge that TRFC is not and cannot possibly be the Rangers FC that entered Liquidation shows what contempt they have for Truth and/or how much they are in sympathy with such as those who prate on about a ‘footballing, social, political religious phenomenon’ or in fear of repercussions if they tell the truth that by definition a football club admitted into Scottish football in 2012 cannot be ‘Rangers’ of 1872.
Albertz11 on 24/06/2021 at 18:56 said:

Nawlite 24th June 13.34

The subject matter and processes involved were covered in the Kinloch v Coral case.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Rod McKenzie’s evidence (69) 8,9,10 explains this in detail.
fitbawfan on 24/06/2021 at 19:02 said:

UTH thanks i was trying to post and reply to thank you and was continually banned, it may be sorted now, it was banning me from posting for the last 3 days, although it fixed itself once then next day the same “Due to spam You are banned from posting”

Strange error as i don’t like spam/chopped pork
bigboab1916 on 24/06/2021 at 22:40 said:

“…I appreciate you think further action is required but we would usually only consider a broadcast correction to be necessary when the inaccuracy in question has resulted in serious unfairness to an individual or organisation, or when it is so material to the issues under discussion that it has a significant effect on the audience’s understanding.”

Do they mean like when someone actually hears them referring to something that he personally took to court only to be told did not happen, so Mr Albert Kinloch would simply understand on hearing that the BBC was talking shite and would not feel aggrieved to hear the lie been spoken.
A former bookmaker who sued a betting chain for £250,000 winnings over Rangers relegation has lost the action after a judge ruled his wager was “a losing bet”. Albert Kinloch placed £100 on the Ibrox club being relegated from the SPL in 2011 and was given odds of 2500/1 by Coral Racing
Big Pink on 25/06/2021 at 13:58 said:

Sorry about the spam blocker folks. If you ask for an exemption, we should pick it up and grant the exemption.
I will see if I can add all registered emails to Whitelist sometime over weekend.
HirsutePursuit on 25/06/2021 at 21:36 said:

Nawlight
Might be worth replying to correct the correction.

Rangers FC did not apply to join the SFL.

Until 3rd August 2012 the SFA still recognised The Rangers Football Club plc as an association football club and (in SPL terms) the owner and operator of the Club called Rangers.

Sevco Scotland Ltd applied and was granted associate membership of the SFL on the 13th July. Membership of the SFL automatically gave Sevco Scotland Ltd registered membership of the SFA. It is worth noting that the SFL had no artificial construct that sought to separate the company from the association football club. Sevco Scotland Ltd was the association football club.

It is also worth noting that the SFA rules forbid clubs from using the same name (or similar) as another club in registered membership without SFA board approval.

As Rangers remained a member of the SPL (and therefore a registered member of the SFA) at the time Sevco Scotland Ltd became a registered member of the SFA, it is simply untrue to say that any entity calling itself Rangers FC applied to join the SFL.

Sevco Scotland Ltd could only use the Rangers name following the board meeting of 27th July, when the board gave conditional approval to the transfer of Rangers full SFA membership to Sevco Scotland Ltd. That transfer did not take place until the 3rd August.

It was only then that The Rangers Football Club plc ceased to be recognised as an association football club.

The new association football club, Sevco Scotland Ltd (given permission to play using the name Rangers FC just two days earlier), played its first ever match against Brechin City on the 29th July.
wokingcelt on 26/06/2021 at 23:36 said:

@HP – that’s got me thinking (not always a good idea)… what about recognising “Sevco Day” as the 29th of July… a social media extravaganza, things you didn’t know about Sevco, a “This is your life (Whyte/Green/King/et al). Maybe get Simon @ Garfunkel to record “54 ways to lose your titles”. You get the idea. Make it a celebration of all things that make Scottish Football so unique (having just witnessed Wales yet again do something we have been incapable of).
Someone posted on here about a fish rotting from the head – SFA Leadership and Scotland’s failure to make an impact on the world stage – go figure!
John Clark on 26/06/2021 at 23:50 said:

I’ve just got round to typing up some of the evidence of Mrs Bell.
It’s a slow, slow process for the likes of a ten-thumbed auld eejit like me. But since I’ve got some manuscript material that may as well be in print and that some readers who have never attended any kind of real life Court proceedings might find of interest, I put it on here.
Nobody is required to read it!

BDO v RFC 2012 plc(IL)
Day 11 , 20 May 2021

“ Lord Tyre: Good morning.Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty QC: Good morning, m’ Lord. I have two preliminary points to mention. First , that there is a difference in some figures due to different bases of calculation. That has been sorted out.
Second, there is an additional agreed spreadsheet.The original was lodged by the Respondents, and then there was another, and one was chucked out, buut the wrong one, mistakenly chucked out by me. I apologise for that.
Lord Tyre: Any problem, Mr Young?
Mr Young: No, m’Lord. The spreadsheet just needs to be given a number.
Lord Tyre: That will be done ? Okay.
Mr Young: Yes,m’Lord. Now, m’Lord, I want to introduce Sarah Bell.
Lord Tyre: [addressing the witness] Can I ask you whether you are Mrs or Miss..how you prefer to be addressed?
Bell: As ‘Mrs’ , m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Thank you, Mrs Bell. [ there followed the usual questions about being alone, undisturbed, phone on silent, and the administration of the Oath] Mr Young?
QC: Mrs Bell, [usual confirmation of name, age,address, occupation [ Insolvency Practitioner], and that the signature on the written statements made by her were indeed hers, and that she had had opportunity to read them and was content to have them as her evidence subject to anything she might say today: then] The background section of your statement Mrs Bell, up to February 2012 had you acted as an Insolvency Practitioner? In how many cases by then?
Mrs B: In the hundreds.
QC: When did you start?
Mrs B: about 4 years before.
QC: No experience of football administrations;how bout more complex administrations?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: for example? Such as..
Mrs B: Multiple, complex.
QC: Just to get a feel for your experience..?
Mrs B:[ ed: what I scribbled reads “ Duff and Phelps on the large side,but some fairly substantial..”]
QC:You were operating below the Administrators but above the others?
Mrs B: Yes. I was senior to Jimmy, Simon , Peter and Charles.
QC: Thank you, Mrs Bell.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty: Good morning, Mrs Bell. The extent of your involvement: you joined about the 27th?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: And you were sometimes out of the office? 5th to 11th, you recall?The 5th was the day after the best and final offers?
Mrs B: Yes
QC:14.10, 15.1 ….and France 4th May to 8th May?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: 21st May to 6th June, which was after the deal with Sevco?-recall?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: You sat above the routine work …Agree?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Involved in managing the action within Collyer Bristow and Ticketus?
Mrs B: Yes’
.
QC: And also ‘Deal Bureau’
Mrs B: Yes, discussions about..
QC: Player wage-cuts -limited involvement?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Football issues, Paul Clark and Simon Shipperlee?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: From the fourth of April, the last day for best and final bids, to twelfth of May I see you only 4 meetings that you attended: 18 April, with HMRC ; 18 April with Bill Miller; 27 April with Murdo Fraser; 10 May with KPMG. Accurate?
Mrs B: These were immediately related to my statement: I may have attended other meetings.
QC: According to the time-sheets, you were involved relatively less than others
Mrs B: Correct
QC: 488 hours against 966 for Simon Shipperlee, 771 for Peter Hart ..agree?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Were the panels kept up to speed?
Mrs B: No, not at all.
QC: Were you frustrated by that?
MrsB: I don’t recall
QC: One email, p 4337, from Steven Kerr copied to Simon Shipperlee PeterHart and Ramsay Smith,Platt “ Mr R has asked me to send you ..( this was in connection with a press release 7 March)…. “ David Whitehouse …club in perilous situation unable to agree cost-cutting from the playing staff faced with making redundancies that will seriously …” Agree?
Mrs B Agreed.
QC: p.4337, email: forwarded to you, your response “ I’m always last to know” ?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: [ ed: missed the question]
Mrs B: It was a tongue-in-cheek remark to an extent
QC: : Why?
Mrs B: Sometimes you’re embroiled in meetings, situations may change when you out.
QC: pra 12.21 page 562 of the ‘witness statement’ bundle ( to Mr Hyde:Mr Hyde, move up to 561, please) we see 21st /22nd April, late on Sunday night; just read it to yourself ,please
Mrs B: [having read it] Yes.
QC: HMRC wanted alterations to say that they wanted to appoint the liquidator if Liquidation was the outcome?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: p.726, vol 4. email from David Grier to Paul Gilhooley[ed:of HMRC] and copied Friday 20 April 11.46 a.m. Would you read that ,please? “ Paul, further to……set out our position.. HMRC…Administrators are trying to achieve a liquidation…” Do you know why Grier would say that?
Mrs B: I can’t speak for Grier. Do you want my interpretation?
QC: yes.
Mrs B: HMRC had felt their role was on behalf of the taxpayer, to look for a commercial outcome but also people had to look to the question of non-compliance.They felt that a Liquidation would enable them to hold people to account.
QC: HMRC had a need for a commercial outcome, and an investigation?
Mrs B: yes.
QC: Seeking modification about proposals re Liquidaors: Grier says “ we have no objection to HMRC liquidators” but he nevertheless is expressing disappointment in the stance of HMRC?
Mrs B: Agreed.
QC: How do we square Grier’s view with your view that HMRC were helpful?
Mrs B: When we were drafting it became clear that HMRC would want to appoint the liquidators.In my view from a fan PR point of view it would be better for an outside Liquidation.
QC: Your personal view? Not shared by David Grier?
Mrs B: There was some debate within HMRC about which Liquidators.When they settled on BDO I thought that was a good thing.
QC: I don’t think you answered my question: it wsn’t shared by Grier?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: What about others on the team?
Mrs B: On reflection, that it was a good perception, that HMRC choice ws good.
QC: But David grier expressed the view that it would create negative PR, from the Duff and Phelps perpestive. Agreed?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: What difference did it make to D&P which Liquidator was appointed?
Mrs B: That seemed to me to be a question of timing.We said we had no objection to who the Liquidators should be.But it was an objection to the timing of implementation.
QC: What was Mr Whitehouse’s view of it?
Mrs B: Both he and Mr Clark were content.
QC: Vol 4, page 755: David Whitehouse to Paul Gilhooley 28 April “ Paul apologies for heated call, see below.” You had a close working relationship at the time.’
Mrs B: Obviously I know him’
QC: Was it unusual for ‘heated calls’ between Whitehouse and others?
Mrs B: Yes, unusual.
QC: page 756, email from J Roberts copied to J Saunders, to Mike Baird, about revised wording,
17 Res.3[ed: that’s what I jotted down ?] about appointment “ If there’s to be a CVL it is proposed that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark be appointed as joint liquidators”
Mrs B: Yes, that it may not be HMRC.
QC: page 756, at the top: response from Baird “ HMRC content with the appointment of liquidators” referring to the email of 20 April: “heated call” based on the fact HMRC were naaming another Liquidator?
Mrs B: I could see why, but I can’t comment on the ‘heated call’
QC: Vol 4, page 761 John Bradshaw , solicitor, for HMRC to David Whitehouse, copied to you .. “ modification stands, now reds “ the Liquidators to be appointed are BDO. I note your frustration”. S So David Whitehouse was expressing frustration?
Mrs B; at the timing.
QC:How to square with…[ed: missed the end of the question]
Mrs B: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: I must press you.At tht stage D&P wanted only n acknowledgement that ….
Mrs B: It was not for D&P to appoint. We jut wanted a substantial Liquidator.’
QC: But they wanted BDO. What we re seeing is Whitehouse epressing frustration.
Mrs B: We had no objection other than to the timing.
QC: Well, we’ll just have to disagree.
Let’s go back to12.21 of the witness statement.
Mrs B: [ apparently not heaaring] Hello?
QC: Vol ,page 972, apologies Mr Hyde, top of the page , email from Simon Shipperlee copied to you 22 April at 22.57 “ my reservation is that this could be interpreted as disapproval of D&P. Do you agree?
Mrs B: No doubt that could be an interpretation
QC: You knew from early April that Liquidators were to be appointed?-Sunday night 22 April?
Mrs B: We had gone from disppointment, it was a good thing.
QC: Isn’t that a gloss?
Mrs B: It’s my view.
QC: But you hadn’t mentioned other .
Friday 4 May “ this was the day we received a [?] from Sevco5088.”
That’s not right ; Clark to C Green 22 May “ Thank you for..” Paul Clark must have met on 2 May.
Vol 4, p 2192 we see there an email from Charles Walder Wednesday 2 May “non-discloure agreement….” It looks as though by Wednesday 2 May discussions with Charles Green had been had.
If we go back toyour witness statement, you’re wrong about that date?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Redundancies of non-playing staff:
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Para 3.18,page 524, 3.17 last sentence ‘heads of departments carried out an assessment ..asked for evidence’ Agreed?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The evidence was a meeting at Ibrox and Murray Park at the same time on 1 March; look at
Vol 2 para 2308- an email from you to Peter Hart 29 February at 1.17 pm “ Thank you…”
Your response at 1.33 “ We need to identify…”
So, as at 1.32 you had not identified specific staff, and at 1.36 “ I was not aware that non-playing staff were agreed”
You say at 1.48 “ I think this is the way we’re going”
Do you agree?
Mrs B: Peter was saying we didn’t have a specific list
QC:It’s on the 29 February ‘you think’. Until this time it wasn’t clear that non-playing staff would be made redundant.?
Mrs B: [ ed: begn to try to disagree , but stopped short and said ]….Yes.
QC: At 4.10 pm on the same afternoon there was a meeting of the heads of departments, vol 2,p 2721, Simon Shipperlee’s note- “ PJC, SMS, Andrew.., Donna McLelland ..” PJC re redundandancies “ JG difficult -no parameters” Then a list..
So, a contradiction between what you say and what occurred on….
Mrs B: Quite often decisions are made quite quickly.
QC: [ed: completely missed what he said/asked]
Mrs B: I have nothing to say to [ ed: I have a scribble that might conceivably be ‘that’, but looks more like ‘Rat’ with a capital ‘R’,as maybe the first part of a name which I didn’t quite catch?]
QC: You said [ ed: again, I missed the question and any response]
QC: Andrew Dickson. He says staff increased 2010/2011
Lord Tyre: I think we should have a break now for the transcriber, and a comfort break for everybody. 20 minutes till ten to twelve.

