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?
Cluster One 4th May 2021 At 01:05
‘..BDO v The Administrators, the smsm will be all over this i expect, or will there be a big deflection from ibrox to keep the glare away?’
“””””””””””””””””””””””
I tried this morning , Cluster One, to get the access code needed to listen-in to today’s hearing. It wasn’t there at 10.00.
I had an appointment on other business which took me up to lunch.
It still wasn’t there, so I emailed the clerk to ask whether the hearing had taken place or whether it had been postponed or whatever.
As my other affairs panned out, however, although the reply had come in at 3.30, it was almost 4.00 when I looked at my emails and got the access number, so I didn’t try to use it for the minute or two remaining.
Happily, the access code for tomorrow was also emailed.
Now, I’ve to take Mrs C to the station at 10.00 tomorrow so I won’t be able to access until about 10.30 or so.
I just want to get a flavour of what is happening.
If I manage to follow whatever is being said I’ll make such note as I can ….
“…players would take a reduction of 25%?”
These were the first words I heard when I tuned in to the Hearing today at about 10.20.
I have been listening with great interest since.
A witness whose name sounds like ‘Shippoley’ or Chipolez or some such, and who appears to have worked under Whitehouse’s instructions on site at Ibrox while Whitehouse largely worked from Manchester , is being examined by Mr McBrearty.
Lot of reference to emails to and from some well-known names, of course , and I find it of absorbing interest.
Broke for lunch a second ago , to resume at 1.50.
[The QC examining is Mr McBrearty]
Thus far: player agreements to wage cuts , with agreements about reduced release amounts in return, player valuations before and after the SAP agreement, TUPE and player registrations, Fraser Wishart and the PFA , the JPP ban on player transfers, RIFC plc IPO, first RIFC plc accounts in respect of player valuations, ‘brand’ value’ , ‘negative goodwill’, continuing influence of CW after the appointment of Administrators, the MCR/ Grier/D&P connection , the frustration of the on-site D&P workers at the apparent uncertainty, lack of overall Administration strategy, the front-line problems caused by the huge amount of publicity, the RFFF….
these have all been mentioned, with a fair mount of references to email traffic,
Quite a lot of ‘I don’t recall’.
Entertaining listening… which I must now get back to…
John Clark 5th May 13.49.
Simon Shipperlee is the name John.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19278678.ex-rangers-administrators-fight-bonkers-56-8m-shut-club-down-claim/
……………………………….
FORMER administrators of Rangers are fighting the liquidators of the business who are suing them for £56.8m because they believe they should have conducted a “bonkers” strategy which would “effectively shut the club down for good”.
Details have emerged as Rangers liquidators BDO began court action against the former club administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps who have already agreed an estimated £24m settlement after Scotland’s senior law officer the Lord Advocate agreed there was a malicious prosecution in connection with the collapsed club fraud case.
John Clark 5th May 2021 At 13:49
Quite a lot of ‘I don’t recall’.
………………………………
I recall there is quite a lot of that when anyone with anything to do with the ibrox saga has anything to not say in court.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court (thank you JC) and also in the press. BDO would not be pursuing this without strong legal opinion behind them (not to say that it is watertight) as they have a corporate reputation to think about. I suspect the waters will be muddied and reporting furiously spun by vested interests. I see already some conflating of this case with the putative prosecution.
Dubaigate correspondence between Celtic & SG.
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2021/04/foi-202100132886/documents/foi—202100132886—information-released/foi—202100132886—information-released/govscot%3Adocument/FOI%2B-%2B202100132886%2B-%2BInformation%2BReleased.pdf
Today’s Hearing resumed at 1.50 p.m, after lunch.
I missed the opening words (had to redial and in my haste couldn’t get the wee ‘plus sign’ on my phone for several seconds.
First I heard was Mr McBrearty reading from something. What I think I heard was “Sandy wants the staff to have a half-day…..Don’t let David know..”
It turned out that Sandy was a reference to the late , very decent Sandy Jardine. Sandy wanted the non-playing staff to get a half-day-morale was flat, staff were twiddling their thumbs. Apparently David (Whitehouse] was not to be told.
When asked why this was, the witness [Mr Shippoley- my apologies to him] said something about there being few games to play, nothing much happening..
The QC asked again why David was not to be told. The witness answered that it was because he might not have understood the ebb and flow …
The QC answered his own question with ” He might have wanted to make more cuts, isn’t that right?”
The QC moved on to talk about ‘brands’, asking the witness about the obtaining of a ‘brand valuation report’..The witness said that there might have been some discussion of the matter.
The QC said that the decision was taken NOT to instruct a ‘brand’ report, and referred the witness to the page on screen, reference Vol 3 page 7766, which showed the front page of the witness’s ‘day book’ covering 15 March to ? April.
The QC pointed out that against 15 March there is the entry: Ibrox meeting. 1.15 on the fifteenth, and on the following page ‘D&;P conf. call 4.05 pm.” and asked the witness could he see that? The witness said he could. The QC continued (reading from the screen] “Morale at RFF. Int. parties.” broke off to ask whteher ‘int. parties’ referred to ‘international parties’, and witness said no, it stood for ‘interested parties’. The QC carried on ” Brand valuation” “InterBrand”, and asked what ws meant by ‘Inter.Brand’
The witness replied ” I can’t recall… it could be a ‘brand’ agency..
The Qc read again: ” Tell HMRC won’t mean anything ultimately” and suggested that the witness was noting (at?) a meeting it may be that HMRC were looking for Brand valuation.
The witness replied that that may have meant that it did not mean anything ultimately.
The QC continued : you did not have a Valuation of a Brand, [was there a valuation] of players as an asset of the brand?
The witness agreed.
The QC then said” Steven Naismith , January 12, valued at £4 to 5 million?
[ The judge interjected , as an aside, to ask the slide controller to make the screen blank]
The witness replied yes..
There followed a long session about the proposed transfer of Naismith to WBA , which did not materialise.
I haven’t had an opportunity to study my notes properly, But it was interesting stuff.
Sadly, I had to get into Waverley to pick up the wife, so I disengaged at 3.15, and in the event, didn’t get back home till just after 4.00.
I’ll try to get my notes organised in my usual style . I find it a bind trying to just to do a wee short summary.[This is where eJ is badly missed, I have to say.]
Anent my posts of the ‘Hearing’, I have just learned from a reliable source that the name of the witness is Shipperlee.
The way the ‘lee’ was spoken sounded more like ‘ay’ as in ‘say’, Known to his friends and colleagues as ‘Shippers’.
I reckon that Counsel’s incidental reference to him as ‘being in his mid-thirties ‘ was related to his age at the time of the Administration back in 2012.
I missed any swearing in of Shipperlee so I don’t know if he is still working in D&P. He is an accountant, and was working in Ibrox under instruction from the Joint Administrators.
Wokingcelt 5th May 2021 At 17:34
‘..It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court (thank you JC)..’
++++++++++++
It will indeed.
In the interests of everything to do with justice and truth, of course, I need to say that while I record what I hear as I hear it, and would not and do not make anything up or try to falsify anything, it is possible that I may mis-hear , misunderstand, or hear things in a misunderstood context ( perhaps not having properly heard an opening sentence or such like]
It ‘s day two, and I did not access the first days Hearing.
So, with what? 30 days still to come, there’s no way really of assessing the merits/demerits of the legal case being argued.
But I’m happy that I have not deliberately mis-reported, and fairly sure that the official record will show that.
I hope that I will be able to tune in tomorrow, but so far the access code is not available.
Somewhat confused about Barry Ferguson’s employment status. Is he a reporter for the DR as he appears to now have a daily column, has he been hired as part of the Ranger’s management team as he makes reference to “we can’t lose”, Ryan Kent and there is just a passing mention of the people who had/are writing his pay cheque, Kelty. So many roles, so little time for any of them.
Cluster One 5th May 2021 At 15:28
‘…Quite a lot of ‘I don’t recall’.
I recall there is quite a lot of that when anyone with anything to do with the ibrox saga has anything to not say in court.
++++++++
Aye, of course.
But to be fair, witnesses are not themselves on ‘trial’.
And by and large don’t want to, and should not be expected to, suffer consequences for what they say in evidence.
On the one hand they do not want to lie, and on the other hand do not want to give evidence that may lead to difficulties of any kind for themselves.
The Law allows them the ‘I can’t remember’ option.
How the Court then views and evaluates their evidence?
That, to me, is a fascinating question.
Or am I talking sh.te?
Vernallen 5th May 2021 At 22:52
‘.. about Barry Ferguson’s employment status..’
+++++++++
Your man’s ‘two-fingers’ to Scottish Football told us all about your man (and one or two others]
And the DR’s readiness to accommodate him tells us a lot about the DR.[ not that we did not already know where their rotten hearts lay]
Honest to God. ( and the wee donkey)
Cognitive dissonance?
Halliday in ” The Scotsman” today.