On Resumption at 11.50,
Mr McBrearty; [ addressing Mrs B who is still in the ‘witness box’] Playing staff redundanies, non-playing staff redundancies- ? [ ed: missed his question]
Mrs B: I am.
QC: but primarily for Paul Clark?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: There were numerous meetings in which you were not involved?
Mrs B: But ultimately I went over to Murray Park
QC: Simon Shipperlee would be better placed to speak on that?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: If we look at 3.19 of your statement “ if there had not been wage deduction they’d have to find another way”?
Mrs B: They’d have to consider it.
QC: There would have been other ways to get to the end of the season?
Mrs B: Yes

QC : [quoting] “ ..avoided the need to lose the best players”?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The strategy at the time to make the club attractive?
Mrs B: A mix of …
QC: …had you lost the best players?
Mrs B:Yes
QC: A weaker send [ ed: I think that’s what my scribble reads] if a CVA?
Mrs B: Your point wouldn’t hold good, because playerss could walk away as free agents/
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: If we look at para 3.20, “ I had limited involvement in the sale of players”?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Simon Shipperlee would be better than you to talk about this?
Mrs B: Yes
QC [ quoting] “ Widely known that the company was seeking to sell players”, a strategy of retaining players. How was it widely known?
Mrs B: [ed: completely missed what she said
QC: What you mean is that you might be known to be in Administration: that’s different from ‘widely known’ that you were selling players?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: email of 2 March, discussion re redundancies or wage deductions. You work in the same office as David Whitehouse?
Mrs B: I hadn’t worked with him closely but only on a couple of assignments.
QC: Who might attend a meeting with fans: Whitehouse suggested you ‘one of David’s own people’
Mrs B: I’m not quite sure what I’m answering?
QC: Close working relationship.
Mrs B: David has respect for everybody.
QC: p3740 , email from David Whitehouse to Ramsay Smith, to you, and Paul Clark but to no one else: “ ..core issue , player costs… any monies from Collyer Bristow could be months away.. costs must come down…. the purpose of Administration is to restructure.”
Mrs B:Yes
QC; Whitehouse is expressing a desire to make redundancies in order to restructure?
Mrs B: Yes..
QC: You agree with my interpretation?
Mrs B: At that point in time.
QC: p..5.86[ ed: not entirely sure I heard that accurately] 3 March , 9.27 a.m. Email to Paul Clark
“ ..cash flow does not make pretty reading. Player cuts the backbone..” Eligibility for Europe?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Rangers then not playing in Europe?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: looking to the future? “Player sales the backbone”?
Mrs B: Yes, no viability..
QC: You must have been talking about redundancies rather than wage cuts?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: a company would inherit.. [ ed: missed the question]
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Paul Clark to David Whitehouse “ looks like a big cock-up”[Mrs Bell reads ]
QC: From Whitehouse to you alone “ Looks like a big cock-up”
+++++++++
I’ll try to get the rest of that evidence session typed up over the next day or two.
Remember, though, that I have heard only some of the ‘evidence’ , and even at that only over a phone-line, while Mrs C may have been creating interruptive domestic noise!
Lord Tyre [sharp as a tack] has heard all the evidence.
And, of course, he knows what the Law is as regards the legal duties of Administrators under the Insolvency Act.

I suppose that what I’m saying is that I am reporting objectively what I heard in so far as I heard it accurately, but that I have not, unlike the judge, heard everything.
I am sharing what I heard, no more, no less.
For why?
because Truth is what I have sought in the whole ‘saga’.
John Clark on 27/06/2021 at 00:22 said:

Wokingcelt 26th June 2021 At 23:36
‘.. what about recognising “Sevco Day”’
++++++++++
Aye, okay.. but , eh, which Sevco?
Sevco5088 ? which some inebriated charlatan is, apparently , allegedly, recorded as having told Craig Whyte that he is Sevco
Or Sevcoscotland, of the ‘novation’?
The lying sods are entrammelled in their own lies.
Honest to God!
That we should be expected to accept the lies and believe that our football governance is honest?
No way,
John Clark on 27/06/2021 at 17:02 said:

My post of 26th June 2021 At 23:50:
For those interested, here is some more of Mrs Bell’s evidence’ continued :

“QC: From Whitehouse to you alone “ Looks like a big cock-up. Can we go through the forecasts in the morning? ”?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: So the question of why a ‘big cock-up” would be natural?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: A significant .[?]. for you, big assignment..?
Mrs B: Very high profile, but not personal
QC: “big cock-up”? You must remember? Share with us.
Mrs B: David shoots from the hip- ‘we’re going to have a review ‘
QC: It means a big mistake.
Mrs B: [ed: missed her reply]
QC: Did David Whitehouse explain?
Mrs B: No
QC: Very odd?
Mrs B: I agree. It’s a typical way David speaks… ‘this looks like it hasn’t worked’
QC: You knew it was a mistake.
Mrs B: I disagree
QC: Look at para 6.8 of your statement,please
Mrs B:[reads quietly] Okay.
QC: Now, the last line “ We therefore felt these release clauses..” Was this an outcome of discussion that you were involved in?There is no reference to refer to?
Mrs B: [ed:missed her reply]
QC: the buy-out clauses were reasonable?
Mrs B: ..to enable continue trading …
QC: So, wage reduction so as to avoid redundancies?
Mrs B: And get to the end of the eason.
QC: The effect of the buy-out clauses was to reduce the value ..asset worth
Buy out clause allows him to leave ….
The Liquidators should have made redundancies early.
You didn’t arrive until 20th?
Mrs B: [ ed: said something too indistinct for me to capture]
QC: You are critical of the Football Authorities, on page 522? You’re unhappy at the SFA and SPL being unhelpful if there was a purchase of the assets by Newco?
Mrs B: We’re looking for clarity and how the SFA and SPL would see matters going forward, and where meetings were required re certain rule changes should be made.At one point, sanctions which were appealed any time we thought we could go forward with a club.
QC: You’re not suggesting ‘engineered’? Lot of pressure, competition?
Mrs B: [ed: didn’t catch what she may have said]
QC: certainly very bad if one of the main revenue sources [ed: lost what he said] The SPL and the SFA refute your suggestion, and say they were dealing with an unprecedented situation.
Mrs B: Why ‘unprecedented’?
QC: They were looking at a Newco….
Mrs B: I agree
[ ed: my manuscript next has this :

QC: Rod McKenzie knew of no other ..
It was not his job to advise..
B ]

[I cannot now tell whether the words ‘it was not his job to advise’ were said by Mr McBrearty or whether they should be attributed to ‘B’ ( i.e Mrs B) ]
QC : These regulatory considerations .[ ?].. but only in the same way as other difficult administrations. Agree?
Mrs B: Agree
QC: HMRC’s attitude- there was need for commercial return and Liquidation?
MrsB: Yes
QC: You said that at no point did they say that they would oppose or support a CVA but might go down the liquidation route. Did you ever meet Mr Whyte?
MrsB: 99% not.
QC: Did he have a glowing reputation?
Mrs B: I would say not.
QC: Page 540 of your statement- apologies, page 534 at the bottom; Monday 12 March , a call from Collyer Bristow and “ how best to deal with CW, major owner of Rangers Football Group: fans wanted him to have no part..” Balance between? Agreed?
Mrs B: Agreed.
QC: Without a transferof shares, a CVA couldn’t work?
MrsB: Agreed.
QC: Two days later, an email from you to DW, PC and Saunders “ we really need to…” As at 14 March you identify the need to deal with Whyte with some urgency.Did you also have concerns over Whyte’s control of the bidding process, not controlling, but were cognisant of his leverage?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: And Ticketus?
Mrs B: Yes; that scenario was a concern
QC: We know that the Ticketus matter was resolved on 23 March. But Ticketus were claiming to have control over the shares, Mr Whyte’s ‘personal guarantee’ to Ticketus.
Mrs B: If the guarantee was true….
QC: Two bidders in discussion with Ticketus…
Mrs B: Blue Knights and Ticketus…
QC: Singapore with Ticketus?
Mrs B: Possibly.
QC: You don’t have a good handle on all these movements. Lots of intereted parties who said they might speak to Whyte.
One email, Vol 3 p. 3560 3 April [ the date for best and final bids was 4 April] from you to Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, Charles Walder. “ RFC Group Ltd shares: need to nip in the bud if CW agreed to transfer his shares…” ?
Mrs B: We weren’t sure if anyone had a binding .[?]. we needed clarity.
QC: “ left with only one option”? Only one option that you could deal with, all others would drop out?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: it comes back to Craig Whyte controlling the process.In effect, he might have been in control of which bidder was successful?
Mrs B: vague…
QC: An email from you to DW, PC, Saunders, Walder, Simon Shipperlee and Peter Hart..two weeks on
“ this would be a…. we have to acknowledge that Ticketus are in the strongest position to deliver the shares” ?
Mrs B: We are making assumptions- I don’t recll seeing the ‘personal guarantee’
QC: that is, Craig Whyte had control, and you don’t know what Ticketus can do. Why not give Ticketus a deadline, then go with the Blue Knights and Singapore or Bill Miller…?
Mrs B: because that’s who was arguing with Ticketus.
QC: Singapore unhappy..?
Mrs B: We have to go with the only bidder..
QC: You might end up with no ‘going concern’, a Liquidation?
Mrs B: We aimed to move things forward..
QC: You also did not have limitless time: wage reductions were coming an end at the end of May?

Lord Tyre: We’ll break now and resume at 1.50 ”
+++++++++++
There are another eleven pages of manuscript scrawl of Mrs B’s evidence session to come.
paddy malarkey on 27/06/2021 at 19:21 said:

Thanks , JC . Wiped out the rest of your TU’s again , though !
John Clark on 27/06/2021 at 21:41 said:

Paddy Malarkey 27th June 2021 At 19:21
‘.. Wiped out the rest of your TU’s…’
++++++++++++
That reminds me,PM: I miss the other facilities that we used to have, of using italics, underlining, using bold, and what not. I thought it was only my machine illiteracy , but maybe those textual editing tools have been removed?
If BP reads this…..?
John Clark on 27/06/2021 at 23:38 said:

My post of 27th June 2021 At 17:02 refers.
This is a continuation of my report of the evidence hearing on 20 May in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc litigation.

‘Lord Tyre: We’ll break now and resume at 1.50

On resumption at 1.50pm.
Mr McBrearty: Mrs Bell, ‘difficult balance’ dealing with Craig Whyte/fans and the desire to get hold of the shares?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Would you agree with “ We should have nailed him on day one”?Agree?
Mrs B: Depends what you mean.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
Mrs B: Nigh on impossible
QC: Why? The Administrators were appointed by Craig Whyte: surely they could have had a mandate?
Mrs B: That’s for Whitehouse and Clark.
QC: [ed: missed the precise question]
Mrs B: Just because they appoint you it doesn’t mean you have that relationship.
QC: It might be important to seek advice to see if there is a means of controlling the shares?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: If not till 20 April [ Taylor]…
Mrs B: It depends.
QC: At least know what your options are as early as possible?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: One thing that was known at the outset was that Craig Whyte had the shares.
Mrs B: Yes
QC: And that Whyte was a slippery customer?
Mrs B: he would be looking to protect his interests
QC: ..526 of the Witness Bundle para 3.23 you say “in relation to Murray Park, looking at ‘going concern’ rather than to sell Murray Park as an individual asset..” Steve McKennaa’ bid you didn’t regard as credible?
Mrs B: In my view.
QC: Were there parties interested in Murray Park not being actively marketed as a separate asset?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: If expressions of interest , explain ‘going concern’, the Administrators would revert if a change?
Mrs B: Yes. Trying to be clear and transparent, encouraging but not separately marketing
QC: Never an occasion when the Administrators went back, on change of circumstances?
Mrs B: Only one I remember was McKenna. We were in reasonably regular dialogue. We would inform of the bidding process, not a case of being dismissive. There may have been other interests.
QC: Alan McBeth of [ ed: I thought I heard ‘BCZ’, or maybe BTZ as the name of a company?] : response was ‘going concern’, but he was told he would be informed of change of decision. Are you aware?
Mrs B: No.
QC: Also another from Rodney of McGrigors’?
Mrs B: I don’t recall.
QC: Can you help with this?
Mrs B: No
QC: The strategy waas to sell all the assets. Is it fair to say that that strategy did not change?
Mrs B: No, that’s what we achieved.
QC: Mr McKenna- offer from major housebuilder to develop 22 acres of Murray Park, recall?
Mrs B: I do.
QC: Did you ask to see the offer?
Mrs B: No: he wasn’t disclossing who the housebuilder was.
QC : Mr Rothbart’s offer- do you recall?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: p. 4032, Rothbart toWalder “ offer for Ibrox and Murray Park, with lease-back of stadium and car park. Did you see that?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: What did you find out about Rothbart?
Mrs B: That he lived in Salford.
QC: Find out anything about his business?
Mrs B; No.
QC: About his previous involvement with football?
Mrs B: No
QC: Did you carry out any follow-up after his email to Walder?
Mrs B: I’m not aware of any follow-up.
QC: Brand evaluation: p 527 of the Witness bundle, would you read it, please, to yourself and let me know when you’ve finished?
Mrs B: [ after she has read ] Ok.
QC: Are these your own views in this paragraph?
Mrs B: I would suggest that they are my views now and at the time we would have debated the position.
QC: 12th to 16th of March consideration of ‘brand’?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: Contact with Schumacher?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Two bases of valuation of brand?
Mrs B: That was what we were exploring, and this is what he considered.
QC: You, Charles Walder and Saunders and the suggestion of adding in a ‘Liquidation’ valuation?
Mrs B: Yes. Done on the valuation as the physical
QC: Valuation of heritable property on both bases?Right?
Mrs B: Right.
QC: Getting a valuation you would want it on those two bases?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The brand valuation was not obtained , on 24th March?
Mrs B: I can’t recall exactly. Some suggestion that HMRC wanted a brand evaluation. We would have asked for it on two bases.
QC: Mrs Bell, the question was: [ed: what I have next is ‘ was what you [?]on 24 reft were your thoughts]
Mrs B: I would say it reflects my thoughts
QC: “ I do not accept this was a valuable asset unless Rangers Football Club was playing” – the brand was intrinsically linked to the football team?
Mrs B: Yes
QC : It would still be a constituent part of the valuation?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: You could have obtained a valuation?
Mrs B: A distressed sale makes it difficult to give a material value
QC:A specialist in valuing brands might have been able to tell you?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: You did not know whether there would be a valuation?
Mrs B: If the company was placed in Liquidation the brand woud have no value.
QC: You are not qualified?
Mrs B: No.
QC: If Rangers went into liquidation….
Mrs B: liquidation- if there was no football team going forward.