How an otherwise intelligent person can come out in the same article with
” …the destination was finally reached this season with the capture of their club’s coveted 55th Scottish league title..” and “So began the extraordinary saga which saw BDO appointed as Liquidators in June 2012- a process ongoing to this day-while the business and assets of Rangers were acquired by a consortium led by Charles Green”
If only he had the guts to tell the unvarnished truth -that RFC of 1872 is as dead as Third Lanark, has won no trophies or titles since before 2012.
Gutless journalism is the bane of Scotland.
Is it possible to include/insert images to the comment section of the blog?
Well, today’s session in virtual Court saw the end f Mr Shipperlee’s evidence at the lunch break.
After lunch, Mr Peter Hart was sworn in.
His evidence-giving finished at about 4.05.
For listeners , there was promising beginning: Mr McBrearty’s opening question to Hart was ” Mr Hart, who were Dilly and Dally?”
And there was a little frisson of excitement when Mr McBrearty warned the witness that he thought he was being evasive, and remarked that he might refer the matter to the judge.
The line of questioning seemed to focus on the frustration apparently evidenced by email comments made by the witness , due to the lack of clear strategy, lack of communication, differences of opinion between the Administrators
Dilly and Dally was a reference, it seems, to Whitehouse and Clark made in an email Further references were to Ticketus holding the power to block a CVA,
the failure to secure an agreement with the PFA and players,
the suggestion that there was no proper redundancy plan, the decision that there would BE non-playing staff redundancies only being taken, apparently, the day before meetings with staff to tell them,
the remarkably small number ( in effect, only 7] ,
no axing of ‘Community Coaching’ ( which, whatever its value to youngsters in the community, was not strictly necessary in terms of trying to get out of Administration.]
Moved on to the RFFF and the Save Rangers and other fan organisations and the money raised/pledged and the fact that no thought seemed to have been given to inviting such groups actually to invest their funds in the club by buying shares or even by bidding to buy
I listened most of the day, but there were times when I lost the thread badly enough to make me stop trying to take any kind of note .
I have 10 double-side A4 pages of scribbles, but it will be difficult to decipher them.
Cheers JC
Should the manager of the year be based on performance in the league and cup competitions and not be glossed up any European football. Some seem to think/feel that SG is a shoo in for manager of the year and keep bringing the European record into the conversation. Let’s have the outcome decided by games in Scottish football and I believe the award is for the Scottish manager of the year. I believe there are a number of candidates under consideration and some of those did not have the advantage of share issues, directors’ loans to assemble a team they could not afford.
WWell, that’s the Hearing adjourned till Tuesday.1.00 pm.
Hart finished giving evidence, and then there were McKinlay, and Rod McKenzie.
A lot of use of the ‘ the company owning the club’, some ‘I can’t recalls’, references to 5-Way agreement, Hearts ( Mr McKinlay mentioning that Hearts came out of Admin via a CVA), Naismith ‘transfer’ , player registration ,the discretionary powers of the Board(s) , amendments in May 2012 to reserve some decision-making to the members, mention of Gretna, obligations to fulfil fixtures, distribution of broadcast monies, dispensations from competing in under-19 league, mention of EBTs and spill-over into post-Administration.
I’ve got some notes.
To the extent that I can, I’ll write them up and consider posting them
@JC – thank you, very much appreciate the dedication and indefatigability!
@Vernallen – I hadn’t thought of the Scottish football only consideration before but I can see the fairness in it. SG deserves consideration given the points gathered in the league, arguably offset by overseeing two cup upsets. CallumD at St Johnstone deserves consideration for both league and cup performances (to date). Personally I also think Jack Ross for what he has done at Hibs must be in the mix. Of course if Jack Ross were to win he would join Strachan as only two to have won the PFA award twice, with Ross winning in 2017/18 despite Rodgers overseeing back to back trebles.
And in 2019/20 Neil Lennon won the Treble and PFA Scotland cancelled their awards because of COVID.
Discuss…
I see where McCoist, with some help from Sutton, have suggested Kent is worth somewhere between $ 25–$30 million. If memory serves correct wasn’t Liverpool trying to flog him a few years ago and there was a dearth of bidders. It appears the free spending Rangers were the only club to step up with a bid that Liverpool happily snatched ( have they ever been paid any portion of that fee). If not I’m sure another share issue or a round of directors loans can be arranged. Would happily be corrected if my memory has failed me.
Vernallen 7th May 2021 At 01:35
‘..some of those did not have the advantage of share issues, directors’ loans to assemble a team they could not afford.’
++++++++++
It’s an open question as to the extent to which Gerrard is actually the man, as opposed to the figurehead , his ‘successes’ rather being due to others, as well as to the relative ‘riches’ of a loan funded club!
JC 7th May 2021 @ 23:09
It seems that most managers at this club have had access to funds and wrote cheques with abandon in the signing market. Sooner or later there will be a repeat of 2012. Just how deep are the pockets and how much vanity is involved.
@Vernallen – it would not make economic sense to retain £25m players in the SPL and every team would bite your hand off for the cheque (they would probably hire the private jet to get the player south of the border!).
Living in England and with regard to Ryan Kent, I have not heard or read any reports linking him with teams here (of course I might have missed the reports). Similarly not even a sniff of a suggestion that he could be on the fringes of the England squad which maybe talks to the lack of profile of Scottish football down here.
Only “big name” regularly mentioned is Eduoard – generally seems that his indifferent season this year is weighed in context with his record with France U21s.
Most of the EPL clubs are struggling with impact of COVID on revenues (Liverpool lost close to £100m and West Ham have put contract talks with Moyes on hold due to finances – and this with him taking them to verge of Champions League!).
Could be a good time to rebuild a squad (buyer’s market) but maybe not so good to cash in on player assets… Throw in the Euros and the transfer froth that usually accompanies it then we have an interesting summer coming up methinks.
Vernallen
I’m not so sure that the inevitability if Admin2 is plausible. The ability of the new club to write off losses and consistently find funds is remarkable. By any objective metric, the funding situation, coupled with the audit warnings , would have seen them sink into oblivion. But they have come from the brink many times and now have the possibility of ECL cash which would be a life-changing event. In terms of matching Celtic long term, the root cause of liquidation for the old club was the structural disadvantage they suffered as a consequence of having 10,000 fewer seats to sell each season.
How they deal with that will be interesting, especially since the EBT route is now closed.
But any doubts over their long term sustainability is now gone IMO. The league victory has seen to that.
Been asked by a couple of folk if we would consider the possibility of a politics thread on SFM.
Anything on SFM would strive to be fair and equitable of course, and fact-checking of claims would be encouraged.
Indy debate is gonna be front and centre of our lives for the next few years, and there is an eclectic flavour to our community.
Thoughts?
If there are 3 subjects you should avoid talking about in a pub it’s religion, football and politics and in Scotland in particular all 3 seem to be inextricably linked so why not . I did notice but have not listened to the podcast with George Galloway on here. What an utter charlatan of a man he has become . A supporter of the Union , a man who voted Conservative in the latest election , a man who claims he has been a Man Utd fan for the last 30 years and just to get a bit of religion in a man who stated that the Reverend Ian Paisley was a good Christian man ………..
Hmmmm a politics thread would certainly be opening a can of worms lol
Big Pink 9th May 2021 At 10:42
Decent political debate on social media is almost impossible due to extremists hurling abuse. I tend to avoid it for that reason. It would be nice to have somewhere for a reasonable debate without that type of interruption. I assume all debate on independence would be allowed? I do note on Twitter that the SFM account is very polarised towards one side of the argument.
Big Pink 9th May 2021 10:36
I would be concerned if they got a sniff of CL money and went on another spending spree and not thinking of the future. They still have Dave King (loan) and the Mike Ashley court action to come. Surely the directors’ loans will need repaying somewhere down the line. These items alone could eat into the $25 — $30 million from CL funds quickly. Another area of concern is the team list currently shows 15 players 28 and over. It is astonishing how quickly someone in those age brackets can lose their legs, especially with some of that 15 well into their 30’s. If that was to happen that would require another spend on players. They have been fortunate thus far, but you do not want to go to the well too often as it may suddenly dry up.
The Directors seem to have converted those loans to shares already so there’s nothing to pay back unless there are other loans outstanding we don’t yet know of . The previous club* gambled every year on CL riches to bail them out until the Malmo/Maribor double whammy that left them short and if this is the new policy then they will come unstuck at some point.
The Ashley/King money may yet be a game changer , I’m not convinced they can endlessly write cheques to fund this madness while funding Gerrards transfer demands to compete at CL Group stage level . Most if not all of those older players don’t have any resale value and I don’t believe the younger ones have done enough to attract silly money bids from the richer leagues.
Timtim 9thMay 2021 @ 19:57
Because of the team involved and past issues with HMRC, it would be interesting to know if HMRC are watching the “conversion of loans” to shares. They have history of playing fast and loose with HMRC. It would nice to know how close some of the “investors” are being monitored. Could be considerable personal tax benefits for them.
Big Pink 9th May 2021 At 10:42
‘..Been asked by a couple of folk if we would consider the possibility of a politics thread on SFM.’