QC: Value lies in potential revenues, season ticket sales, broadcasting, merchandise?
Mrs B: [ ed: I missedwhat she may have said]
QC: If you don’t have the use of the ‘Rangers’ brand you’re not.[ ed: missed the end of the sentence]
[ I haveno note of any reply by Mrs Bell]
QC: So if Charles Green hadn’t come forward on his white horse to save Rangers…and keep..
Mrs B: You’re supposing Rangers is still playing.This is a club that has existed ; if there is Liquidation there is no brand value.
QC: The 50 000 people will .. [ ed: lost a bit of the sentence] .your ..
[ed:I then have
B
QC If cash had run out and start a break-up sale those revenue streams ..
Mrs B: Whether you have a football team to resurrect
QC: The only person who could tell us is an expert.. You are not an expert.?
Mrs B: That’s my view.
QC: If you had gone to Schumacher and his view was different.?
Mrs B :We ‘d consider it
QC: Unlikely to disagree?
Mrs B: We are not always bound to agree
++++
Geez, that’ll dae me for the night!
I may observe that Mrs Bell seems to me to have sussed the truth: that the Rangers football Club brand could not exist after Liquidation.
God protect her from any vindictive harm from the deniers of the consequences of liquidation for a football club.
HirsutePursuit on 28/06/2021 at 09:46 said:

JC – thanks for providing a flavour of these court proceedings. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Thanks again.
John Clark on 29/06/2021 at 00:43 said:

Further to my post of yesterday at 23.3, here’s another wee bit of my notes of Mrs Bell’s evidence. It follows straight on from Mrs Bell’s response ” we are not always bound to agree”

“QC: The ‘estimates of outcomes’ statements “we were constantly running an analysis” Important point?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Accuracy is important?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: One outcome:p.573 ,events of 11 May 2012 ” There was a busy morning…updating…latest positions…..some more deliverable than others…” The 11th May was the day before Paul Clark and David Whitehouse met with Sevco, which resulted in an agreement?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: They would have wanted to know the ‘outcomes’. You agree?
Mrs B:Yes, it would have been the documents where we would have tried to set out the outcomes.
QC: Your covering email, Vol 4, p.3496, you to Des Dolan copied to DW and PC ” please…estimated outcomes ” You sent this on to HMRC, Vol 6 spreadsheet 13, no, correction! this is the spreadsheet that was…
Lord Tyre: 16. 1603
QC: [ checks with Mr Hyde, then..] The Singapore bid: there was a meeting where they were prepared to offer £5 million.
[ed: the figure- work on the spreadsheet related to comparisons between the amounts that might be obtained for the Creditors from the exercise of different options, and against three levels of what the HMRC ‘s tax claim might be , Low, Medium, High.
For example, the CG Asset sale, the Ally McCoist asset sale, Brian Kennedy CVA of £5.5 million, and a close-down end-of-season CVL.
Mr McBrearty , rattling off figures and using the Medium and High levels of expected indebtedness to HMRC, concluded that the figure-work showed that in terms of ‘pence per pound’ for the creditors that the “Liquidation is a better option than the others. How little there was between the bids and liquidation? ”
He continued by referring to the ‘Low’ tab “on the Low tab in his case £5.5 million, at row 30, football debtors (from transfer fees due , another…This is a mistake.? [ed: This I think was addressed as a question to Mrs B]
Mr Young QC: Don’t answer! .. m’Lord, where is this going?
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty: M’Lord, ..unreliabiity of referencing.. Mr Buchler’s report.. p620, 3.1.3 ” the best option for creditors was a CVA”
Mr Young: I’m suggesting, m’Lord, that Mr Buchler is dealing with outcome statements. The point is that if a particular error is made that is what ought to be argued about.
Lord Tyre: I shall allow question of Mr Bucher and Mrs Bell.
Mr McBrearty: Mrs Bell, would you look please at Note 10 of the Notes? ” B. Kennedy, acquiring the balance of football debtors”?
Mrs B: We were not getting clear response and wondering why Kennedy was saying things to the Press and taking things away.
QC: email , vol 4, 3505 from you to Kennedy 11 May 2012 ” Your bid £5.5 million-less football debtors.” I’m not getting at you personally, but football debtors £2.9 million. I get pence per pound 10.98 for Kennedy. Difference between asset sale and Liquidation values. On Liquidation debenture holders £7 million. but not following the agreement with Sevco. Vol 5, 173 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement…. this is 28 May 2012 re-statement because Sevco hadn’t paid account ‘ is excluded from the sale the excluded assets and liabilities..” And th definition of ‘excluded liabilities’ – monies due to the debenture holders
The point is that Sevco are not taking on the football debts. If I am right, you have to put a liability on Charles Green to pay the liability. And that completely changes the ‘pence in the pound’
[ed: my next scribble of Mr McBrearty’s words reads : ” Liquidation is always better with liquidation than a trade sale There is very little difference” I’ve no idea now what that means. I must have missed the whole point or maybe a couple of points]
Mrs B: That’s with hindsight
QC: No, on the basis of the scenarios, not with the benefit of hindsight. The Charles Green trade deal is worse than Liquidation.
Mrs B: I don’t agree.
Lord Tyre: We” have a ten minute break now, until 3.10
On resumption ,
Mr McBrearty: Mrs Bell, at the ‘asset’ side of the spreadsheet. So we’ve got the heritable property at the top. No value for the ‘brand’?
Mrs B: These ‘outcomes’ are not personal to me, but to D&P.
QC: if one were to assume the ‘brand’ had a value of £8 million then by ….. the best outcome of a CVA = £21.93 million= 28.93 pence in the pound ?
Mrs B: Agreed
QC: none of the other outcomes included the ‘brand’? No liquidation value for equipment and plant?
Mrs B: Not on any of them
QC: Plant and equipment would be wrapped up in the other offers, for example the CVA?
Mrs B: I can’t recall
QC: But no valuation on ‘brand’ in the liquidation ?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: No valuation of the loan due by Rangers to the ‘Community [?] loan?
Mrs B: Nor is it in any other scenario
QC: The estimate of HMRC’s ‘High’ level was £90 million. the claim for voting on a CVA , Vol 5, p 2532: letter from HMRC 8 June 2012 ” note of claim in £ 19,426,000 not available at the time. reasonable figure not plucked from the air?”
+++++++++++++++++
That’ll have to do for the moment.
I’ve a job trying to decipher my own scribbles , and the last thing I want to do is mis-report, by second-guessing what was said or what was meant by whoever said it, when I am not sure that I may have heard all of a question or response,
Cluster One on 29/06/2021 at 22:49 said:

Thanks again JC
…………….
nawlite 24th June 2021 At 13:34
…….
nawlite good work.
normanbatesmumfc on 30/06/2021 at 11:56 said:

Nawlite,
I think a follow follow-up complaint should be made to their “outcome” statement;

“In 2012 Rangers FC, under new ownership, had its application to join the Scottish Premier League rejected and had to apply to join what was then the Scottish Football League, resulting in the offer of a place in the Third Division.”

As we all know, Rangers FC were not under new ownership(FULL STOP)
In fact, at the time CG’s new club applied to join the Scottish Premier League, one of the clubs voted in favour of them being admitted. That club of course being Rangers FC, under the control of Duff & Phelps. The vote was declared as 1 for, 10 against, and 1 abstention, (Kilmarnock). As Charles Green’s new club, (originally Sevco Scotland) and the original Rangers club (still in administration) existed at the same time, they cannot possibly be the same club.

Let’s see what verbal gymnastics the BBC Executive Complaints Unit come up with in an attempt to nullify those widely reported FACTS!!!
John Clark on 30/06/2021 at 21:15 said:

A further tranche of my notes of Mrs Bell’s evidence. The last bit ended with Mr McBrearty saying
“…QC: The estimate of HMRC’s ‘High’ level was £90 million. the claim for voting on a CVA , Vol 5, p 2532: letter from HMRC 8 June 2012 ” note of claim in £ 19,426,000 not available at the time… a reasonable figure not plucked from the air”
No response, and then :”
Mr McBrearty: No further questions, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: Mrs Bell, the Estimated Outcomes Statements [ed: ‘EOS’]were constantly being run?
Mrs B: They were not my thing: Simon, Jimmy, Charles shared, reviewed..
QC: Constantly evolving?
Mrs B: Yes. When we hand over to the Liquidators we can make actual …
QC: So, EOS’s every few days?
Mrs B: Yes., ever changing scenario, excess of 10, roughly.
QC: Can we look at the far right column: heritable property, for example……Ibrox £1 million, Murray Park £44200 [ Can you call up Joint Bundle 5,p 198, Mr Hyde, please?] ..that figure seems to be reduced.. Murray park ..the 442zero -that figure seems to be reduced..? [ ed: didn’t catch the rest]
Mrs B: If it were to be sold, lengthy time, holding costs for security and safety costs, complex property assets.
QC: This calculation reduces the figure. In relation to Ibrox different [?] £3.4 million. The figures for liquidation of heritable property are different?
Mrs B: Line 8
QC: We have £3 million under the Liquidation the value of player contracts?
Mrs B: If you take me to Note 8- an estimate of value
QC: The registrations go back to the SFA but on here some value is put on player contracts. If zero was put, there would be a difference
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The next EOS in terms of time, Joint Bundle vol 5,p.221: this is 6 days after the last EOS. Figure for Liquidation of Ibrox and Murray Park?
Mrs B: £1.167 million and £3.423 million.
QC: Player contracts asset surplus; again, a change in this EOS- now a ‘nil’ entry for Liquidation?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Trading shortfall -[?]
and trading shortfall 30 July 2012… different figures? What does ‘trading shortfall’ try to capture?
Mrs B:You’ll have to show me the Notes…I’m speculating: so you’ve got two dates effectively terminating 9 7 [ ed: 9 July?] , four week appeal to object to CVA,; second, trading to a later date, deficit due to increase of salaries.
QC: On the face of it, the CVA £1.00, the Liquidation is £ 2 million and [ed: I missed something] Why funding by Sevco?
Mrs B: there was an agreement?
QC: [Joint Bundle 5, p 221 , Mr Hyde] …sum available for unsecured creditors, bottom line, £7.7 million under the CVA, £4 million under asset sale £628,000 under Liquidation
bottom line: Distribution 10p in the pound for CVA, 5.5 pence for asset sale, 0.73 for liquidation
On the debenture issue point: ‘Nil’ on a CVA, Nil on an asset sale, £7 million debit on Liquidation,
an evolving picture….
Mrs B: Exactly what it is, yes..
QC: If we look at your statement in relation to the modification by HMRC? You found it helpful that HMRC wanted BDO , JB 4, p972, two emails, Simon Shipperlee’s, and the bottom one 22 April, Peter Hart’s email, and do you see that that is expressing the view that this will be out in the public domain “ can we get PR to show that we are not in this for our gain”.
Mrs B: We thought that BDO would have the resources. We thought that was a good thing.

QC: If there was any sense of displeasure about BDO..?
Mrs B: Our only displeasure was that we were not going to be the liquidators.
QC: On a different topic, non-playing staff redundancies 29 February 1st march, look at JB 2, p.1462, an entry for 21 February 2012, his initials, your initials, 6 entries, revenue -raising question?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Next page: Saving: there are entries relating to staff redundancies
Mrs B: yes
QC: next page 1464, same date as Mr Hart is writing to Donna McLelland “Match-day staff costs reductions” email from Donna McLelland 21 February “ Income that might be generated: saving of £400 a match”
Mrs B: Not worth while cutting for that amount
QC: You liaised with Heads of department . Last minute?
Mrs B; No.
QC: The Heads’ of Departments views on redundancy: Who told you about previous redundancies?
Mrs B: Difficult to pinpoint details, or any one in particular..
QC: “ Not much scope for redundancy” How did you go about that?
Mrs B: You need to be careful; that people look after their people, for example, staff might say that they don’t need a receptionist, but you do. And need to check and ‘challenge’ need.
QC: In the context of player cuts/player redundancies: it was suggested that restructuring would not be achieved if wage cuts were coming to an end. You said it bought time?
Mrs B: You can achieve restructuring in different ways. You need time to explore with purchaser.
QC: You might have gone through that process if a purchaser had been found for Rangers?
Mrs B: It would depend on the purchaser
QC: The dialogue with Mr McKenna, Mr Stewart, face-to-face meeting?
Mrs B: I think a meeting early in March.
QC: Joint Bundle 2, p4169, the date 6 march 2012. This is your writing?
Mrs B; Yes
QC: a note of a meeting to discuss proposals?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Joint Bundle [ed: I missed the reference] ……. from you to [ ed: missed the rest]
Mrs B: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: JB vol 3, p.2612, you go back to McKenna : you to him on 20 March 2012 “ in position to explore the options..”
Mrs B: I couldn’t recollect about interests- McKenna and colleagues had been in contact with us. We followed up with McKenna.
QC: p.3389, at the foot, email from McKenna to Walder, and a further email: “proof of funding £10 million in the morning” Did McKenna provide?
Mrs B: We were contacted by his solicitor, but I don’t know if it was provided.
QC: Mr Rothbar? JB p 3032: email from Rothbar to McKenna 10 May and on to Walder 11 May. Do you know whether McKenna asked you or anyone else to speak to Rothbar?
Mrs B: I don’t.Charles forwarded that email on to me.
QC: p.3577 email from KcKenna to Walder 11 May at 6.30 An offer which Mckenna is making for the whole club. “ Charles, can you give me a call. Steve” Is it clear to you what Mr Rothbart’s connection was?
MrsB: Seemed to me to be an offer of finance, confused, an offer of funding which did not match up with the offer.
Lord Tyre: We will continue tomorrow., Mr Young
Mr Young: yes, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Mrs Bell, do not discuss the case with anyone overnight.
Court adjourned until 10.00 tomorrow. “
John Clark on 30/06/2021 at 22:40 said:

Normanbatesmumfc 30th June 2021 At 11:56
‘….Let’s see what verbal gymnastics the BBC Executive Complaints Unit come up with in an attempt to nullify those widely reported FACTS!!!’
+++++++++++++++++++
I daresay they will use the untrue garbage they were ORDERED to use by the [thankfully now defunct] BBC Trust.
That body told the BBC (BBC Scotland in particular] to preach that it was the COMPANY that owned Rangers of 1872 that had gone into Liquidation, and not the ‘football club’ that it owned and operated.

That must go down as the biggest whopper of an untruth that Auntie BBC ever came out with, even in war-time!

I suspect that the Trust was told a lie, and meekly , under the kind of pressure associated with ideas of ‘institutions that are too big to be allowed to fail” accepted that lie without question: The SFA said it, so it must be true!

Which reminds me: I have not yet responded to the reply to my letter to the Master of the Rolls.

I cannot find a way of saying safely and politely that I think the Judges in the case MUST have been fed a load of garbage about Rangers having simply changed ownership, as if it had been bought and brought out of Administration.
If the parties in litigation accept ‘background’ facts that don’t relate to the matter of the litigation, a Court happily accepts that agreement, and wouldn’t see any need to carry out any independent verification or checking of their own.
Counsel in the case will likewise run with what their instructing solicitors tell them , and if those solicitors instructing Counsel on either side are themselves happy with what their respective clients say about incidental background, then there is no need for them to question what each has been told; there’s agreement all round, so no forensic questioning required into a peripheral matter.
So, the Court is (innocently) told a bum story , that Rangers FC of 1872 simply changed hands, and that CG became the owner.
I can’t really believe that Lord Underhill and his fellow judges did any research, but just routinely accepted what was told the Court , because no one questioned the ‘background’.
How do I say that to 5 judges of the [English] Court of Appeal?
Short of raising a legal action myself against the ultimate authors of the untruth that TRFC is RFC of 1872, calling on the liars to show how a club which was admitted into Scottish Football for the first time in 2012 can be awarded the honours, titles, and history of a club that THEY THEMSELVES stripped of its membership on account of its insolvency, an insolvency not caused by poor management or bad luck, but by the calculated cheating and deceitful practices of its majority shareholder, who, to get out of the mess he had created, sold his club all the way down the Clyde for a £1.
Let me win the lottery, and by geez, an action would be raised.
We cannot allow our Football Governance bodies to lie to us. What would be the point?
At the very least we need to keep reminding them of their lie and the dishonour they have brought upon themselves and our game
In my opinion.
John Clark on 30/06/2021 at 23:39 said:

And incidentally I was in Glasgow today, for the first time in 18 months , to meet and have a drink with three old pals, as I did roughly once a month before Covid.

Two observations: first, what a stunning change to Queen St station. The last time I was there it was hard to tell what the works were aiming to achieve.
My goodness, what a terrific end result. ‘Chapeau’, (as used to be used on this blog ( who was it who first used it?) to Scotrail or whatever. Tinged with a wee regret that the pub has gone, in which Magnus Magnusson and I had a couple of ‘halfs’ before sprinting for the last train to Edinburgh, a wheen of years ago. [ we were not together, of course, except in the fact that we were at the same bar.!]

I arrived early and used the time before the guys showed up to use my phone to photograph a number of those absolutely beautiful buildings in and around West George street , West Nile street , St Vincent Street… that as child, youth, young man cutting about, married man in the 1970s ,I had never looked at or noticed.

I’ve lived in Edinburgh since 1980: no harm to it, but Glasgow is home, still.

And it has taken all these years for me to realise what brilliant architecture it has.
The intense joy of that realisation was equal to the joy of meeting up again in the flesh with friends.
Nothing to beat the badinage and comfortable, relaxed chat and gossip with guys that you’ve known, worked with, for 50 years or more, absolutely as comfortably as with your brother.
Beautiful afternoon.
upthehoops on 01/07/2021 at 16:36 said:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/19412547.sir-david-murray-hands-control-family-business/

More fawning sycophancy from the Scottish Media towards a man who is responsible for the public purse having tens of millions illegally withheld from it. If he was involved with any other ‘club’ I am sure his Knighthood would have been removed a while ago. Meanwhile the taxpayer is shelling out another £100m + to compensate people who the Scottish police and prosecution services maliciously tried to blame for the demise of that ‘club’. Surely he should be referred to as ‘disgraced former Rangers owner’?

What an utterly incredible country we live in.
John Clark on 01/07/2021 at 22:12 said:

Upthehoops 1st July 2021 At 16:36
‘…..More fawning sycophancy from the Scottish Media..’
++++++++++++++++==
Come ,sir, you appear to be surprised?
after 9 years of journalistic cowardice -in a matter of Sport?
If mere football hacks can appreciate succulent lamb and a wee glass (or crate or two) of ‘Chateau Routas’, how much more appreciative must be any non-specific deputy business editor, even if his newspaper were to be dying on its feet- and maybe even might go into Liquidation?
Ach, what am I saying?
I don’t think that even the business editors of ‘national’ newspapers believe in Liquidation even when their football club has died that death!
What ARE they like?
John Clark on 01/07/2021 at 22:49 said:

I’ve just been having a swatch at my bundles of manuscript notes, looking for the rest of Sarah Bell’s evidence
But I see that I didn’t( or maybe couldn’t) until about noon on the 21 May.
When I dialled in, Mrs Bell had finished her evidence giving, and it was Mr Clark of D&P who was in the virtual witness box.
I can’t tell from my notes at what time Mrs Bell’s evidence session ended. For all I know, Clark could have been sworn in maybe by 10.30 or so. If so, by noon I would have missed about an hour and a quarter or so of his testimony( taking account of the usual ten/15 minute break at around 11.30)
There’s no way I’m going to begin to try to type up my 30+ pages of scribbles [boy, could that man talk!]
but here are the first few exchanges I heard as I tuned in:
QC; (McBrearty) ” combination disappointment with SPL Board…. Bartlet
When you say you made this application you’re wrong
[ed: if there was a reply I either didn’t understand it or didn’t hear it ]
QC: What I am putting to you is you’re looking backward to make an ‘ex post facto’ rationalisation of what happened at the time. You understand?
Mr C: yes”
I’ll get around to typing up the rest.
John Clark on 02/07/2021 at 18:35 said:

BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL) ‘ virtual’ Hearing before Lord Tyre May 21st May 2021

Evidence of Mr Clark ,Insolvency Practitioner , one of the Joint Administrators of Rangers Football Club in 2012

Note: I assume that the the evidence session of Mrs Sarah Bell, which was to have been continued from the day before, had concluded by the time I dialled in to the hearing at about noon. I have therefore no idea when Mr Clark was sworn in. He may have been in the witness box for some time before I joined.
The first words I picked up were being spoken by Mr McBrearty QC:

QC: …combination , disappointment with SPL Board., Bartlet. [ed: if there was more , I did not hear it]
C: [ed: if he had been asked a question, I did not hear his reply]
QC: When you say you made this application [ed: missed some words] you’re wrong.You’re looking back to make an ex post facto rationalisation of what happened at the time.You understand?
C: Yes
QC: Redundancies and wage-cuts: you would not have made wage-cuts but redundancies you identified?
C: Yes
QC: Your strategy was to hold on to the best players?
C: Yes, the nucleus of a team was to be held together
QC: That bidders would put in a sum that would reflect player value?
C: Yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: [ed: missed reply]
QC: At the beginning, the strategy was to make redundancies, then that changed?
C: We thought about redundancies but moved quickly to cuts.
QC: Can we be precise?- redundancies at the outset then changed?
C: Yes. Changed quickly, transfer window, voluntary redundancy. We moved from straight redundancy to pay cuts, and I say pay cuts because FW suggested deferrals.[ ed: I can’t be sure because the full name had not been mentioned earlier in this exchange, but I think that was a reference to Fraser Wishart ]
QC: Wage-reductions idea came from Ally McCoist?
C: Cannot recall how it came to be
QC: McCoist would have an interest in keeping players?
C: Yes
QC: Was it his suggestion?
C: I would be speculating.
QC: There were negotiations with players and the Players’ Union?
C: Yes, negotiations. McCoist was sent in to discuss with players in hope of something sensible, and then with FW, complicated, he wanted deferrals, discussion conducted in collective manner to begin with then with individuals.
QC: First and second of March. On 29 March the plan was to make redundancies?
C: I take your word about the date…When you say ‘redundancies’ I don’t know whether you mean non-playing staff and players?
QC: Simon Shipperlee’s email “ Redundancies to be made first of March”
C: I take your word.
QC: It was a unilateral decision by the Administrators to make redundancies?
C: Yes
QC: [ed: missed it]
C: [ed: missed it]
QC: the plan to make redundancies went pear-shaped because of the prolonged discussions with the players?
C: No, not pear-shaped: it was better to continue negotiations.
QC: [ed: didn’t catch the question]
C: If wage-cuts could achieve a good effect then change of strategy; we did not ever consider deferrals. This was all about negotiations.
QC: Was there a change of strategy or not?
C: Strategy can change over time. I can’t give that assurance.
QC: The players were tough negotiators?
C: Yes, and Ally McCoist did not deliver. We had to take a stronger hand.And the players’ agents were very strong negotiators
QC: By close of play, agree to wage-cuts by Monday 5 March or redundancies by 5 March?
C: Yes
QC: They called your bluff?
C: I cannot recall….but it was not as simple..
QC: email, Vol 2, 3874, to Simon Shipperlee 4 March 2012, (reference to an email from Fraser Wishart:) “ … to allow [ ed: ‘make to’ is what I have written ] deliver wage-cuts we’ll have to get a plan and execute it tomorrow” Panic?
C: I don’t recognise panic, only that we had not delivered what we hoped. Panic? no. just what do we need to do, need to discuss media frenzy etc. No panic.
QC: The negotiation period stressful?
C: Yes, interesting
QC: It took toll of your health?
C: It was more that it took my time
QC:Vol 3, 430-from Jason Gofroy, 7 March: “ ..hope you’re feeling lot better……lack of sleep” Would you accept that the player negotiations had taken a toll on you- unable to speak or focus?
C: I needed to get away from Glasgow. Certain veiled threats…. a need to take time out.. I don’t accept time-out as a criticism
QC: You took no advice on the value of the players?
C: We had spreadsheets in relation to previous window.
QC: the value did not reflect?
C: I accept that. Jelavic sold only for £5 million rather than the £10 million
QC: You did not seek advice from others?
C: No
QC: We heard Simon Shipperlee’s evidence that transfers outwith the window couldn’t be made?
Lord Tyre: [ed: I have nothing written, so I assume he perhaps only asked for the question to be repeated]
C: My belief is it is impossible to sell out of the transfer window.. there was an extra hurdle, and that was my understanding.
QC: Let’s be clear. At the time you were negotiating Simon Shipperlee says that Naismith transaction was not possible? It’s fair to say what was your understanding?
C: I could not say I had a greater knowledge than Simon. I can’t be specific. Simon would have had greater knowledge. I can’t dispute..
QC: Let’s pass on to talk about the time of agreeing on 9 February wage reductions. No bidders had signalled whether they wanted players to be kept or not?
C: I would be speculating. Simon Shipperlee’s evidence, no bidder had done so..I’m sure Simon is telling the truth, what I can’t say is whether he told me.
QC: Page[ ed:I missed the detail of the reference] – An email from Fraser Wishart to you, 4th para: “ I am told while reductions in the short term, the cost…. Already a small squad ,any new owner
would have to rebuild entire squad? ” Agree?
C: Yes. But Fraser Wishart was negotiating [ed: missed the end of the sentence]
QC: Are you saying that Shipperlee was not aware of bidders saying that? You’re calling Fraser Wishart out?-Other email from FW. You saw, Vol 3, p.2369 the opposite . No interested party has said he wished to go for pay deferral.
C: You’re mixing up….
QC: Retain or not retain?
C: They may or may not have.
QC: On the CVA plan..
C: Yes
QC: ..At wage deductions there was a risk of a CVA not being accepted?
C: I accept that.
QC: The risk because of the Shares issue? [ed: i.e. the Shares held by Craig Whyte]
C: Yes, but whether the creditors would vote was a bigger issue
QC: HMRC being a preferred outcome?
C: Yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: [ed: missed the reply]
QC: A material risk of HMRC not voting?
[ed:there was the sound of a voice/voices breaking in for a few seconds until their mic was put on mute]
QC: 24 February , HMRC meeting, 26 February David Grier noting that Liquidation a possible outcome?
C: Yes
QC: 25 February you record….. another firm acting to avoid…[ed: missed the sense of what he said/asked]
C: [ed: missed any reply, if indeed a question had been asked]
QC: Focussed on a CVA you did not consider the risk of players refusing to transfer under TUPE if there was an asset sale?
C: Oh, there’s always a risk. TUPE on a regular basis .Employees do not have to transfer. Had Rangers continued in the SPL, or in the First division, then all of the players would have transferred over. The players didn’t want to be in lower levels.
QC: That answer is quite a long way from the question! What did you have in mind at the time? You did not have in mind…[ed: missed it]
C: Probably not
QC: In your mind at all?
C: Well, it was always in my mind, but not at the front, because we assumed that the SPL would keep Rangers in position even if there was a sale of the corporate business. There was an assumption of the top flight, so we may not have asked ‘what if?’
QC: I can’t find an email in which the possibility of players not transferring is being discussed?
C: The working assumption was that..
QC: You’d expect Simon Shipperlee to be on the same assumption?
C: I agree if he wasn’t
QC: By refusing to transfer, players would be in power, either in relation to other clubs or with Newco owner.
C: Yes, but less likely with Newco
QC: The players gain by becoming free agents?
C: Yes.
QC: On an asset sale the players could move or transfer. You would know there was a risk?
C: Agree.
QC: It’s most unlikely that a prospective purchaser who wants an asset sale, and one of the playing squad is worth £4 million , and there’s a risk ….You’ll walk away?
C: You’re making an assumption about values.It’s for players….
QC: Focussing on what you should have borne in mind: you knew that there was a risk of no CVA, and therefore of an asset sale.
C: I agree
QC: You would have known that players might not transfer?
C: I agreed already.
QC: And those players are of no value to a prospective purchaser?
C: Yes
QC; The best thing is to sell players sooner?
C: It was still too early. Rangers had been offered for purchase before. So I don’t accept..
QC: As at the date of wage reduction you were blind as to whether there were offers or bids?
C: Yes
QC: 8/9March…Indicative bids at 16 March?
C: I accept that.
QC: No idea what was to come?
C: I agree
QC: So at the time, could have been anything.
C: Yes
QC: So purchasers may or not have paid for players they might not get?
C: horrible..
QC: So you should have sold when you could.
C: I disagree…
QC: At the time, 8/9 March you knew, and the rational thing would have been to sell.
C: I disagree.

Lord Tyre: We’ll adjourn for lunch now. Resume at 1.55.
+++++++++
vernallen on 02/07/2021 at 22:57 said:

The DR reaches out to Dave King for comments on the new Celtic manager. This takes brass neck to a whole new level based on the man who hired Pedro who had a sparkling non resume. At least Ange had experience at the World Cup level. Then not to be out done they have Barry Ferguson bumping his gums on the potential of a $40 million CL pay day easing the losses accumulated by his former club. That money, if ever attained, will be a drop in the buck as compared to the reported $80 — $90 million built up over the last few years. And we still have this year’s numbers to look forward to.
Albertz11 on 03/07/2021 at 09:49 said:

Vernallen 2nd July 22.57.

Any losses “built up” are of course covered by a loyal group of Shareholders/Investors.

I don’t believe that Rangers will be the only team who will suffer large losses during these unprecedented times.