++++++++
Well, we know already that Scottish Football has been shown to be ‘Unionist’ in its readiness to lie in order to accommodate a stupid sporting fiction!
There can be no meaningful discussion with ‘liquidation deniers’ whatever their ‘political’ views may be.
The death of RFC of 1872 is not a matter of political ‘opinion.’
It is a stark fact.
There would be nothing for me in engaging in political discussion with , in effect, people who support and propagandise on behalf of the Lie that seeks to deny that fact.
Tim Tim
Had great admiration for George, but he has become a real fascist. Have no problem with his Unionism, but the depths he has gone to on his journey are not on the socialist levels. Particularly in his deliberate repetition of untruths and invective that should be unnecessary for a man of his eloquence and intellect.
He has become, and possibly always was, a populist, a charlatan and an opportunist. Such a pity that a mind like his has been put to those uses.
UTH
Twitter account is pro Indy, but I don’t have a problem with anyone who is pro-union. I was myself until fairly recently. It’s the George Galloway type of stuff I’d like to keep away from.
John C
Admittedly it is harder to take seriously (on any subject) the views of folk who can be so easily pressed into suspension of disbelief on the RFC matter, but there is room for some respectful discussion I hope?
Big Pink 10th May 2021 At 00:24
‘.. but there is room for some respectful discussion I hope’
++++++++++++++
Ha, ha,BP:
I had intended to add an observation to the effect that if there was any football-based blog on which intelligent and generally respectful political discussion might take place it is the sfm.scot blog! But I thought that might have sounded too sycophantic.
There is a view that ‘politics’ is very largely about some folk trying to get things their way, and everything else is subordinate to that; that there are precious few politicians who are not self-seeking , and very few who are not prepared to abandon principles if any bending is required to gain or retain political office; that ‘Politics’ involves deceit and that there are many politicians who have no difficulty dissimulating and/ or lying in order to ‘win’.
Discuss.
JC
Sadly the politicians’ motivations are usually career-based. Lies, half truths and dissimulation come easily to them.
Politics is most certainly the pursuit of self-interest though, and I have heard it said recently that in Western capitalist countries “the top 5% convinced the middle 50% that the bottom 45% are to blame for everything”.
Effectively reducing political discussion to little more than a flag waving/rosette wearing exercise. I think there may be a wide range of views on SFM which may bring about an interesting discourse without resort to the “Jimmy Crankie” type invective we often hear on social media.
I must admit that although I find Douglas Ross (for example) to be a mildly ridiculous figure, I’m not so sure that it is helpful or ultimately beneficial to portray him solely in that way.
Indy is of course important to all of us for two quite different reasons, but the demise of the Labour Part in Scotland – and the rest of the UK – is also a phenomenon which plays to the sense of history we in Scotland share.
There are also warning signs that the SNP are treading the same path as the LP (and indeed trade unions) have in taking folk for granted, becoming a vehicle for political careers instead of change.
I certainly think that Independence and Labour’s decline would dominate any casual political discussion on SFM, but like I say, politics is the art of self interest, and the scope for multithreaded discussion is there.
I think we may all have something to learn from each other. Be interested to hear more thoughts on whether folk find it appropriate for discussion here.
You have to wonder about Ranger’s newest signing. Sakala claims to have interest from England, Spain, and France and yet opts for Scotland. Is this a show of a lack of ambition or just trying to boost his image for the fans. Will be interesting to see what he actually brings to the playing field. An article in the DR claims someone outside the coaching and playing staff had comments for Brown as he walked up the tunnel following the last game. This is now the second issue with someone connected to Rangers having a need to garner some publicity in regards to Brown. Either its jealousy of his record and stature with some fans, or, poor sportsmanship. I always found that the more the opposition booed you or tried to mock you the more inner respect they had for you and would more than welcome you suiting up for their side. I opt for the latter idea.
If political chit chat is to prove viable then it might help if the forum has some idea of the general makeup of its contributors.
My background and heritage politically is solid Labour. I was a card carrying shop steward at 20 years of age in a factory in Leeds and fought for primarily a safer working environment , the years of poor investment and profit taking at the expense of the workforce had led to wilful neglect and ignorance of health and safety. My major bugbear was not enthusiastically supported by the members at the time who had whispers from management of costs,redundancies etc. I was elected shop steward on the demise of the older guy who seemed to have a cosy relationship with the directors and owners. The day after my anointment the managing director called me to a meeting with the board to be held at 10.00am. I duly arrived ‘upstairs’ at the time stated and was made to sit and wait for almost an hour before the door opened and I was shouted in. It was an obvious attempt at intimidation . I walked in and there was no seat to be had( I suppose at this point I should have been wringing my cap and apologising for taking up their time) . The MD started to explain how dire the situation was and how the company could ill afford wage rises at the time. I listened respectfully and waited until he had finished. I then explained that I had reviewed the previous years balance sheet and was in no doubt that certain emoluments and pension contributions allied to salaries indicated the company was in rude health and well able to afford a cost of living rise and refurbishment to ensure shop floor safety. I then explained I had to leave as I was about to call a union meeting that may well last most of the day. It was a gamble as I was unsure as to the support I could actually count on having heard many married women say to me they weren’t that bothered as it was only ‘pin money’ to them. I tore that argument apart in front of the rest of the membership and left them red faced with embarrassment but determined not to be taken for granted either in the workplace or at home. We won our cost of living and workplace improvements. The MD later asked me if I played golf. A year later and while I am on holiday in Scotland the factory is sold and all made redundant with 80% rehired on lesser terms. The local news carries the item highlighting the ‘absentee’ shop steward situation. We move on and I make my home in Scotland to escape the recent election of Thatcher who then lands me with the hated poll-tax. I continue to vote for Labour but eventually realise that I am voting for a party that is not sufficiently engaged or interested in its local base. It is no longer the Scottish Labour Party but is the Labour Party in Scotland. I switch allegiances to the SNP figuring independence is the only way Scotland can achieve a true caring and socially democratic society. Brexit is thrust upon us and once again I feel the anger and frustration of disenfranchisement. I voted for the SNP in the recent constituency election and Alba in the regional list. It seemed a straightforward decision but I was disheartened by the first ministers response when asked if enough independent minded members were elected she would still not seek immediate talks for ceding from the union. It seems elected representatives no longer are answerable to their supporters. A friend asked if independence was of paramount importance and I foolishly said yes . She pointed out that tory brexiteers had the same mindset ..at any cost and deal with the fallout afterwards. So persuasive was her reasoning that I now await a proper costed structured and convincing path to independence….I hate her.
We tried meddling with the blog not long ago and had to admit it was a mistake. Personally I’m not interested in engaging in political controversy and more slagging matches. The blog either stands or falls as it is in my opinion and maybe we should reach out to some of our lost posters and try and woe them back. How to do that I’m not sure but maybe they look in now and again and might reconsider returning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57064415
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57059711
According to what I am reading online it is looking highly likely that this weekend is going to witness a repeat of Rangers fans marching from Ibrox to George Square where they will hold a party. This despite such gatherings still not being permitted at that time. Police Scotland are apparently saying they are powerless to stop it and businesses with outdoor tables are being asked to close. The last time this happened Police Scotland claimed it was spontaneous even though it had been discussed online for some time. Similarly it is being heavily discussed online for this forthcoming weekend. I await with interest, but should this come to pass I think someone of influence somewhere needs to stand up and ask why the Scottish Government and its Police Force are not treating all citizens equally as per the law of the country.
Two years ago thousands of Celtic fans had gathered for a treble treble bus procession. This was pre-covid but the Police cancelled it on safety grounds. A line of police ensured ‘thou shall not pass’, and the crowd dispersed with Celtic making an appeal to do so peacefully, which is what happened. If Glasgow is subjected to a repeat of what happened in March, and the Police effectively give it their blessing, then I simply don’t know how anyone can think that would be okay.
UTH, I already sent this to 3 MSPs in the hope that a more proactive approach might be taken…..
I was impressed by your comments in Parliament a while back after the SG and Police Scotland seemed to be taken aback by the illegal mass gatherings of Rangers fans when results meant that they had won this season’s league title. Those shocking scenes of huge, unruly crowds at Ibrox, then the unbelievable sight of that illegal gathering being given a police escort to George Square where violence and damage to shops and memorial benches was the order of the day (weekend!) still live in the memory of all of us.
I m hoping the SG and PS are aware of the plans for an organised march this weekend after Saturday’s final game against Aberdeen at Ibrox. Indeed, I see PS has already warned fans not to turn up in breach of Covid regulations, advising that “an appropriate policing plan is in place to maintain public safety and minimise any disruption to the community.” My worry is that the insipid efforts of PS during that awful incident will form the basis of this weekend’s “appropriate policing plan”!
I realise that the SG does not tell the police what to do, but given the disaster last time, when the illegal activity seemed to be homologated by Police Scotland, I assume the SG is in discussion now with PS about how best to prevent such an illegal gathering this weekend. The excuse used by PS then was that once the gathering had grown past a certain size, the best that could be done was to control it rather than disperse it, due to public safety concerns.