As John Bennett stated earlier this week ” the recovery phase is nearly complete and then it’s on to the growth phase”.
Exciting times for Rangers fans both on & off the pitch.
vernallen on 03/07/2021 at 22:40 said:

Albertz11 3rd July 9:49

Its fine for shareholders and investors to cover the accumulated losses but sooner or later they will want some form of return. It might be exciting times on and off the pitch for Rangers fans but some how one has to look back a few years at the EBT program, unlimited loans from the banks to see where this group might be headed. Reports indicate Dave King is looking to get his “loans” back and they carry a hefty price tag, Mike Ashly makes it more exciting with new reports of his involvement with Castore ( can you imagine the excitement if Ranger fans realize he is still getting money from them), the court cases wend their way through the courts, payments for purchased players must be coming due, yes they are definitely on to the “growth phase”. The level of excitement must be off the charts.
John Clark on 03/07/2021 at 23:23 said:

My post of 2nd July 2021 At 18:35 refers.
Rather than continue to watch the Ukrainians let me down, I bashed out some more of Paul Clark’s evidence session.
This bit follows on from the bit posted yesterday
“Lord Tyre: We’ll adjourn for lunch now. Resume at 1.55.
On resumption(at 2.03)
QC: You knew…
C: No, I don’t. Doesn’t close off the possibility.I don’t recall any conscious change of strategy.
QC: The rational thing was to try to sell the players.
C: Would the players have sold? If you take away..Complete closedown.. that was not in the mind of HMRC or Ticketus
QC: mr Clark, that’s all ex post facto .None of that was in your mind because you didn’t even consider it.
C: We believe the best result intimated to us was the continuation of ..
QC: That didn’t require that Rangers FC be in the same form. Those matters were not on your mind.
C: .in my mind, maintaining the same squad, same team..
QC: You did not know at that time.
C: We didn’t have a separate value of the brand
QC: Nor value of the players
C: We had indicative values.
QC: [ed: missed it]
C: you meant to say the business and assets. The brand was a futile exercise, the market, the brand could not be separated from the brand of the club.
QC: We’ll have to agree , or dis agree, n reaching a view absent a value of the brand and the players
[ed: I missed what he said] Agree?
C: I agree.
QC: Para 8.9 on p 374: 8/9 March statement you made. Please read it to yourelf, Mr Clark
C: [ having read] Yes.
QC: Is that really what you thought of the Rangers fans at the time, that if you sold Naismith the fans would have left?
C: …from previous media reports. The fans of any club have emotional attachment. If they had seen key players not playing it would have created a negative impression.
QC: But that should not have blown you off course?
C: To disregard them would have been foolish. If you’re hoping to sell as a ‘going concern’.. better for creditors.
QC: “ Rangers don’t do ‘walking away’”? Sign of the strength of football fans?
C: If they had no football club…?
QC: We’ll have to disagree. It’s ex post facto rationalisation
C: Just because it’s not in an email…thousands of thoughts, no to time to record everything
QC: Para 8.10, please “.. barrier…to sale.transfer window closed, limited ability, regulatory difficulties outside the ‘window’ We know that Simon Shipperlee did not know, you did not take advice. So this is ex post facto rationalisation
C: I don’t accept accept that. There were barriers. In the UK sales outside the window are not the norm, there are restrictions .I’m not looking back, and I don’t know why you ask
QC: [ed: didn’t hear]
C: I’m not an expert, but that is my belief . I understood from Ashworth that there are hurdles
QC: Simon Shipperlee did not know it is possible to transfer. So you did not know.
C: it’s not right to say it could not be done .My understanding
is..
QC: you’re rationalising after the event.
C: Although I accept that Simon ought to have known the best I can say is….
QC: That’s a change of position, from this morning?
C: Apologies if that is so.
QC: point 12, the second difficulty: the need to sell players quickly. That doesn’t make it impossible, you could accept a discount?
C: Yes.
QC: D’you see where you say the Company’s financial problems hindered the sale of players.. ? But Mr Dickson said there was little attempt to sell?
C: My belief is that Craig Whyte intended to ease problems by selling.
QC: But Rangers did sign a player.. Celic [ed:?]
C: I accept that
QC: On why there were barriers …” if company could not be rescued by a CVA then a ‘business and assets’ sale”?
C: Yes.
QC: The Biggart Baillie advice was 20 March, and 24 April Michael McCl.[ed: who?]. and Biggart Baillie were in many meetings not recorded in emails. Impracticable.
QC: You can’t be sure, though?
C: Granted
QC: the Court has to look at what is there, agreed?
C: Agree
QC: 8.14, 8.15 “players would be free to negotiate personal terms..Our strategy was to secure a series of wage reductions..”… I understand that to mean that this was to make it unattractive to bidders for Rangers, if players could leave?
C: Could you repeat the question, please?

QC: [ ed: repeated, rephrased the question]
C: [ ed: I missed any reply}
QC: Am I understanding correctly: yes? Potential waiting and seeing?
C: Yes
QC: So you did not actively pursue a sales strategy?
C: Yes
QC: the rational thing would be to sell?
C: No. The decision on transfer was the SPL one but this was changed. The Board would not like to lose a significant club..

QC: This is you engaging in rationalisation after the event?
C: It was in my mind.
QC: [ed: I missed the question}
C: David Whitehouse and I in the initial period each had a certain task.
QC: Did you and David Whitehouse have a difference of opinion?
C: The final strategy was an agreed strategy
QC: Vol 2, p 1889, at the bottom, email from Whitehouse to you and Sarah Bell: “ we need to be hard. I don’t want to be a funding hero.”
Your response “..do not forget we need to play football and finish second”
and Whitehouse’s reply “ we don’t need to finish second unless we get a CVA before…’ That shows a disagreement? What did you mean by we need to play football?
C: European Football, not to close Rangers in mid-season.
QC: An email about cutting staff: “I think cut hard and early” was Whitehouse’s opinion.
C: No. David Whitehouse is forceful, but “cutting hard” is “cutting costs”
QC: Redundancies, that was what was under discussion!
C:If you show me..
QC: p3740, foot of the page, 2 March at the end of that day ..
restructure cost base?
C: Yes:
QC: [ed; missed the question]
C: Cost bases are at a time: This is more about cutting the costs of the Administration.[ several more sentences followed that I did not try to note down]
QC: You’re giving answers that stray miles off, Mr Clark.
C: [ed: missed the reply]
QC: Any purchaser would have known that they would inherit that cost base. Agree?
C: Any purchaser [ ed: missed the rest]..
C: No, I disagree. In a CVA… it’s for a new owner to decide what would be best.
QC: In a CVA?
C: Yes
QC; [ed: missed it]
C: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: Would you defer to the Scottish Football Authorities?
C: [ed: I missed his opening remarks, but he concluded with ] ……. the Scottish football authorities were bordering on duplicity
QC; ‘deadline’?
C: During Hearts’ administration the rules did not change, but we were faced with SPL rule changes.
QC: As of 31 May.

Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty, if it’s convenient I think we’ll take a break here? We will retstart at 10 past

On resumption:
Mr McBrearty ( continuing): Mr Clark, you did not compare the savings between …[ed: I missed ]
C: I don’t believe, er, er, .. the answer has to be no .My understanding is that the handful of redundancies made were small in comparison with the wage deductions of players. I don’t think there was carried forward a comparison.
QC: On wage deductions: cost deficit of £4.5 million to the end of season?
C: Agreed.
QC: ‘Cash deficit’ is not the same as ‘trading deficit’?
C: Agreed.
QC: 3.3 million in the bank?
C: Yes, that rings a bell.
QC: There are assets available for creditors?
C;Yes
QC: Trading deficit?
C: Probably more than £3.3 million.
QC. It was £ 4.4 million.
C: OK.
QC: All the cash in the bank was spent?
C: I think that’s a fact.
QC: When agreeing wage deductions you were trying to ensure there ws no cash deficit, but were not worried a trading deficit?
C: We had an eye on sale of the business other than a CVA. To give us time
QC: No inroads into the trading deficit?
C: Without cuts the trading deficit would have had inroads into it
QC: To put it in brash terms…. £2.2 million. You would have been better off closing Ibrox etc?
C: Not a step to be taken lightly. I had a meeting with the First Minister. What happens if you close Rangers? Understand the implications. Costs could not be underestimated.
QC: Formally, Mr Clark, I have to put it to you: in all the circumstances discussed, no ordinarily competent Administrator acting with reasonable care would fail to 1. take advice on the sale of players, 2, assess minimum number required to continue to trade, 3, make some players redundant 4, seek advice as to selling others as assets, appointing an agent, 5, making non-playing staff redundancies, 6 [ed: I missed ] 7 [ed: I missed] 8, monitor , and if initial view of what was required was [ ed: I missed the phrase or word] , nd change and at worst on 4/5 April .. [ed: I missed that , too]
You failed …..you acted as no ordinarily competent administrator would have done.
C: I don’t agree with you.There is no such template. There are other ways of looking at it so therefore I disagree.
QC: Thank you. Let me turn to Naismith. You ought to have tried to sell him and others, and might have created a better opportunity.But you ought to have accepted the West Bromwich Albion offer. Was it your decision not to accept?
£1.7 million. By that time you had dropped his buy-out clause to £2 million.And you would have saved wages if you had acceppted, then £1.75 million = £2 million. That’s only £150 000 away in net terms from the ‘worth’?
Naismith was injured: if you had held out for £2 million , there was £20,000 due to Kilmarnock. Were you aware?
C: I can’t recall.
QC: £1.75 million , the payment would have been immediate?
C: Yes. Naismith was more reliable but it would be difficult to justify.
QC: Hold on to players, because of their value? Actual bids showed that bidders weren’t putting great value on the players.
C: Yes
QC: The move to WBA was being orchestrated by his agent?
C: I accept that.
QC: that Fraser Wishart said that players might not transfer?
C: he was pledging his allegiance. Some, if Ranger had stayed in..
QC: You could have had £1.7 to £2 million immediately?
C: Yes. £1.7 to £2 million wasn’t too much of bridge, subject to rules..
QC: Another formality Mr Cark: no reasonably competent administrator would fail to accept the offer…
C: With hindsight. There were lots of moving parts. Naismith was an influence in the dressing room.
QC: 8.25.5 Naismith might not have accepted the offer., other people are better placed to judge that?
C: Yes.”

More to follow, as and when.
I don’t know about anyone else, and I certainly don’t know whether Clark, on oath, was telling the truth about the meeting with the First Minister and the questions that were raised.
but from a certain perspective… there might be some questions I would like to put to our First Minister.
wokingcelt on 03/07/2021 at 23:24 said:

@Albertz11 – what I don’t get is what is the “growth phase” (and this would apply to all clubs, including my own). Within a Scottish context what does this mean? Growth in what? Revenues? Profits? Trophies? Clearly a European Super League is off the cards at the moment (not that Scottish clubs were invited to play…). So if we are realistic then we are looking at “growth” in the domestic market. So what does this “growth” actually mean?
John Clark on 04/07/2021 at 11:27 said:

Continuation of Clark’s evidence ( see my post of 3rd July 2021 At 23:23] which ended with
“QC: 8.25.5 Naismith might not have accepted the offer., other people are better placed to judge that?
C: Yes.””

QC: On ‘Brand’ valuation. The “ Informemorandum” for possible bidders: “most successful brand..”?
C: I disagree that the brand by itself had value. It’s the whole basket that comprises the football team known by the name of Rangers. The revenue stream…
QC: A part-purchaser , certain players come and go, a purchaser of a ‘going concern’, it wouldn’t be essential that a stadium be owned?
C: You’d be treading on diff. [ed: can’t now say whether that was an abbreviation of ‘different’ or ‘difficult’] ground if you separate Ibrox from the team.
QC: A stadium just allows performance of a function: not essential that it be owned?
C: It’s for others to comment. Ibrox is the home . Fans expect the football club/fans to own it.
QC: Leasing?
C: Yes…
QC: But they need the ‘brand’?
C: Yes
QC: [ed; missed the question]
C: Brian Kennedy, one of his requirements was that he would put the property into a different company from the company that owned the ground.
QC: Consideration was given to obtaining brand report- Schumacher to obtain on a “going concern” basis and “ on Liquidation” basis. On 15 March the decision was taken NOT to?
C: Yes
QC:9.3,p.380 of the Witness Statement bundle: would you read it quietly to yourself, please?
C: [ having read it] yes, thank you.
QC: You regarded the brand as being indivisible from the club. But did you get valuation of the individual parts?
C: yes.But valuation is subjective, and market conditions change, even with property. For example, a shopping centre:£15 million pre-covid, 4 years ago, now £4 million. No straight comparison , but valuation is not straightforward, especially intangibles.
QC: Mr Clark, we’re straying miles< we’re going to be here forever!
Lord Tyre: Mr Clark has answered the question.
It’s been a pretty full day so we’ll leave it at that for tonight.
Court adjourned till Monday morning
+++++++++++
paddy malarkey on 04/07/2021 at 21:21 said:

Are footballers exempt from covid regulations when returning to the UK after featuring in competition ? Just thinking of Alfie returning from Brazil , which is on the red list , or Colombia ,which is on the amber list . Both require quarantine for us mere mortals .
paddy malarkey on 05/07/2021 at 21:10 said:

I’m thinking that TRFC may have turned their back on external media as they have no need to sell those season books .
upthehoops on 06/07/2021 at 07:29 said:

Having a read through John Clarke’s court notes. It’s very easy to be cynical, but it appears to me from everything that happened overall, the plan might just have been:

‘Rangers’ are sold for a very low price, including the stadium and the training ground (did happen)

Creditors would be shafted, except football ones (did happen).

The authorities will allow the newco straight into the top flight anyway (SFA and SPL wanted this to happen).

The players, some of pretty high value if under contract, will TUPE over and then will be able to be sold for a good fee that the shafted creditors will not get a sniff of (didn’t happen but Charles Green did his best)

There is so much more, but to quote a theme from the end of every Scooby Doo cartoon when the bad guy is unmasked, “…and I would have got away with it if it wasn’t for the pesky fans of the other clubs”.

You really have to laugh when you see comments by John Bennett recently about ‘Rangers’ having scores to settle. ‘Rangers’ stole tens of millions from the public purse under the stewardship of two different owners. Many people would be ashamed of that, in particular those Rangers fans who value the ‘Britishness’ of the club so highly, and the association with the armed forces which are funded by taxpayers money. Does Mr Bennett actually believe it was okay? It seems he does.
Jingso.Jimsie on 06/07/2021 at 11:41 said:

‘Wokingcelt 3rd July 2021 At 23:24

@Albertz11 – what I don’t get is what is the “growth phase” (and this would apply to all clubs, including my own). Within a Scottish context what does this mean? Growth in what? Revenues? Profits? Trophies? Clearly a European Super League is off the cards at the moment (not that Scottish clubs were invited to play…). So if we are realistic then we are looking at “growth” in the domestic market. So what does this “growth” actually mean?’
::
::
I think that it’s all about ‘revenue’ & there are four areas where TRFC would be looking for ‘growth’:

Match-day income, including advertising & in-house hospitality.

UEFA competition payments.

Transfer income.

Sale of redundant assets & land.

I think they’re all quite self-explanatory.
John Clark on 06/07/2021 at 13:54 said:

My post of 4th July 2021 At 11:27:

“QC: Mr Clark, we’re straying miles, we’re going to be here forever!
Lord Tyre: Mr Clark has answered the question.
It’s been a pretty full day so we’ll leave it at that for tonight.
Court adjourned till Monday morning’
+++++++++++++++++++
This is my report of the Hearing on Monday 24th May .

Mr McBrearty QC picking up where he left off at close of session on Friday 21st.

Mr McBrearty: You’re not an expert in brand valuation, Mr Clark?
C: No.
QC: The brand of Rangers was in the fore?
C: Yes, the brand was connected with Club [ed: missed the word] , Rangers out there as a prominent name.
QC: You didn’t have a valuation of the brand so you could not include it?
C: I understand, yes.
QC: A hypothesis: if as of the date of the Singapore bid pulling out you had plugged in a value for the brand and Liquidation was a possibility, everyone would still be looking to avoid Liquidation?
C: Yes, but what would be the additional costs?
QC: The brand person might have been able to tell you?
C: [ed: I have nothing written, so perhaps Mr McB came in quickly]
QC: ….if Liquidation was plainly the best you would have to have had a rethink?
C: Yes
QC: “going concern” valuation: if you got a brand report you should have got a ‘Liquidation’ brand report?
C: Yes
QC: Heritable property, on a ‘going concern’: if you do the same to all the assets you can bench mark a “going concern” ?
C: Yes
QC: The total value would give you a bench mark?
C: Yes
QC: and also something to go back to bidders..?
C: Yes
QC: Let’s say £12 million bids, if “going concern” is £20 million?
C: Yes, but there was a peculiarity in the Rangers matter: we entered into an NDA with the bidders, who were openly talking to the Press. Ordinarily, if you have 2 you will play them against each other, or take a bid off the wall. But when bidders are talking…..