After that abhorrent display, the next Rangers-Celtic match saw a different tactic used where the clubs were asked/forced to communicate very forcibly with their fans that they should not gather at the match or at all. This appeared to have a comparatively successful outcome and I would hope that the SG and PS is making sure that Rangers FC comes out strongly to advise their fans not to gather anywhere this weekend. This proactive approach seems to be the most likely way of avoiding another illegal gathering, so I am surprised that I have not seen any sign as yet that Rangers FC has been asked to assist in this way.
Please can you find out and let me know what the SG is doing to ensure no repeat of the dreadful scenes from a few months back. A response before the weekend would obviously be beneficial.
Thank you.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19290497.rangers-sold-fifth-fair-value-brand-worth-16m-snapped-nothing/
……………………………………….
RANGERS FC was sold to Charles Green’s Sevco consortium after its financial collapse for at least a fifth of its fair value – with the club’s brand worth over £16m given away for nothing.
The revelations have come through financial papers seen by the Herald as the liquidators of Rangers oldco BDO sue the former administrators of the business for £56.8m claiming a seriously flawed strategy in raising money for the thousands owed money from the 2012 insolvency
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19290721.rangers-sold-fifth-fair-value-brand-worth-16m-snapped-nothing/
.
……………
Rangers sold for a fifth of its ‘fair value’ with brand worth £16m snapped up for nothing
upthehoops 10th May 2021 At 18:34
……………………..
Has the damage been paid for from the last gathering?
Cluster One 10th May 2021 At 19:57
Has the damage been paid for from the last gathering?
+++++++++++++++++++
As far as I know some of the damage was paid for out of monies collected by Rangers fans. However, there was a large bill to the public purse in terms of policing and clean up. I really find it incredible this is going to be allowed to happen again. As Nawlite said in his post there was a much firmer stance taken by the Government and Police when Rangers played at Celtic Park, but of course they could very conveniently forewarn Celtic fans on that occasion as well. Quelle surprise!
Cluster One 10th May 2021 At 19:50
” the link to the Herald
+++++++++
The propaganda machine again! ” ‘Rangers FC was sold’ to Chares Green’ indeed. FFS.
Would you buy a second-hand car from that ‘ journalist’? Would anyone even give him the time of day>
He KNOWS that RFC was not sold. It could not BE sold. It is in Liquidation, even as I write.
Charles Green ( in circumstances which are even now being challenged] bought nothing but some assets.
Guys like Williams simply have to be called out as being utterly unreliable reporters of fiction rather than fact.
Honest to God.
I believe that Rangers & Celtic colts teams will participate in the Lowland League next season.
Eleven clubs in favour, Five against with One abstention.
Confirmation expected in Two weeks at AGM.
I find the valuation of the “brand” interesting to say the least. I believe that TRFC has cumulative losses since being incorporated in 2012, and I don’t recall it ever making a profit in any year of its existence. How such a “brand” can be worth £16m is risible as to have a carrying value intangibles such as brands need to demonstrate positive returns.
Some bits and bytes from today’s media. UEFA upholds 4 game suspension for Roofe. Does UEFA not know who they are dealing with, this is the Rangers that are not used to such treatment. To quote one of their heros, “who are these people”. Rangers will now be short handed for CL qulaifiers, perhaps Salaka can pick up the slack.
Is Derek McInnis lobbying for a job at Rangers His media friendly interviews surely look like a way to worm his self into a job.
Victory celebrations this weekend. Could the group in charge of Covid policies and procedures not advise if there is a similar gathering as to the earlier one, that Ibrox be closed to fans for a number of games when fans are allowed back in. Could the SFA not have a firm discussion with the Rangers board about the optics of such a demonstration and advise of potential action, which no doubt be appealed, but at leas appear to look like they have a hand on the tiller of sports governance.
At the risk of boring some people [ but of course , scrolling past is easy], I give my transcript of my full notes of last Thursday’s BDO v RFC 2012 hearing with a little preamble:
“The ‘virtual’ Proof Hearing of the action brought by BDO against the Administrators of RFC plc began in the Court of Session on Tuesday 4th May 2012.
I was not able to access that hearing, so I missed a full day’s hearing.
On 5th of May, I was able to access at a point a little after the start of business, so this report begins in mid-sentence. [see my posts of 4th May at 20.02, 5th May at 13.49 and 20.21]
I know now that the QC doing the questioning was Mr Young, and the witness giving evidence was Mr Shipperlee, who had worked at Ibrox for D&P during the Administration process. At the time, I simply could not make out ‘Shipperlee’ from the sounds I heard when his name was mentioned.
I assume that Shipperlee had begun to give evidence the day before, on the 4th , and that what I was hearing was a continuation, but perhaps he had only been sworn in that morning?
As before, I have recorded what I heard and what I think I heard, not altogether verbatim ( although my notes use the most of the words used by the speakers). I have made nothing up, but of course I may have misheard, or mis-transcribed.
There was a LOT of referencing to the pages of documents which were shown on a screen at the time. That, of course, was not seen , nor was anything else, on the access phone line available to the public.
This is what I heard:
Mr Young QC: ( apparently reading from something)….’..time of a meeting or time of phone call’…..What does this entry men?
Mr Shipperlee): it’s the time I made a call or [attended?]a meeting.
QC: …any other markings to jog the memory later on?
S: Sometimes
QC: If we look at Document number 2, page 3780….what you can see is an email from Paul Clark to David Whitehouse, in which he summarises events relating to playing staff, 16 February entry, can you read that?
S: Yes
QC: Mr McBrearty indicated that that entry shows the intention was to make redundancies, and you seemed to agree.
S: Yes
QC: Can you look at the top half- what is it recording?
S: A meeting with Ally McCoist.
QC: Look at, down here, can you read it?
S : ‘possible wage deferral or reduction’
QC: Was that you speaking or McCoist?
S: It’s.. possibly,… no..I can’t say who said it.
QC: The line after that..?
WS ( reading) “ ..or Ally McCoist can move players if they’re happy to go.’
QC: ..on the same page, bottom section, there’s an entry- ‘meeting at 10.55′
S Yes.
QC: Who with?
S it was a meeting with players
QC: Is there any indication [ that it ws about? Redundancy or wage reduction?
S [ ed: I missed the opening words]…………’ where did the cash go?’
QC: Was that question asked by you?
S: no, by the players.
QC: On the next page, am I right in saying you had a meeting with Fraser Wishart on the same day?
S: Yes
QC; [ed: I missed his question]
S: There was some concern that some players might want to leave.’
QC: Is it correct that the only thing discussed was redundancy?
S: I can’t remember exactly, but also mentioned wage reductions.
QC: If we look in the Joint Bundle , page 2276, in the top half, there’s ‘Friday 24 February’. So, what does that relate to?
S It’s a note of a meeting at Murray Park with players
QC: At the first indent, what does it say?
S: ‘No decision made’
QC: The next bullet point?
S : ‘ question about redundancy being able to be avoided’
QC: Who asked?
S:…….One of the players.
QC: You were being non-committal at that point?
S:…….Yes.
QC: And [where it says] ‘playing’?
S: [That’s] ‘ playing costs high, so serious hard decision needed’
QC: And ‘ FW focussed on..?’.
S: ‘FW focussed on no redundancy’
QC: [ed: I missed the question/reference]
S: ‘FW will appeal to SPL and SFA’
QC: What do you understand Mr Wishart was saying?
S: That if there were redundancies the PFA will appeal:
QC: This is [on] the 24th February….?
S: I can’t say for certain , but I think I was just acknowledging ….
QC: On page 1981- this is in your handwriting?
S: Yes.
QC First indent, “ Potential breach of contract. Appeal to SPL and FIFA”
S: Yes.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
S It was….. [ ed: could not follow what he said]
QC: In the email from Fraser Wishart to Paul Clark, the last paragraph :” Should any redundancies be made the PFA appeal will be made”
On page 3372 of the Joint Bundle , top half. This is a note made on 1st March, your writing.” ‘A D’?.
Is that Andrew Dickson? .. What was his role?
S: He was the head of football, regulatory matters…
QC: Had he been doing football administration for some time?
S: Yes, a good number of years.
QC:: Did you work closely with him?
S: Most days .
QC: ..Can reliance be put on him?
S Oh, yes.
QC: Halfway down the page -‘Player Contract’ …’what does it say?
S: ‘ Term’ is ‘termination, can appeal to SPL.
QC What is likely to have happened here?
W: I think that it would have been something Dickson raised with me.
QC: [ quoting] …’wide-scale redundancies compared with cross-the -board payments,’, another aspect , look at Vol 2 of the Joint bundle, page 4566. Who in Duff and Phelps would put together the sensitivities analysis?
S: It would possibly have been Luke Norman [ed:I think that was one person, but it may have been two people Luke and Norman] or Sidney..who worked on spreadsheets.