[sound breaking up]:Lord Tyre interjects: We’re missing you Mr Clark , can you lean in nearer the mic?
C…… [Apologies my Lord…is that better?.]…..it would have been difficult..
.QC: If bids are coming in at a particular level?
C: the total value of the three constituents….
QC: Is it not important to know the value of what you’re selling?
C: It gives you an indication , not value. I recognise that we don’t have the valuation.
QC: Heritable, moveable, players: you knew the worth of, but the brand? The brand might very well be the most significant asset?
C: It was a conscious decision not to value the brand.
QC: Mr Clark, an ordinarily competent Administrator ….would have obtained independent specialist advice
C: I hear you, I don’t agree with you.I don’t know about other football administrations.
QC: For the sake of clarity: sell the playing staff rather than wage-reduction, you recall?
C: My reply ws that outside the window there are hurdles.
QC But you should have done it?
[ed:Mr Clark launched into a longish response which I frankly couldn’t follow well enough even to jot down the gist of it]
QC; Mr Clark, a normally competent administrator acting with reasonable care would not have allowed ‘buy-out’ clauses.
C: [ ed: missed his reply]
QC: ..the bidding process: “going concern” strategy ? Agree?
C: Yes.
QC: Individual assets, like Murray Park, you needed to keep it in the full package?
C: Yes
QC: and the same for Ibrox..?
C: Yes.
QC:You didn’t deviate…?
C: That’s fair. But a closer look at Murray Park offers might have beeen looked at, if offers. But we didn’t see any such offer. And the same with Ibrox.
QC: You didn’t take any separate advice about lease-back?
C: [ed: I didn’t hear his reply]
QC: We’ve seen Lambert Smith Hampton…?
C: Could have been followed.
QC: Potential negotiating strategy , to ask for higher price for something a bidder had expressed interest in?
C: I’m no expert, but Brian Kennedy….Coventry City.. [ed: that’s what I wrote, but I had no idea what the connection was]
QC: Vol 3, 1996- email from Paul Tenten [ed: of D&P] to you and Charles Walder “ …1. run a dual track process sale and lease, 2. IPO ” ..So an alternative strategy was a possibility?
C: Agree
QC: a sale and leaseback basis or “going concern” basis?
C: I accept that.
QC: One bid of £25 million but by 4 April a maximum of £10 million?
C: Yes
QC: £5.5 million to Sevco,£1.5 million to the heritable property?
C: Yes
QC: Break-up value £7.8 million, brought down to £4.5 million?
C: Yes
QC: Touch and go whether ‘a bid for the ‘whole’ was worth more than break-up? And if brand value had been included?
C: [ed; he may have responded , but if he did I didn’t hear]
QC: The bids were not what you hoped?
C: What was going on at the time— Ticketus, HMRC. We didn’t look at sale-and-leaseback..If we had gone down that route we might have scared the “ going concern” bidders
QC: A sale-and-leaseback was the obvious strategy. You understand ?
C: Yes
QC: It ought to have been an obvious strategy : it would have kept open the continuation of football.
C: [ ed; I did not catch his reponse]
QC: ….. other football Administrations?
C: Yes, Leeds United, I did work at preparing…
QC: Vol 2, p.339 email from Neil Weeks to David Grier, 13 February: “ my colleague is a football expert in…” Do you know Neil Weeks?
C: Yes
QC email Neil Weeks ,copied to you: ‘flier’ and Chris Honeywell experience
p. 903, “ football property expertise. Edward Simmons have particular experience in the football area, eg, Chrystal Palace sale-and-leaseback, Barnet and Yeovil value of sale-and leseback purposes, Portsmouth-assisting in Administration, Darlington-,sale-and-leaseback” What we are seeing is a practice of sale-and-leaseback?
C: I accept that it was a possible practice but we did not actively consider.
QC: The point is that there were people with experience… Leaseback had been considered by David Grier?
C: I have no recollection
QC: Who is Gerard Fohrg?
C: Yes, he moved into asset lending, operating a brokerage business
QC: Look at Vol 1, 2677, David Grier emails: DG to Gerry Fohrg “ ..unencumbered property…. separate company…. no planning permission at present”
the response “ I can get the…..which club is it?”
David Grier to him on 30 June : “ it’s Rangers. Sale and lease-back”
So it looks as if David Grier was helping Craig Whyte to get out of a hole?
C: Yes
QC: Vol 1, p. 209, letter from Fohrg addressed to Phil Betts…. £80,000 commitment fee to arrange leasing”
Vol 5, p.4181 Rangers FC subject to diligence 1. commercial mort 2. sale and leaseback £17 million , interest charge to be finalised.”
The point is, it was an option that David Grier was prepared to explore. It would have been an option for you at the outset?
C: It seems a bit pie-in-the-sky. But I accept we didn’t look at it.
QC: The simple point is that it was an option to look at, not that it would necessarily have been successful?
C: Yes
QC: Bidder for holding heritable property separate from the other assets?
C: Yes. Brian Kennedy.
QC: German consortium, 19 March : “ The price indicatives ,Heritable property, brand £25 million”, excludes Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park?
C: Yes. If that offer had proceeded it might….[ ed: lost what he said]
QC: Do you agree or not that there was… ? [ ed: lost it]
C: Yes
QC: Maurice Rothbart, Mr McKenna? Seems to support the view that there was a market? You don’t dispute that?
C: If it were a manufacturing business , easy to see break-up. I accept that we did not actively go out to look
QC: What you did not do was to seek advice on….?
C: I accept that.
QC: You identified the concern of fans at the prospect of break-up?
C: Yes
QC: Football fans protest over many things?
C: Yes
QC: The SFA embargo?
C: Yes.
QC: Might be ‘Liquidation’ equals ‘asset sale’ because it might break continuity?
C: Yes
QC; Red card protest in the 77th minute?
C: Yes
QC Very considerable emotional …?
C: Yes.
QC: Understandable, at facing the demise of their football club?
C: Yes
QC: They didn’t like the sale to Sevco?
C: They preferred a CVA
QC: When a CVA did not happen and the ‘asset sale’ went ahead ,although it was technically a Liquidation of the existing entity the Rangers fans kept supporting?
C: Yes
QC In advance you knew the fans didn’t want an asset sale to Sevco?
C : The first structure we put in place for a deliverable outcome, we decided near the end of the season that the actual sale to Sevco was either going to be a CVA or an asset sale. It was only when we knew that a CVA was not going to proceed that we decided on an asset sale.
QC: You had to make an unpopular decision?
C: We had to decide. We had not heard from the one creditor who had influence who wanted the CVA to be proposed. We could not wait.
QC: You reached a stage where the decision was not popular?
C; Yes
QC: If a sale and leaseback you would have had to decide?
C: Yes
QC : the Rangers fans , they just have to suck it and see?
C: [ed: I missed the response]
QC: And they’re back, winning the league!
Lord Tyre: We’ll break now 11.28 resume at 11.45

On resumption,
Mr McBrearty: What would potential “going concern”-basis purchasers say if, for example, the stadium was leased, rent to pa; you didn’t think they would like that?
C: It would depend on the rent: a peppercorn rent might have been..
QC: Para 6.13: annual rent suggested by Rothbart was £1.8 million?
C: [ed: missed the reply]
QC: You could have taken advice to find whether it might be achievable?
C: We did not take advice
QC: But it might have been done?
C: We didn’t think the offer was ..
QC: It was an open offer, come and go?
C: I don’t know
QC: All the assets , but I need to go with the others. You’d expect resistance?
C: Yes.
QC: A purchaser would want to have Ibrox?
C: Yes
QC: How cheaply the other assets [ed: missed the rest] ?
C: It would depend on…..[ed:missed it]
QC: If you had a brand valuation report you could have said to the bidders they were getting a great bargain?
C: Why didn’t they just buy at £20 million … and get the brand?
QC: Without testing we don’t know that! So far, in the context of sale/leaseback /liquidation, suggest the possibility of fan purchase of the Heritable property for Ibrox or Murray Park: you gave no consideration to that?
C: I have no personal knowledge of fans buying heritable property
QC: Six thousand debentures, £7.7 million to build a stand?
C: I accept that harnessing fans’ ..[ ed: didn’t catch the rest]
QC: The power of harnessing fan loyalty , in financial terms?
C: I know that was how the debentures were….
QC: Gaining the right to a seat, not ownership?
C: Yes
QC: Fans were prepared to purchase debentures and all that they got was a right to a seat?
C: [ed: didn’t catch his response]
QC: Are you aware of how Celtic had harnessed the power of the fans in 1994 with a share issue?
C: Not in detail
QC: It’s not controversial to say that it was at least possible to harness the fans’ loyalty in some shape or form?
C: Yes
QC: RFFF, the organisation set up by Sandy Jardine with Walter Smith, was not to purchase the club but just to provide funding for certain costs?
C: There were various fan groups . The point made to them was that the funds could not be controlled by them for purposes they wouldn’t want. For example, they didn’t want monies to go to the creditors.
QC: Vol 2, p.3677 , email from Andy Kerr [ed: Rangers Supporter Association] 01 March 2012 to various recipient eg “Bluenose”, “ Administrators do not favour taking fans’ money now… legal minefield” That reflects what you were saying?
C: Not so much a legal as a practical difficulty: the fans couldn’t demand what the money could be used for.
QC: They did eventually pay for some work to the pitch?
C: They funded some legal costs
QC: The fees of Mr Keen to carry out the Judicial review? [ed: the transfer/registration embargo]
C: Yes
QC: You talked to RFFF about providing specific costs?
C: Fans would only provide funds on the stipulation that no money was to go to the creditors.
QC: ..in the context of fans providing donations for specific costs?
C: That part I recall
QC: You don’t mention “Save Rangers”?
C: I don’t recall. There may be some email traffic, pledges made. {bottom of page 7 of m/s]
QC: Vol 2, p.4354 email from Carol Paton 24 February to you and a long line of recipients, and David Whitehouse ..
p. 4356 para [?] “ SaveRangers.com” £5.8 million pledged in five hours reported in the Daily Express
C: I can’t recall specifically seeing it.
QC: Another email Vol 2 p.2281 Ryan Murray to Peter Hart, Simon Shipperlee, Charles Walder, and you “ all Save Rangers”- 11500 members
C: Yes
QC: If ‘sale-and-leaseback’, another possibility was to sell to the fans?
C: I don’t recall any proposal or any detail
QC: If you had taken advice, this is a possibility?
C: I accept that.I would turn it around and suggest that it would have been for the fans to initiate
QC: Pledges have to be turned into cash but if they could , some of the problems would disappear if it were the fans buying?
C: [ed : missed the reply]
QC: Bear with me a moment………[ presumably the QC was looking something up] then
QC: ..hypotheticals, out of fairness, a ‘fans’ purchase of Ibrox ‘ might have been sold to Miller?
C: The issue of Miller was about closing the club, not being a Rangers man.
QC: He was American. But if he was going to hand back Ibrox to the fans?
C: Miller was much the best equipped but neither he nor his team suggested.
QC: Really, at the outset you should have been ‘dual track’?
C: It could have been, there could have been alternative suggestions.
QC: A formality again, Mr Clark; I have to put it to you that an ordinarily competent administrator acting reasonably would ,one, obtain property valuations and consider alternative arrangements such as sale-and-leaseback; two, assess all offers;three, assess [?]; four, establish best net recovery taking proper advice; five, [?] if price below break-up value ; six, and would not sell until all previous steps had been taken.
You failed to reach the standard expected…
C: they could have been but were not
QC: ordinarily competent, sale-and leaseback should have been explored?
C: We thought it best to ell all together.
QC: You should have tested the alternatives. Agree?
C: Could have, but did not
QC: For others to judge?
C: Yes
QC: What you did do: kept the CVA on the table. If you hadn’t all the players relise they could be free agents
C: The… [ed: I missed he said]
QC: You were in the hands of Craig Whyte and Ticketus
C: Yes. We had some leverage , moral leverage, over him, and some potential legal remedies.
QC: Leverage- some bidders were trying to deal with Craig Whyte?
C: Yes
QC: You did not consider Whyte as trustworthy, ..slippery?
C: He is not straightforward when you eal with him
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: He was looking out for himself
QC: The bidders were trying to get the shares ,competing with each other
C: Not quite Craig Whyte, but a company.
QC: Yes, Rangers Group. You couldn’t be sure that Whyte would give up the shares?
C: [ed: didn’t pick it up]
QC: He might only transfer them to one bidder, not necessarily the best for..?
C: ..the problem of enforcement…
QC: The formal steps you took, Vol 3, 2644, 26 March letter to Taylor Wessing.
[ ed: the system went down]
Lord Tyre : it’s got…..
QC: Can you hear me?….
Lord Tyre: We’ll go out of session till this gets sorted out…It’s 11.28 a.m