QC: Who selected the scenarios you wanted to analyse?
S: Others in the team, Dickson…[various]
QC: Can you explain what one is comparing against another, the criteria?
S: Looking at the impact on cash-flow forecast
QC: Look at the first column..19 February.. do we see these re the first 5 sensitivities, 1. Bank balance, in the far right column , a different bank balance?
S: Yes. All start with the same balance, then different analyses would produce different outcomes
QC: How are the analyses used?
S: We use them to play out different scenarios and their impact on outcomes.
QC: There were at least, pay cuts, pay deferrals, redundancies. What were the main factors in weighing up ?
S: The cash flow forecast, weighing reduced costs against value to buyer.
QC: We looked earlier at the threat of the Players’ Union?
S .. the union would agree [ ed: I think that was what was said, but I missed his opening words]
QC There was the question of TUPE…..As an Insolvency Practitioner you have a broad understanding of TUPE?
S: Yes, but it is very complicated and legal advice is..
QC: Were you aware that employees could opt out of transfer?
S: That’s not relevant in most transactions: employees could resign,
QC: In March there was discussion – asset sale or a CVA were possibilities?
S: in March, an asset sale was one possibility.
QC: In respect of any choice to go for pay cuts rather than redundancies, could Rangers have bought new players?
S: There was an SFA embargo for a year…
QC: In relation to your dealings with the SPL, if we look at the Joint Bundle, vol 2, page 374: there is an entry 16.2.2012- meeting with Doncaster, Rod Mck
Kenzie, Ian Blair and you, Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, Ali Russell of Rangers. First, can you see the letter ‘Q’? Is that a Question?
S: Yes, recording that a question was raised.
QC: Would that be…
S: The context would say who raised the question.
QC: Seems to be a note saying Paul Clark looking at RM, raises points re Group shareholdings
DW ..” HMRC not completely against CVA”
Ian Blair;” HMRC called to say…”
Does that suggest that there was direct contact between HMRC and the SPL?
S: Yes.
QC: “ PJC At present not sufficient funds for rest of season, but…” What does that relate to?
S: The SPL seeking assurance that funds will enable continuation to the end of the season.
QC: ‘number of fixtures 19′ ..’ Did Rangers play all fixtures?
S: As far as I know.
QC: “14 days” relates to ?
S: The Insolvency Rules, in relation to redundancies.
QC: Page 376 ‘Q. ‘Financial Disclosure’ It’s hard to follow, but three regimes’ requirements, SPL, SFA and UEFA?
S: Yes
QC: There are arrows underneath ?… what do these [ed: I lost what was said , but presumably the arrows were underneath each of the organisations ]
S :.. there was a three year ban on registrations.
QC: That was different from in a CVA?
S: Yes, in a CVA, the entity owning doesn’t change.
[ ed: The next exchanges I found difficult to follow for a while, so bear with me]
QC: ………
S………..
QC: Can you read that line?
S ……………
QC: …and below, can you see “ Failure to qualify for SPL competitions”?
S ————-
QC: Are SPL competitions separate from league?
S:….No..
QC: And can you see “..expulsion rests on the other eleven clubs, embargo, points deduction”
S: the Board could make a decision…
QC: Was this a note of information someone in the SPL was providing?
S: Yes.
QC: If we look at the Joint Bundle 3572 , this was a meeting on [?] March. From the top few lines it seems to be a meeting with Paul Clark, Doncaster, Topping, McKenzie, Ian Blair and you; You seem to have noted “ PJC (Paul Clark?) raised cost cuts deferrals don’t work”
and “Ian Blair – if…..? .. termination of contract, SPL go to FIFA for dispensation”
S:…Yes
QC: ………
S:………….
QC: Can you say what the SPL thought was their role?
W: …….
QC: Who would pick up any damages due to players?
S: I’m not sure.
QC: do we also see ‘SPL investigate EBTs’. What was this about?
S:..the Employment Benefit Trusts.
QC: This was all pre-Administration stuff.
S: Yes.
QC: Was this the first indication of an investigation into that matter?
S:… Yes
QC: Were you involved in making documents available to the SPL?
S: ..I recall some info was brought together..
QC: Were you personally involved?
S:..I discussed the time limit.
QC: Who in the Rangers staff helped?
S: .. Andrew Dickson, I think, Jacqui Gourlay…
QC: Did Olverman have involvement?
S:…Yes,as Financial Director.
QC; Can we look now at page 2536 of the Bundle.
Monday,27 February. Your note?
S: Yes.
QC:: You see ’employees’?
S: Yes.
QC: Where did you get the information that there had been cuts under David Murray?
S: From [ ed: didn’t catch the name]
QC: On pge 2721 of the Joint Bundle, top half… So, in the action column “ Meeting between PC (Paul Clark) and you., and who else?
S: .. the Heads of the main departments….’A’ would be Andrew Dickson.
QC (quoting) “ PJC raised redundancies” ?
S: Yes, there was a discussion…
QC (referring to the note on the page) Whose initials are there?
S: Jacqui Gourlay, All-in-the- Community, D[ ed: didn’t hear the name]
QC: Did the heads come back with proposals?
S: : I believe they did come back with some suggestions.
QC: The Joint Bundle , page [?]…the second email Jacqui Gourlay Peter Hart.
[ed: I think I missed a question or two here]
QC The entry in your day-book, in the Joint Bundle Vol 2 page 2459, a note of Dave Baldwin: who does he act for?
S: Alan McGregor
QC:…You’ve got numbers to the side. Valuations of players. What is the context?
S: I’ve asked Dave Baldwin if he could provide indicative values , it may be that Paul Clark had asked.
QC:.. There’s no email that I can see from Paul Clark or David Whitehouse. Did you do it off your own bat?
S.. I met with David Whitehouse and had a conversation.
QC Why do you think you may have asked that, and made a note?
S:…[ ed: did not hear his reply]
QC: for Naismith nought -dash- Four?
S… I can’t recall exactly, the range is due to… it may be in relation to his injury.
QC: Naismith..the offer from WBA – the end point of that negotiation , “18th of April the Ashworth deadline has now passed.”.see that?
S:…Yes
QC:.. another, day-book entry, seems to be “ Conf call with DW, PC” you’ve written?
S:… That suggests some consultation about buying extra time
QC: but no one did go back? Isn’t that right?
S Yes.
QC: Did Ashworth chase you after 18th April?
S: I can’t recall that he did, no.
QC: We’ve seen that Peter McLean was very active on behalf of the players.
W:..Yes.
QC: Did he prod you to contact WBA after 18th April?
W:…..No
QC: Did Naismith?
S…No.
QC: Did Andrew Dickson indicate that WBA hd been chasing him for a response?
S…. No.
QC: There was a press report in the ‘Sun’, referring to other clubs. Do you recall any contact with those other clubs?
S ….No.
QC:… Turning to buy-out clauses: can you recall whether any agents of other players approached you about release clauses?
S: No
QC: Any offers for players with buy-out clause?
S:…No,I can’t recall.
QC: If we look now at the RYD Co. [ed: i.e. Rangers Youth Development Co]
First, day-book entry , Joint Bundle 5, page 504. Is this your writing?
S:… No, it’s Paul Clark’s.
QC: On 24th there’s a meeting: “£250,000 loaned to RY D” Did you have individual dealings with Mr Hart
S…No, not directly.
QC: His loan of £250,000 to RYD and the abstraction of that loan for Rangers?
S:…I worked on some paperwork.
QC: The Joint Bundle, page 2017.Is that your writing?
S: No, I think it’s Paul Clark’s.
QC:…I’ll come back to Mr Clark. On page 2975, there’s alletter from RYD to SevcoScotland relating to funds held by the Administrators in error. Were you involved?
S:….I may have been involved in some way
QC: What was your understanding of what Hart was doing at the time of the Sevco deal?
S.. My understanding was that he was willing to write off his loan in exchange
QC:… For what?
S: I understood he was taking an investment in Sevco, a shareholding .
QC: The issue of strategy in an Administration. What role does someone in your position have in relation to strategy?
S…My role, day-by-day, was feeding information to the Administrators, and listening to the team’s views
QC: There’s no easy dividing line. Would the Administrators be willing to listen to the team’s views?
S: Yes.
QC: Would you accept that you don’t have as clear a view as the Joint Administrators?
S:.. Yes.
QC: Did you have a significant role vis-a-vis HMRC?
S…No, I may have been copied in to emails.
QC: All the emails have become available and have been pored over. Is that the sort of thing in any ‘administration’?
S…Yes. There will be frustration ..
QC: If we look at Joint Bundle 1, page 2584…This is a pre-Administration ‘organisation structure’ view. On page 2587 there’s a flow diagram-heads of departments ,people under them. Which of these did you have dealings with?
S:……. Andrew Dickson, Ken Olverman, .. those were the main two.
QC: Ally McCoist?
S: Yes. Andrew and I would drive to Murray Park .
QC: What did your dealings with Olvermaan relate to?
S……Payroll, player costs, analysis of CB funds….
QC :Thank you, Mr Shipperlee. No more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
QC Thank you, m’lud. Mr Shipperlee, you’ve given two witness statements already. Are you happy with them in relation to anything you say today?
S: Yes.
QC Can we look back at the meeting you had to discuss wage deferral? Page .. [ ed: didn’t catch it] half-way down “ Players want knowledge and transparency”. Is that what Ally McCoist is telling you? Read it..
S…. “Ally McCoist… [ ed: I lost the rest of what he said, it was a sentence or two]
QC: [ed: I missed what he said, a short question]
S……( quoting) “ Water Smith left, one less coach”
QC: That’s Ally telling you that 5 players left in the January window?
S…… yes.
QC: It’s looking like Ally is updating you?
S….Yes.
QC (quoting) “ possible moving to other clubs, if they are willing” That’s Ally telling you?
S……..Yes.
QC Your dealings with Fraser Wishart – the email chain Paul Clark -FW? Didn’t put the Administrators off redundancies?
S… Yes
QC: On 29th February you were planning redundancies for 1st March?
S:… Yes.
QC: even on 5th March , still considering up to 15 redundancies?
S: ….. Yes.
QC: And on 9th March you said players would be spoken to individually
S Yes.
QC: So Fraser Wishart didn’t influence the redundancy concept: as creditors they would be small beer?
S……… Yes.
QC: Still Ticketus as a creditor?
S:… Yes.
QC: And 20 million pounds HMRC Big Tax case, wee tax case ?
S:…………Yes.
QC: Transfer embargo?
S:………. Yes.
QC: you would have expected that to end at exit from Administration?
S:…………Yes.
QC: The ban was lifted as a result of Judicial Review?
S: …….Yes.
QC: Were non-playing staff redundancies in Peter Hart’s territory?
S;……….Yes.
QC: So Peter Hart would be able to help the Court, rather than you?
S Yes.
QC: Vol 2 , page 721… Do you remember looking at this with Mr Young? Meeting with Jaqui Gourlay ?
S: ….. Yes.
QC: We see PJC raise redundancies. Jaqui Gourlay seems to have been asked about the parameters relating to redundancy?
S…………..Yes
QC: this would be difficult for her without asking the Administrators? This is 20th February before the day you indicated the plan …discussion of redundancies. They came up with a list, didn’t they?
S:……….Yes
QC: In other Administrations, what’s the practice?
S…..Yes, it’s common to ask staff for names
QC: Staff are unlikely to name themselves?
S:………..Yes.
QC: And if employees are asked, they’re likely to give a small list? Without being in the business , it’s difficult? .
S…..Yes.
QC: In this situation, we know that David Grier and his company were involved for a year with the company. He could be expected to know?
S…..Yes, information about staff.
QC:….Well before..?
S……..Yes.
QC: And knowledge of particular functions and jobs?
S……Yes
QC: You were asked about the concern of players in early March? They appeared to be more concerned about any new owner rather than moving away?
S: …Yes.
QC: If we look at the email from Paul Clark to David Whitehouse copying you in , “.. a confused Fraser………we know that various players were prepared to offer themselves for sale, and Greg Wilde might have been happy to move on, given that he took redundancy
S……….Yes.
QC: And other players were approached from outside?
S……….Yes
QC: John Fleck? You approached them?
S:………….Yes, he was on loan.
[ ed: I missed the next short exchange]
then,
QC:…. 7th march , the senior players and release clauses.
[ ed:The next that I have is;
S .. ?
QC: Lastly, you were asked by Mr Young about emails expressing frustration..
some people become irritated by their boss?
S:…… Yes.
QC: You would agree that you would expect in a high profile Administration that ……[ed: missed that]
W: Yes
QC: And these were not minor matters?
S:………..No
QC: You expressed frustration about the Craig Whyte shares, that was not a minor matter ?
S….No
QC: and the CVA was not a minor matter.
Thank you, Mr Shipperlee. No more questions. And I hope Orient’s (?) improve!
S: Thank you. And the same for Aberdeen.
Lord Tyre; Thank you Mr Shipperlee. You’re free to go.
S: Thank you, m’Lord.
—–
Lord Tyre: What’s next? Mr Hart? We’ll go into practice mode, till things are ready.
[ several minutes pass, on hold, until at about 12.45 a voice ( the clerk of Court’s?) says Lunch break , reconvene at 1.45]
Court resumed at 1.45:
Lord Tyre: Good afternoon, Mr Hart. Can I just check that you are alone, and have made arrangements not to be disturbed, and your mobile phone is on silent , although don’t switch it off in case there’s a breakdown and you need to be contacted……Are you prepared to take the oath.
H: Yes, m’Lord. [ Oath administered]
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
McB QC:: Confirmed name, age , address and occupation of the witness), then
Mr Hart, Who are Dilly and Dally?
H: I don’t recall using those names?
QC: Look at an email, in Vol 4 p1950, at the bottom of the page..It’s an email from Simon Shipperlee to you “SFA,,,..licence…” your reply “ I am trying to persuade dilly and dally”. Who were you referring to?
H: That would be Clark and Whitehouse.
QC: Who was which?
H: I don’t recall the circumstances.
QC: (quoting) “ Simon I’m trying to persuade dilly and dally to proceed on both counts” Did you use this generally or is this specific?
H: I don’t recall..
QC: Do you recall being frustrated specifically at their failur to develop a strategy?
H : Not specifically, but in a large exercise there’s always…
QC: Do you remember any particular issue?
H:….No,not after nearly 9 years.
QC; In the email you say “ “ another day in the pantomime that isRFC”
H:…I don’t recall: The assignment was complex, played out in great publicity..
QC: There was always a risk of it turning into a panomime?
H: This was a challenging assignment with lots of stakeholders,….
QC: But by the 3rd of April you’re still expressing the view that it was a pantomime?
H:…I’m not talking about the conduct of the Administrators [ ed: but perhaps he said ‘administration’]
QC: Were there disagreements between Paul Clark and David Whitehouse?
H: There are always some differences of opinion in any assignment.
QC: Were there significant differences?
H:…No.
QC: On page 3377 there is an email from Andrew Stoneman – who is he?
H: Managing partner.
QC:… email from him to your colleague Kevin Bucket.
Kevin Bucket emails you in February , talking to you about his concerns . In your reply to him on 29th February “ Kev if it’s any consolation it’s worse here, the same with Whitehouse, Clark and Grier relationship”
H:….I don’t recall that particular email. Things were normal.
QC: You were saying your situation was worse than his.
H:….I was just probably trying to offer some comfort.
QC: The 29th of February, that was the day when there was talk of redundancies?
H: Yes.
QC: And also about wage deferrals ..
W: I recall discussions taking place.
QC: Look at page [ed:???5] in the bundle: there’s an email saying “ Ally not able to deliver” [ ed: collective bargaining deal with the PFA]
H: Yes.
QC: It looks as though discussions were about…..it looks like you were keeping in the loop with Simon Shipperlee?
H: Sharing information..
QC: There would be information exchange because you were friends?
H:….We were both working on the same big assignment
QC:.You would exchange fairly frank opinions, do you agree?
H:….Yes.
QC: There’s an email at the top of the page from you to Simon Shipperlee. This follows the news of there being no collective bargaining with the players.
H:..I don’t recall that, but it would have been a significant .
QC: Did it reflect…..[ ed; I missed the rest]
H: ..[ed: I missed the response]
QC: You say “all we need now is for Grier to be photogrraphed with Whyte and this thing will fall off a cliff”. What did you mean?
H: I don’t recall- just sarcasm, perhaps?
QC: Where is the sarcasm?
H:….It was just a throwaway comment. I didn’t think the event would happen.
QC:I think, Mr Hart, you’re being evasive, and that you knew it was an event that might happen.
H:…I don’t recall that.
QC: Do you know if anyone in the Administration team was speaking to Whyte?
H:…No. I don’t know.
QC: When Shipperlee mentions that people were speaking to Craig Whyte, do you agree?
H: No.
QC: I think you are reluctant to disclose
H:…[ ed: I missed the short reply]
QC: If we look at the Bundle, Volume 3,page 4524, there’s an email at the bottom of the page., from Simon Shipperlee to you: Headed ‘RFC: HP payments’ and then “ we don’t pay HP payments” Who said we don’t pay?
H:….I can’t recall whether it was David Whitehouse or David Grier who said we don’t pay.
QC: There’s another email from you to Shipperlee where you say “ I checked with David” Does that help that ‘David’ is Whitehouse?
H:….No. I think it was Grier.
QC: Why would David Grier be making decisions on whether payments should be made?
H:….It’s entirely possible that Grier would have an opinion.
QC: “ irrational market trader” …Who is that?
H: I don’t recall.
QC: Oh, come on, Mr Hart, they’re your emails. You must know.
H:…I don’t recall
QC: Mr Hart, you have taken an oath. This is the most high-blown Administration you were involved in…and Shipperlee would have known.
H:..I can’t recall.