Back in session at 11.31
Mr McBrearty: Vol 3, p.2644 Taylor Wessing letter to Craig Whyte. Email from you to Taylor Wessing “ Craig is still investigating retaining, unlikely to give up with no consideration” …Whyte was still trying to keep control?
C: [ed: didn’t catch what he said]
QC: Whoever wanted the shares would have to deal with Whyte?
C: Yes, cash consideration, directors’ box tickets,..
QC: Not at 28 March when best and final bids by the 4 April?
C: First offer was on the basis of an asset sale.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: Whyte would nt have..
QC: Vol 3, 4594 email from Craig Whyte to Arthur Fernandez 11 April a week after
“ RFCG 51% shareholding at no cost Craig Whyte retains….. up to £40 million … consensual, avoids liquidation ” These were a week after the date of ‘final bids’
. Not acceptable to any bidder?
C: This is a proposal by a solicitor in a vague set of terms. I don’t recall discussion.
QC: What he wanted was unsustainable? Board representation. No bidder?
C: I suppose that Whyte knew it was unlikely , and his solicitor.
QC: The legal advice you took on enforcing , Taylor Wessing, was a week later, and after close of final offers?
C: A formaal letter is not the only way to receive advice.
QC: No steps were taken to enforce the transfer of the shares?
C; No, they weren’t
QC: Craig Whyte had control of the process?
C: Not control, but he could slow down
QC: Do you recall saying you would take legal action to enforce?
C: If you’re going to Court to press urgency..
QC: 14 February that urgency existed?
C: If we had gone to Court we would have…[ed: missed it]
QC: But when you’re inviting purchasers and tell them togo off and negotiate with someone….?
C: I accept it would be something…
QC: Simon Shipperlee “ Craig Whyte should have been nailed on day one” You could have demanded a mandate, otherwise HMRC appointment?
C: Craig Whyte tried to avoid Administration. Original intention was to have a period of time for final discussion with HMRC, pull the pin out of the grenade.. one, notice of intention was leaked to social media , two, application was made by HMRC
QC: You were proceeding on the basiss that Whyte would transfer the shares?
C: Yes
QC: You were having discussions with Whyte throughout?
C: Yes, David Grier, David Whitehouse and I.
QC: How often did you meet?
C: I met him four or five time s..no, eight or ten times.
QC: But you had met him before Administration?
C: Six or seven times, on matters to do with Rangers, and a high net worth individual at dinner in January 2010 and then in April 2011 and perhaps…
QC: David Grier would have known him better? Were you friendly with Whyte?
C: Not particularly
QC: What did you speak about?
C: The shares. He would have been aware of Collyer Bristow action and what we were doing with Ticketus.
QC: How much did you disclose to him?
C: Not much, there was lots of stuff in the media.
QC: Vol[? ] p. 2330: 01 May 2012 transcript of a discussion with Craig Whyte, personal or by phone?
C: Personal
QC: “ Hi, Paul..”…. was it you alone, or with Whitehouse or Grier?
C: Not sure, but possibly someone else
QC: Looks as though someone else was with you. Let’s read the conversation:
“ Shall I give you ..”
“ Yeah, go on”
“ We’re obviously down to..”
“ yes.”
“ Blue Knights have a deal, leaves Kennedy way .. . ”
“ What sort of offer has he got?”
“ 5 up front ”
“……”
“ Yeah, yeah ”
“ So really you need to have a conversation..”
“ I tried to call him but..”
So, you’re discussing the Blue Knights’ offer.You describe Whyte as ‘slippery’. Why tell him?
C: Most of this was in the public domain
QC: “ …they haven’t .. David Grier “do you think they’re serious”
Did it occur to you that Craig Whyte might have an interest in Green succeeding?
C: From 1 May to 10 May you’ve missed out that time period. The position was that the best bid was CG
QC: The reason I ask, we can see Craig Whyte is suggesting the Charles Green consortium, did it occur toyou…
Mr Young QC, interrupting: Wait a bit! M’Lord, we seem to have moved into a different area,,
Mr McBrearty: The criticism is that something had to be done to get Whyte’s shares, but Whyte is calling the shots: the criticism goes back to the outset.
Lord Tyre: Mr Clark, I think a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
C: M’Lord, I can’t be clear. We were told in no uncertain terms that Whyte was not involved.
QC The question was, did he have an interest?
C: We are getting into May: if he was able to introduce someone who could provide a deliverable bid… hence we announced Bill Miller…I totally refute that he was calling the shots
QC: Craig Whyte had an interest in that he might get something for his shares?
C: I don’t think we were told…
QC: In the context, did it seem wise to disclose other bids to him?
C: Very round numbers, just to give him an indication
QC: p.2235, please, three lines from the foot… [ ed: a little system crash 2.12 pm to 2.13 pm]…. “ he seems pretty keen” “ not necessarily about money but deliverability” p. 2237 “if we think we can get a deal” You’ve been emphasising deliverability, he’s the one with the shares?
C: Deliverability is not only about transfer of share.
QC: Was it wise to tell Whyte all these details?
C: The stage we were at: we had another month.
QC: It was unthinkable that you would have gone down a legal process?
C: No, we would have even if the Administration was held up while the Court considered.
QC: But Craig Whyte is asking what sort of offer has Kennedy got on the table.You did not know that he knew that?
C: If we wanted to get Whyte to cooperate…
QC: I’m not sure I understand why you felt .. [ed: missed the rest]
C: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: Whyte is not saying “ I see from the Press that Kennedy has offered..” You’re giving him information about another bid?
C: I don’t know.
QC: We’ll leave it for now.
Lord Tyre: We’ll break for lunch now. Resume at 1.55

On resumption:

McBrearty QC: Mr Clark, vol5 p.2231 would you read to yourself from “ where it gets to a position” down to…?
C: [having read] Yes.
QC: Craig Whyte is asking which bid is likely to succeed?and you are tlling him about Miller? Information is being shared about the bidding process?
C: I accept that.
QC: “CW I was contacted by another bidder, Charles Green…01 May due to meet him again tonight. For me if they deliver …” The first introduction to Charles green came from Craig Whyte, on that day 01 May?
C: yes
QC: He agreed to transfer shares only to Green?
C: I’m not sure about the ‘only’
QC: email from you to David Whitehouse on 10 May: Miller is out, CG is in, Kennedy, Ally McCoist/Walter Smith ?
C: Yes
QC: “Craig has signed to release his shares but only to one party”
C: Prior to that there was no bid that required his shares
QC: Vol 5, p. 2233 from “ Do you know how much” . ‘DG’ is that David Grier?
C: Yes. I can’t speak for the provenance of that.
QC: You’re not disputing this conversation?
C; No, no.When Miller withdrew we continued to help bidders. The party we helped most was McCoist/Smith.
QC: Was it wise to tell Whyte all these details?
C: … I stand by the decision
QC: You did not require to disclose to him the details?
C: Need to be there in the moment to give an accurate answer. I didn’t say I was in the room or was not…I don’t know.
QC: p.2239 “ ..any possibility of any of these boys falling away Nichola Sturgeon Alex Salmond.. ” It seems to be D&P explaining to Whyte the plan if deals fall throughout
C: [ed: missed his response]
QC: Disclosing how bad the situation was : p.22 D&P “ we were thinking £20 million… I thought we …. David Grier ” Someone is expressing that the level of bids is not what you thought?
C: Yes
QC: 6 June , p.2261 leading up to the CVA proposal
C: Yes
QC: “ DW: “ and you think these shares will be all right, You’ll deal with Charles?”
CW: I’ll deal with him”
So it looks as though D&P were still encouraging Craig Whyte?
C: Yes
QC: You were aware that he was asking for £1 million a year?
C: I don’t recall specifically
QC: p.2262, D&P “ the other thing I would say if ..” This was a discussion of what will happen if Charles Green doesn’t have the money and HMRC come in.
C: I don’t believe I ws involved in that conversation.
QC: If it wasn’t you, it would have been David Whitehouse?
C: yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: [ed: there was a long sentence from Mr Clark which I missed]
QC: Same page, “ it would be good to get thiis done and we don’t any more disasters DG…” HMRC have said from day one they want a Liquidation”
C: HMRC are in difficult position, are they prepared to dish a CVA?
QC: We won’t go through the transcript….do you accept :one, how the SPL would deal with Newco?
C: I don’t remember
QC: two, how the club would be funded through CVA?
QC: three, HMRC attitude
C: just been discussed
QC: four, Administrators’ claim against Collyer Bristow ?
C: We would have been guarded, certain aspects less strong than others, the amount held by Collyer Bristow, doubt wheth other parties had an interest in those funds…
QC: five, claims made against Craig Whyte by Ticketus?
C: Yes
QC: six, whether ? had breached the JJB contract, Charles Green?
C:….
QC: seven, You and David Whitehouse and Craig Whyte , the views about Ally McCoist, Paul Murray, Jacqueline Gourlay..
C: I don’t remember specific
QC: eight, you/David Whitehouse scathing about certain persons ,in conversation with Craig Whyte.Was that wise?
C: I don’t know
QC: You described individuals using language that is not professional : “ a complete twat”
unprofessional, unwise?
C: I accept that.
QC: Disclosing information, communicating about other bidders…Agree?
C: I understand what you say
QC: The Bill Miller bid on 2 or 3 May, of £8.5 million. Recall?
C: Yes
QC; ‘Break- up’ £5.5 , £8.5 ?
C: Yes
QC: File note- the record of bidding process, no mention of £3.5 million . Explain?
C: No, I can’t. It’s meant to be a summary.. . an oversight.You would have hoped someone…
QC: There’s no reference to Bill Miller’s bid in your statement. Why not?
C: No, I can’t explain. It wasn’t a conscious thought..
QC: The 5.5 million 8.5 million ‘headline figures’ and the 5.5 / 8.5 Sevco figures Can you explain how Sevco could use the same figures?
C; [ed: no idea what he said in reply]
QC: You’ll see than an inference can be drawn tht the information came from craig Whyte
C: I can only say that the majority of bids were in the public domain…but it is possible.
QC: A CVA was your preferred exit. I suggest that you allowed Whyte to control your preferred outcome?
C: I don’t accept that Whyte controlled: we were open to other approaches
QC: As of mid-April: Bill Miller ,Singapore Consortium pulled out over serious concerns over shares, protest at length of time,.. You lost a bidder because of delay in deliverability of shares?
C: People make Press statements…
QC: The Blue Knights in April relied on Ticketus to get the shares. And you knew that Ticketus would not deal with Murray?
C: They were never properly funded.
QC: Your preferred outcome was a CVA. You should ‘have nailed Whyte on day one’?
C: I preferred a CVA, but also was prepared to consider options.. I believe that if there had been a CVA then Craig Whyte would deliver the shares.
QC: But you should have … Agree?
C: That’s ..[ed: if there was more, I missed it]
QC: You had lost, by your lack of action, a number of bidders?
C: Craig Whyte would have passed on the shares and if not we would have gone to Court.
QC: “downward spiral”- you and David Whitehouse contributed to the spiral?
C: In my view Whyte would deliver the shares if there was a deliverabe bid from, say, a Rangers legend…If he had not we would have gone to Court. But there was urgency to get a CVA delivered.
QC: Mr Clark, I again have to be formal: no ordinarily competent administrator would have failed to take action on the shares.
C: I can only repeat.. [ ed: I missed the rest of his sentence]
QC: That failure also had effect, your loss of control not only in relation to shares but also to wage-deductions….
C: I don’t accept we lost control.
QC: An ordinarily competent administrator would have obtained a brand valuation report?
C: I’m not able to discuss.
QC: heritable property-failure to investigate another strategy?
C: Yes

Lord Tyre: It’s 14.59. Let’s break until ten past three?

On resumption:

Mr McBrearty QC: Mr Clark, you mentioned information beinng in the public press. Vol 4, 2780: This is BBC article 8 May 2012 “ Bill Miller has withdrawn”
p.2783, in the same article, “ however it is believed that neither Kennedy nor the other close to the same figure ( £11.2 million)”
p.2975, Press cutting summary circulating list DR …
p. 2976 “ Sun” -Bill Miller £11 million., torrent of abuse Daily Express £11.2 million The same figures attributed by other newspapers.
The point is, the bid ws NOT £11.2 million?
C: I can’t recall
QC: The bid was £5.5 with another 3.5 deferred , to make £8.5 million. What was said was not accurate.
C: Yes
QC: But what you told Craig Whyte was accurate?
C: Yes
QC: So what you said was important?
C; Well, Miller was the least media friendly. I stand by my view that a lot of information was in the public domain.
QC: The missing bid- can you say how it came to be that Sevco’s bid ws so accurate?
C: No, I can’t, I’m sorry I cannot remember
QC: “Estimated Outcome Statement” 10 May 2012, Sarah Bell’s evidence, This was sent to HMRC on 11 May. The difference between bids was small and the difference from the Liquidation figures at the time showing that liquidation was better than Charles Green’ s bid.
According to Sarah Bell, this was what was there when a binding contract was signed . Post-dated outcome statement showed the outcome figures changing ,showing that the outcome statement was worse than Liquidation. You signed a binding deal for a CVA and if not carried, then an asset sale. You did not have the later figures. Agreed?
C: I understand.
QC: You knew that Liquidation was better than the ‘asset sale’ when you signed the binding contract. Why?
C: An estimated outcome is an estimate. I maintain the costs of closing down Rangers, Ibrox ,don’t figure. If the creditors had been prepared…
QC: What was in your mind? Did you disregard the estimated outcome or did you regard it and maintain your …?
C: The Liquidation costs would be £1 million. One or other bases normally is a clear winner.
QC: If entering a binding agreement wouldn’t you have gone to the creditors before signing a binding agreement?
C: [ed: I didn’t catch what he said]
QC: When Mrs Bell was taken to various figures, all the matters that were changed could have been changed before the 11 May?
C: The Sevco arrangement was on 12 May; the meeting started at lunch-time on 11 May. I was in various meetings in and out, 16 hours……I can’t really remember.
QC: There’s another possibility: you didn’t have regard to the outcome figures?
C: [ed: I have only the tops of the letters of the two word reply and a question mark,impossible to decipher]
QC: What was the point of an outcome statement?
C: They’re an internal tool: they don’t drive the strategy.
QC: There were 5 or 6 . Length of time to take to sell the property. Other figures changed after the signing?
C: I can’t account for late changes. I may have suggested..
QC: The sale to Sevco. The balance of any SPL monies due. Agreement on 12 ,date of acquisition was 14 June. Discussion due with SPL?
C: Yes
QC: Which question was £1.345 million?
C: also a suggestion of fines.
QC: A question of fact: a sale and purchase agreement can be arranged in many ways..
[ ed: at this point, (3.50 pm) I have ‘phone died’ then
Lord Tyre : ‘reserve until first thing tomorrow’ 10.00 a..m tomorrow.

+++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately, I was unable to ‘attend’ the hearing on Tuesday 25th. This means that I haven’t any note of what Mr Young, QC might have raised in response to anything Mr McBrearty put forward.

I think I can safely say that I heard nothing to support the idea that Rangers Football Club plc, the holder of a share in the SPL and on that account a member of the SDA was not the entity that was liquidated!
The RFC Group ltd as a company holding the majority of shares in RFC plc did not go into Administration, far less into Liquidation: it is still alive on the Companies House register, although dormant. Whereas RFC plc had to surrender its share in the SPL , lost its entitlement to membership of the SFA, and ceased to exist as a football club recognised as being eligible to participate in Scottish professional football.
James Traynor and the others spoke nothing but the truth on Liquidation day- 140 years of sporting history came to an end.
And little phrases like ” technically a liquidation” or “the sale of the business and assets” cannot hide or disguise that truth.
nawlite on 06/07/2021 at 15:17 said:

Good work JC. That’s the most interesting one yet, with the introduction of CW and his desire to release the shares ONLY to CG as a buyer. “You are Sevco”. Interesting to see mention that in return CW was looking for £1m per month?! Remember Phil’s (continuing) talk of ‘onerous contracts’ hindering CG’s stewardship? Although it always seemed to me that Phil was pointing to Mike Ashley when he mentioned that, could CW’s demand be another? (Though I recognise that the story goes that the need for CW’s shares fell away when HMRC rejected the CVA).

I loved the wording “QC: Might be ‘Liquidation’ equals ‘asset sale’ because it might break continuity?
C: Yes”. and “QC: When a CVA did not happen and the ‘asset sale’ went ahead ,although it was technically a Liquidation of the existing entity…” To me, the word technically here equates to ‘actually’ so to hear that said in court just reaffirms the truth that the entity which was RFC1872 is the entity that is in course of liquidation.

Lots of nasty stuff in there too for D&P from disclosing confidential info to CW; not quickly acting for the creditors by failing to realise full value of players, properties and brand; favouring certain bidders over others (Smith/McCoist or ‘a Rangers legend, the CG – I don’t know how the Court will view it but BDO’s case looks quite strong to me.
upthehoops on 06/07/2021 at 16:18 said:

John Clark 6th July 2021 At 13:54

Thanks for the latest update John.

It’s a pity the QC had to mention Celtic in 1994, as those unfamiliar could be mistaken for believing that in 1994 Celtic were liquidated, and had stiffed creditors in the way Rangers did in 2012. Celtic of course were not liquidated, and paid every single penny owed to creditors at the time. There is no argument whatsoever about Celtic being the same club. It’s also worth remembering that it was the bank who were giving Rangers an open cheque book at the time, who were doing all they could to put Celtic out of business. There was/is a great story there but it is no surprise that the Scottish media don’t want to go after it…they prefer to just tell us we’re paranoid.