QC: At the top of the previous page: This is you writing again to Shipperlee
“ You’ve got to stop paying people, I fucking mean it”
Who was saying that?
H:…I think it was David Grier.
QC: ‘CW’ is mentioned. Who is that?
H: Craig Whyte.
QC: You’re making fun of CW and you’re later saying CW has the cash?
H: Yes.
QC: And you’re saying in the same way “ CW has the cash and the club is not going burst”
H:..[ed:I missed his short reply]
QC: Whyte wanted to become involved again, didn’t he?
H:….I may have known anecdotally..
QC: In Vol 4 of the bundle, p.82 , Saturday 14th April, an email from Shipperlee to you: information on the bidders. Your response to him, on Page 81,on 14th April 2012 “ Simon this is symptomatic of the madness…the blind leading the blind”. What did you mean?
H:…[ed: didn’t catch his words]
QC; On redundancies in relation to non-playing staff you were responsible?
H: …..[ ed:if he replied I missed it]
QC: You had access to a day-book?
H: Yes
QC: The witness statement bundle [ here he gave instructions to the ‘techy’ ,’4.12 of Mr Hart’s statement] Your 15 Feb 2012 “ my first task was to…..my plan was to ask… redundancy to start on 20th February..
H:…Yes
QC: At para 704 ,18/19 Feb you say: “ exchange with PC that Ali Russell, Gordon Smith as first names on list”
H;….yes
QC: and over the page is the process you followed?
H:…Yes.
QC: 20th February the day of the start of ‘redundancy’?
H:… Yes.
QC: Look at 511-5.3. There’s no mention of a meeting of departmental Heads?
H:… No.
QC: At 5.4, no mention of any proposals?
H:…..No.
[There was a technical problem at about about 2.55.Lord Tyre suggested a short comfort break while it was attended to]
Resumption at 15.05.
Mr McBrearty: Mr Hart, on February 29th there was a plan that redundancies would be made and staff gathered together and told. ” we were still aiming to make redundancies, staff meetings to be arranged..”
You and Sarah Bell were to .. identify specific people..
If we look at Vol 2,page 2308, the email at the top ,from Sarah Bell to you at 1.33 pm on 29 February “ We need to identify the specific persons who are to be made redundant”
So ,on the day before, the specific persons had NOT been identified?
H:…Well ….[I couldn’t follow what he said, but my note is ‘Yes’ which was a short way of saying that I understood that he was saying ‘yes’]
QC: You emailed Sarah Bell to say “ Sarah I was not aware that OPS redundancies had been agreed” [ ed:I take OPS to stand for Operational Staff, but I hadn’t heard that acronym being used earlier]
That would suggest that you were not aware that any non-playing staff were to be made redundant.
H:….I can’t recall..
QC: I think you’re wrong. You were NOT aware.
H:…..[ed: I did not hear the reply]
QC: Up the page, the response to you at 13.40 on 29 February is “Possible man.meeting” Agreed?
H:… Yes.
QC: (quoting) “ I have just spoken to JCW who is with Paul, and I think this is the way we are going”
H:[ed:I’m not sure that Hart made any response to that . My notes show ‘A’ ( for answer) and “ I prep” ,with those two words scored out!]
QC:( going back to his statement) There are tables showing cuts to be suggested by Jacqui Gourlay.
H: Yes.
QC: Can we go to Vol 2 page 3235.Jacqui Gourlay’s email to you, copied to Claire Riggs ,of 29 February ,at 18.45. “Please find …The proposals have the buy-in by those present” Who were present?
H:… I can’t recall.
QC: But it .. [ed.I missed what followed , various kitchen clatter and noises forcing me to go to another room]
[ed: there was then a couple of exchanges which I completely missed
and then,]
QC: page 2036, email from Simon Shipperlee at 18.55 “ ..but DG is convinced that there is significant overlap.. that would allow ….DW thinks you can provide….”
We know that David Grier had been involved some considerable time before the appointment of Administrators?
H:….Yes.
QC: I haven’t found anything about anyone discussing with David Grier about redundancies?
H:…I don’t recall.
QC: 144 staff, 100 others on zero hours contracts……12 redundancies is not a significant number?
H:….I agree.
QC: Do you recall that Ticketus had leverage over Craig Whyte?
H:…Yes.
QC: ..because he had granted them..a…
H:…Yes
QC: If there was a CVA the question arose about how to get hold of the 85% of shares?
The bidders were trying to do a deal with Ticketus
H:…….[ ed: missed any reply]
QC: Ticketus had an interest as a creditor and had leverage over Craig Whyte?
H:….I suppose.
QC: So Ticketus had a veto over a CVA from another bidder?
H: Yes.
QC: You’re expressing surprise that it took 8 weeks to work that out?
H:…Yes
QC: Also, You find it “worrying” about how long it had taken to find out HMRC’s position?
H:….I didn’t have information I needed.
QC: Did you find the assignment becoming tedious because of lack of information .?
H:….I don’t believe so.
QC: On 15 April you emailed Simon Shipperlee saying “ The whole thing is……..Clark” Does that jog your memory about people having conversations with Craig Whyte.?
H:… Yes, I accept that.
QC: In what way was communication deficient?
H:.. It was difficult not having detail.
QC: You recall that Bill Miller was the preferred bidder?
H:…Yes
QC: He pulled out?
H:…Yes
QC: Why was it necessary for you and Simon Shipperlee and Charles Walder to be ‘covered’ if “the shit hit the fan”?
H:.. If I said that, it would have been about personal security.
QC: I suggest, Mr Hart, that you were concerned that you and Shipperlee would get the blame if all went wrong.
H:…If things didn’t go the way the Administrators wanted there were worries about the personal security of 12 staff…..
QC: There was an email from Charles Walder to you, and copied to Shipperlee in which he says “ I think I should fly up’ .You reply “ Ha Ha, you’ll have to get out of bed early to keep David happy….the current climate of misinformation..” There’s nothing there about ‘security’?
H: There was a lot of Press and other recriminations and fan interest.
QC: And you were suggesting that Walder should go to Glasgow, singling out 3 people who should be covered. You’re not concerned about the remainder of the team.
H: Yes.
QC: That suggests the recriminations would come from the Administrators?
H:….If the deal had collapsed we had to make sure we had done everything .
QC: No, it’s not. It obviously… ,Mr Hart, the strong impression is that you are not being straight. Do you follow? I may refer to his Lordship , it’s a matter for him, do you follow?
H:..Yes
QC: You have sent uncomfortable emails…Did you discuss those with anyone?
H:…No
QC: On page 296, there is another email from Simon Shipperlee on 9th May 2012. “I think the RFFF is at 2.00pm.Unless I get [?] I’m not sure I’ll go”
And your response is “ Maybe we should remind David that he should make the numbers more optimistic”
What was that about?
H: This was cash-flow predictions, conservative, and we knew that David wanted more optimism’
QC: Why is the word ‘optimistic’ in inverted commas?
H:….That was the word David used.
QC: Why would it have been convenient to have forgotten about that?
H:….In the last line “ I’m worried that it’s out of control”
QC: He was worried that it was out of control? [ ed: I missed the next question.]….
H:.. he may have used that expression before
QC: If you asked staff for a list of people who could be made redundant you would expect a short list?
H:….. I had discussions [ed: I couldn’t follow what the witness said]
QC: Why was the list reduced from 12 to 7?
H:..I can’t recall.
QC: Look at your witness statement para 727. “ further staff cuts would cause difficulties” Who told you that staff had already been cut before Administration?
H:…Possibly Ken Olverman.
QC: What did you do to cross-check that information?
H:…I can’t recall specifically, but in conversations ..
QC: So you don’t recall.
H:..I didn’t have a list, or check..
QC: The reason I ask : Andrew Dickson said there had been 127 staff in 2010. So what you were told must have been wrong?
H:.. Well..
QC: The Charity Foundation… 3 employees . Why were they retained in Administration?
H:….I don’t know.
QC: Scouts- why would they have been retained ?
H:….I would have had no dealings with football operations.
QC: Community Coaching would not affect the operation of the company in Administration?
H: I guess it might when selling a football club.
QC: Do you know whether it was a consideration?
H:…I don’t know.
QC: The consideration of non-playing redundancies was cobbled together with little consideration?
H: I don’t agree.
QC: Do you agree that the Administrators could have come up with a longer list?
H:… I can only say that ..[ ed: I’ve no note , so I cannot say whether he actually finished his sentence]
QC: On the football side redundancies, you would refer to Mr Shipperlee?
H:… I didn’t participate in any discussion or deals with the footballing side.
QC: About fan groups: you say David Whitehouse was supported by fans generally and that this led to the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund. You see that?
H:….Yes
QC: The RFFF was set up with the support of well-known figures?
H:…. Yes
QC; Sandy Jardine, Walter Smith …?
H….Yes.
QC: You were aware of the purpose of the RFFF?
H:…I believe they wanted to raise funds to help the club.
QC: It was seeking to assist with ordinary payments, not to invest?