Thank God for Fergus McCann.
John Clark on 06/07/2021 at 22:37 said:

I had to move into the kitchen to let Mrs C sit in her usual seat in front of the telly while making her nightly phone call to her pal in Glasgow, and missed seeing the Spanish equaliser.

I’m glad I’m not so unsporting as to be bothered whether it’s Denmark or Italy that bumps England. In fact, an Italy-Denmark final would be quite good!

More generally, I was suddenly prompted to try to find out how many cases of ‘Insolvency practitioner’ disciplinary actions there are in year, and what the reasons for them might be.

I shouldn’t these days be surprised at how easy it is to find ‘public interest’ statistics. But I always am. [ I just learned today what a ‘QR code’ is and how to use my phone on it, to see some video footage of a wedding in Lebanon of the daughter of a friend of my USA based son. See me! see this IT stuff? I could begin to get interested]
This link gave me some basic info.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/current-insolvency-practitioner-sanctions

If there are hundreds/ thousands of Insolvencies a year….. the number of disciplinary actions against practitioners seems to be commendably small?

The few individual cases I’ve clicked on are , it seems, more like cases of carelessness, forgetfulness or muddle rather than anything else. None of the few seem to have resulted in any serious loss to creditors, or to Insolvency Practitioners or their employers being sued for millions in damages.

By any measure, I’m an auld man now- and I am just beginning to realise how feckin naive I have been all my life!
And how trusting in banks, insurance companies, the police, the SFA …
The Rangers saga has been a real education, and a wake-up call

And I am embarrassed to recollect that at one time ,however briefly, I thought Fergus was just an ‘American’-style businessman of the Trump variety.
I now am convinced that if he had been at the helm of Celtic in 2011/12 the ridiculous 5-Way Agreement would never even have been proposed. and the earlier granting of a UEFA licence to Whyte’s RFC would have been subjected to such expert forensic examination as Baroness Black of Strome conducted on any corpse as to ensure that there was absolutely no jiggery-pokery either by RFC or anyone in office in the SFA at the time.
John Clark on 06/07/2021 at 23:41 said:

Looking back over my notes of the Clark evidence, I see this:
“QC: You were having discussions with Whyte throughout?
C: Yes, David Grier, David Whitehouse and I.
QC: How often did you meet?
C: I met him four or five time s..no, eight or ten times.
QC: But you had met him before Administration?
C: Six or seven times, on matters to do with Rangers, and a high net worth individual at dinner in January 2010 and then in April 2011 and perhaps…”
And I’m trying to think : do we know who this ‘high net worth individual’ is/was? I don’t . My mind is going back over all that I know and remember of the court cases , and the only figures that might have been described ( as I understand the term] as being ‘high net worth individuals’ would have been SDM and Dave King.
Any ideas, anyone?
2010, SDM desperate to sell? Was DK eager to buy? Did Clark[ and perhaps Whitehouse ?]dine on succulent lamb with the ought-to-be-publicly -disgraced knight and/or the convicted cheater of the SARS?
One would love to know, wouldn’t one?
Oh, that real , fearless investigative journalism was the norm in Scotland!
Jingso.Jimsie on 07/07/2021 at 11:01 said:

‘John Clark 6th July 2021 At 23:41

…C: Six or seven times, on matters to do with Rangers, and a high net worth individual at dinner in January 2010 and then in April 2011 and perhaps…”
And I’m trying to think : do we know who this ‘high net worth individual’ is/was? I don’t…’
::
::
I think you’ve misheard/misread/misunderstood. The meeting referred to was likely at a function (sponsored by some City financial/investment services company) for a collection of HNW individuals which included Whyte, rather than a dinner with a single, unknown, unnamed HNW individual.
John Clark on 07/07/2021 at 12:19 said:

Jingso.Jimsie 7th July 2021 At 11:01
“I think you’ve misheard/misread/misunderstood”
+++++++++++
Thank you, Jingo.Jimsie. That’s a very possible explanation, although my note uses the singular
‘a.. high worth individual’.
God forgive me, but I thought Clark may have been kind of name-dropping!
But of course I suppose that, in that world ,business millionaires [real or fake, liars or no] are stock-in-trade for Insolvency Practitioners !
Mc Brearty’s question, I supposed, was aimed at establishing previous connections between the business in Administration and the Administrators, given that the choice of Administrator was in the hands of the business, and previous knowledge/dealings are useful when choosing anyone to do a job of work.
But , as Mr Clark might say: ” I accept that you’re probably right”
paddy malarkey on 08/07/2021 at 13:13 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57763001
wokingcelt on 08/07/2021 at 19:25 said:

@PaddyM – can you imagine the uproar if the positions were reversed here and the match was being played in Copenhagen…dearie me Nigel Farahe would be leading an armada (from the back mind!) to invade Denmark!!!

Denmark won the Euros in 1992 and obviously reached the semifinals this time. Population of Denmark is 5.8m. Population of Scotland is 5.4m. I would like the SFA to explain our performance relative to similar sized nations.

Croatia 4.1m
Wales 3.1m
Slovakia 5.5m
Finland 5.5m
Bulgaria 6.9m
Switzerland 8.7m

I could be wrong but would suggest against our peer group we have under-performed consistently over past 30 years. And for that you have to blame the leadership at the SFA (not the players, not the managers).
HirsutePursuit on 08/07/2021 at 19:34 said:

Back in 2012 the BBC gave this report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19981266

My initial response was one of incredulity:
https://sfmarchive.privateland.net/naming-the-rose/comment-page-25/#comment-1825

If the BBC reported Mr Clark’s words correctly he appeared not to understand the basic responsibilities of an administrator. I have not seen any correction from the BBC to indicate that the words attributed to Mr Clark were misreported.

It seems utterly implausible; but it appeared as if he was more focused on ‘saving’ the Rangers brand than he was on achieving the best result for creditors.

Can it be readily accepted that this flawed strategy was purely the result of incompetence?

It seems beyond belief that the administrators would not be able to distinguish between:
1. saving the company (the football club) and,
2. saving the business/brand by selling a majority of the old club’s assets to a new company.

The former IS the primary statutory purpose of administration – which the administrators singularly failed to achieve.
The latter has no purpose – UNLESS IT ACHIEVES THE BEST RESULT FOR THE CREDITORS. This outcome WAS achieved; but, there is nothing to indicate that this achieved (or even aimed to achieve) the best result for creditors.

Remember the questions that Duff and Phelps were facing relating to its potential conflict of interest?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18179264

I have been reading JC’s court reports with some interest.

It is interesting to see that Mr Clark admits to meeting with Craig Whyte six or seven times PRIOR TO ADMINISTRATION.

It is also interesting to see BDO’s focus on establishing that Craig Whyte was controlling the administration through his shareholding in RFC plc.

If BDO are successful in its action against the former administrators, I would not be at all surprised if further legal action ensues.

Interesting times…
John Clark on 08/07/2021 at 21:22 said:

HirsutePursuit 8th July 2021 At 19:34

” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19981266

“Coverage of Rangers Football Club, BBC Online
This is a consolidated appeal from two complainants who said that a number of reports on
the BBC’s website were inaccurate in giving the impression that Rangers Football Club,
rather than the company which had previously owned the club, had gone into
administration/liquidation. … ”
%%%%%%%%%%
The first link you provide , HirsutePursuit, which I give above, reports the infamously perverse decision by the BBC Trust that it was not RFC plc that was liquidated but some un-named company that owned the football club, while the club , having lost its membership of the SFA ,was bought ,miraculously whole and entire and free of debts etc , by Sevco., while a brand new club claiming to be Rangers of 1872 was admitted !

In my opinion, such a wicked perversion of truth must have had the backing of deliberate and very powerful liars, able to shut BBC journalists down by threat of disciplinary action.

It is greatly to the discredit of Pacific Quay that they neither publicly challenged that disgraceful order nor at least ask for the evidence on which the Trust based their view that Rangers had been sold whole and entire and had not been put into Liquidation.
I doubt if there has ever been such a cowardly lack of integrity by the BBC in all its years.
It’s my sincere hope that judgment will favour BDO , that the D&P ‘Administration’ will be found to have been a farce and suspect from beginning to end, that the damages claimed will be awarded , that the greatest publicity will be given to such a judgment, and that further investigations will be undertaken into the nature of the 5-Way Agreement…..
Albertz11 on 08/07/2021 at 22:57 said:

Well done to all concerned.

https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2021/05/11/free-season-tickets-for-unemployed-and-low-income-families/

As a club they do a lot of good work in the local community on various issues.
vernallen on 09/07/2021 at 01:37 said:

I know with the Euros on attention to matters pertaining to Scottish football may be overlooked. A recent statement from Ranger’s board member, to the effect, “we have scores to settle”. Would this not be of interest to the SFA and should an explanation not be sought. This group has history in regards to rash statements about the league, administration ( oops that’s a bad word) , etc. What is the intent of this statement, what scores to be settled, how will they be settled who are the targets, etc. Clarification is a must in this case.

Regarding the earlier comments on the smaller countries and their performance at the Euros, perhaps the SFA should use international matches with these countries as a fact finding mission, rather, than a paid holiday for the executive.
HirsutePursuit on 09/07/2021 at 02:09 said:

John Clark 8th July 2021 At 21:22
………….
It’s a pity that the BBC complainants focused so much energy on the newly created religious dogma of an eternally enduring metaphysical entity called Rangers.

If a more secular approach was taken, the supporters (including those in the media) may have stuck with their initial suspicious view that the remnants of their club may have been placed in the hands of someone who (initially at least) had little understanding or interest in the old club’s history and culture.

If the fans had been less distracted by their sudden conversion to metaphysics, more searching questions could have been asked around the bizarre circumstances as to how those precious assets actually got into the hands of Sevco Scotland.
Albertz11 on 09/07/2021 at 06:21 said:

Vernallen 6th July 01.37

Where does JB say that “we have scores to settle”?
John Clark on 09/07/2021 at 13:23 said:

Reading again the absolute untruth spouted by Clark , the IP,
“Secondly, we were tasked to secure a buyer for the club and this too was achieved.” and
“We are delighted that plans for the revitalisation of Rangers are now continuing with the new owners’ intention to float the club on the AIM market.” I simply had to reply to Lord Underhill’s relayed response to my letter to the Master of the Rolls.
I was in several minds about daring to appear to contradict an Appeal Court judge, but I’m sure they were fed the nonsense cobbled up by the SFA/SPL/ The Administrators/ Charles Green, nonsense eagerly swallowed by deceitful rogues in the Press.

“Mr Andrew Caton
Assistant Private Secretary to the Master of the Rolls
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Dear Mr Caton [in manuscript] ,

Thank you for your letter of 15 June 2021, in which you relay Lord Justice Underhill’s observations on the matter I raised in my previous letter to the Master of the Rolls, which the Master had passed to him for comment.

Let me at once say that, being very conscious of the great gulf that exists, in almost every dimension of life, between me and an eminent appeal Court Judge such as Lord Underhill, I really am grateful and, indeed, somewhat honoured that he should have taken the time and trouble of reading, let alone responding to, my earlier letter to the Master of the Rolls.

That letter, of course, was not written as any kind of complaint against, or criticism of, his Lordship or his fellow Judges in the case. I take comfort, from the courteous tone of his reply, that he understood that.

I dare to hope that he may be as understanding that I mean no disrespect now when I say that I am disappointed in his reply.
I have to conclude that he and the Court may have been given an untrue story to the effect that Rangers Football Club plc (IA) had been bought whole and entire by a new owner ,and brought out of Administration under a CVA.

The actual facts are that the Administrators failed to rescue Rangers Football Club plc as a “going concern”, and the club entered Liquidation ,in which state it continues to this day.

The Rangers Football Club Ltd created in 2012 and admitted into Scottish Football in that year is not, and cannot possibly be, Rangers Football Club plc that was founded in 1872.

My renewed thanks to you ,

Yours sincerely,
me “
vernallen on 09/07/2021 at 22:53 said:

Albertz — 9th July 2021 — 6:21

I believe these comments surfaced in the same interview ( in the DR) recently when he as offering his opinion on the status of their finances which he claims are returning to good health. The article appeared just before or just after the Euros started. I believe reference was made to it earlier on this forum.
vernallen on 10/07/2021 at 00:59 said:

Albertz — 9th July 2021 — 6:21

The article in question appeared in the DR digital section, July 2, 2021, posted at 19:30. Trust this helps.
Albertz11 on 10/07/2021 at 06:33 said:

Vernallen 10th July 00.59.

Thanks for the reply.

The article relates to an interview given by JB to Rangers TV on July 1st.

At no time did he mention that “we have scores to settle” as you alluded to.

You can’t use quotation marks when there was no quote.
Cluster One on 10/07/2021 at 10:52 said:

upthehoops 1st July 2021 At 16:36

15

0

Rate This

https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/19412547.sir-david-murray-hands-control-family-business/

More fawning sycophancy from the Scottish Media towards a man who is responsible for the public purse having tens of millions illegally withheld from it
…………………………….
HMRCs rejection of the CVA gave them the oppertunity to go after ex Directors and owners of the ibrox club. Murray knows this.
Hence the need to move everything away from his name
Cluster One on 10/07/2021 at 11:03 said:

vernallen 9th July 2021 At 01:37
A recent statement from Ranger’s board member, to the effect, “we have scores to settle”.
…………………………..
Albertz11 9th July 2021 At 06:21

0

7

Rate This

Vernallen 6th July 01.37

Where does JB say that “we have scores to settle”?
…………………………………………
At no point in vernallens post 9th July 2021 At 01:37 Does he mention JB (John Bennett) But for reasons unknown you knew who was alleged to have said it, therfore you must have been familiar with the story to add his initials.
Cluster One on 10/07/2021 at 11:19 said:

“And that is all that matters to me in this whole thing – righting this club on the pitch and off the pitch.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/john-bennett-fires-rangers-scores-24449649
Diferent quote from the headline
…………………………….
“And that is all that matters to me in this whole thing – righting this club on the pitch and off the pitch.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7343689/rangers-vice-chairman-john-bennett-scores-settle/
Again different quote from the headline.
………………………………
Bennett told Rangers TV: “I know what was done to my club.
If he knows liquidation was done to his club why does he pretend they just won 55 titles and are ready to celebrate 150 years
……………………………..
Sorry for the double post time ran out
bect67 on 10/07/2021 at 12:12 said:

Quick question (tongue in cheek!) …

Is Albertz11 in fact the much missed Reasonablechap?

This can be clarified by RC (not Georgie Boy) posting!!!
Albertz11 on 10/07/2021 at 12:16 said:

Cluster One.

Given that JB was the only board member to make a statement recently it really wasn’t that difficult.

Regardless of a newspaper headline there was no quote from JB about settling scores or anything like it.

Bet67 12.12.

No and don’t know who he is.

Comments are closed.

ARCHIVE

"There's a lot of ignorance out there"

Here we go again

1,142 thoughts on “Here we go again”