H: [ ed: did not hear his reply]
QC: Did you understand the difference between the RFFF and the ‘Save Rangers?
H:….[ ed: again I did not catch what was said]
QC: The RFFF paid to to have some work done on the pitch?
H:..I believe so.
QC: And they paid the fees of Counsel..
H:…I heard that.
QC: The ‘Save Rangers’ campaign had been seeking pledges from eleven thousand five hundred members, raised…[millions]
H:…I was not aware.
QC: One last para ,6.22 on page 720 of your statement “ Simon had been liaising with Andy Kerr of the Rangers Supporters Trust. I apologise for the incorrect reference to Andy Kerr as being the director of the Rangers Supporters Trust, he was not the director.
H:…We would only accept donations if they could be used without conditions.
QC: The key word was ‘donations’.
H: [ ed: didn’t hear what he said]
QC: There was no attempt to discuss with fan groups the possibility of fan groups investing in shares or acquiring the club?
H: I was not aware of any such discussions.
Lord Tyre: This might be a convenient point Mr McBrearty to finish for the day [ or words to that effect]
Agreement al round
Adjourned till 10.00 am tomorrow. (Friday) ”
I have still to get my notes of Friday’s proceedings typed up.
There was of course no hearing yesterday, Monday.At least, on Friday that was the decision!
I have the access code for tomorrow’s proceedings but whether I can tune in for any kind of extended time is another matter.: A lovely wife of 50 years and 7 months standing has to be accorded some respect. [In the throes of new feckin kitchen planning, and new backdoor[guys are coming to do the door tomorrow!]
Vernallen 10th May 2021 At 22:46
‘..Could the SFA not have a firm discussion with the Rangers board .’
+++++++
No.
We saw in 2012 that the SFA board shat itself big time when it came to dealing with the Liquidation.
Scottish Football governance has been in hock to the lying new club ever since its shocking capitulation to untruth in 2012, when it fabricated a Disneyland fantasy that a club that was newly admitted into the SFA was somehow 140 years old!
There is no way that the SFA or the SPFL will attempt to call TRFC fans to heel. They have lost any kind of moral authority.
And they know that they can rely on Police Scotland not to fussily interfere .
Honest to God!
Those on the Board of the SFA are the most abject of men, compromised to the nth degree, but not as compromised as the gentlemen of the SMSM, who have shown themselves to be ready to lie, and on that account , to be the ‘mostest abject ‘ of men entitled to nothing but scorn and contempt.
JC – thanks for taking the time to disseminate your notes from the ongoing court case. They are very informative. From the beginning of the Rangers debacle it has only been through court reporting that the public have been given anything close to the truth.
Today’s Daily Record basically saying it’s fine for Rangers fans to gather this Saturday. Yet more evidence that one demographic in Scotland is considered superior to all others, even to the point of deliberate law breaking.
Perhaps if we do start a political section on here one topic for debate could be how under an independent Scotland a process would be put in place where the Government, Police and media treat all people equally, and don’t selectively turn a blind eye to lawbreaking based on supporting the football club with the greatest cultural power in society.
Albertz11 10th May 2021 At 21:55
No surprise there as the twin cheeks go waltzing off on another joint ‘OF brand’ venture.
Though it may be another shot to the foot by the current CFC board if the general comment on Celtic blogs is anything to go by.
Upthehoops 11th May 2021 At 08:56
What has been written in the Daily Record? Do you have a link to it? I’ve had a look online and the only article I can see is this:
The Scottish Government are set to ask Rangers keep their fans off the streets of Glasgow after this weekend’s top flight title presentation.
Police Scotland yesterday urged the club’s supporters not to join in a planned march from Ibrox to George Square in the city centre amidst fears of a repeat of the illegal lockdown celebrations which caused furore on the weekend the championship was secured.
And Record Sport understands Holyrood top brass are also set to urge Rangers to nip the party proposals in the bud ahead of Saturday’s final game of the season at home to Aberdeen.
Steven Gerrard and his players will be presented with the trophy after the final whistle inside an empty stadium, with ultras attempting to coordinate their own mass gathering outside.
Rangers are now expected to come under political pressure to ask their own supporters not to take part and urge them to celebrate from the safety of their homes instead.
Police chiefs are already drawing up emergency plans to keep the numbers under control and they reiterated that any mass gatherings are not permitted under the current coronavirus rules, which will not be relaxed until later this month.
In a statement the cops said: “Ahead of the match between Rangers and Aberdeen at Ibrox Stadium on Saturday, 15 May 2021, an appropriate policing plan is in place to maintain public safety and minimise any disruption to the community.
“Under the current restrictions no-one should be gathering in numbers of more than six at the stadium or any other location and Police Scotland supports the club in urging its fans to do the right thing and follow the coronavirus regulations around gatherings.
“We will continue to liaise with our partners, including the Scottish Government, to ensure these matches can be completed safely and to minimise the risk to both our officers and the public.
“The sacrifices people have made have allowed for further easing of regulations, however, we continue to ask people to take personal responsibility and to use Greater Glasgow safely and respectfully”
Fans group the Union Bears are behind the plans for a rerun of the title celebrations which saw thousands of Rangers supporters gather outside the stadium before flood into the city centre.
In a statement the Union Bears group said: “We are unable to confirm an exact time but we will be outside Ibrox after the match and once the trophy has been lifted, we will make our way to Govan Road/across from the Louden Tavern at Kinning Park.
“We would ask all supporters wishing to take part in the march to keep an eye out for members of the group outside Ibrox who will indicate when we are ready to head to the meeting point to begin the march.”
Maybe there is a different article in the print edition? This article does not say it’s ‘basically fine for Rangers fans to gather on Saturday’, directly or indirectly.
There is a very clear police message to stay away and hopefully the fans will do as they are told. I’d like to see further statements from Rangers and the Scottish Government as the week goes on. Hopefully any fan thinking of going on this will think again and stay at home.
Thanks IAP – I haven’t looked at any edition of the DR but based on what you have posted it seems pretty clear to me that the Union Bears are guilty of intentionally assisting or encouraging a criminal act (marches and such gatherings being against the law). Given what appears to be in the public domain the police have evidence of this crime having been committed by the organisers. I have no doubt PS know the individuals concerned and have all the “digital fingerprints” necessary for conviction. Let’s see what happens next…
Thanks JC.
Wokingcelt 11th May 2021 At 12:23
Yup, complete madness by whoever is trying to arrange this. I have no idea if the police know the individuals involved in this but hopefully appropriate action, whatever that may be, is taken and this march does not go ahead.
Incredibleadamspark 11th May 2021 At 11:52
That article wasn’t online when I read the Record site very early this morning. Happy to acknowledge it is not implying the march is fine to go ahead. The article I read simply pointed out restrictions are less strict than they were in March, and that Partick Thistle fans had gathered when they won the league. The content of the article you posted is more along the lines of what I would expect to see. I am however disappointed at the Police Scotland statement which makes it seem it will be the same as we saw in March.
Upthehoops 11th May 2021 At 12:55
Hundreds of Patrick Thistle fans gathered by the canal side to celebrate as their team won the title. The pictures at the time showed very few people wearing masks, socially distancing or sticking to current pandemic guidelines.
No condemnation, maybe I just didn’t see it, from any posters on here (myself included), the police or the Scottish government. One rule for Patrick and Rangers fans and another for the rest of society…. ?
The province I live in is currently under very strict lock down protocols. We have numerous individuals who decided to flaunt said protocols. The fines imposed total $2400 including court costs and fees. Some of these gatherings were for as few of two people and others for larger gatherings. A church had a large fine imposed on it and its members were fined individually to the tune of $2400. A hair dresser tried to open in secret and her fine came in at $11,000. On a previous weekend police issued 37 tickets in separate incidents. One bright fellow got nabbed on one day and again the next. The people of this province have accepted the fact the lockdown is for the good of all, but, every place has their share of a__holes who don’t care about anyone else. Hopefully the police will be more diligent with crowds this weekend.
Incredibleadamspark 11th May 2021 At 13:16
I can’t disagree with you about the Partick fans. They broke the law. I have no idea how organised it was but law breaking is law breaking.
Going back to the forthcoming weekend though there is evidence that there is an organised plan to break the law on a significant scale, and the Police are simply saying ‘please don’t do it’. A word in the ear of those planning it before the weekend is the least we should expect, then arrests and charges should they continue regardless. However, it looks likely they will be accommodated rather than challenged, along with all the disruption to other citizens and businesses that will cause. I simply don’t believe any other group of fans, including Partick fans, would be able to get away with something like that on such a scale.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57073714
Incredibleadamspark
11th May 2021 At 13:16
Know your place !
Seriously, though difference of scale may be the problem.
John Clark 10th May 2021 At 23:11
……………………….
Thanks JC for the Great work.
£43,397 worth of confetti issued over at ibrox, with each passing month it gets less and less.
Someone has to come up with the win bonus i suppose
CO – “£43,397 worth of confetti issued over at ibrox, with each passing month it gets less and less.
Someone has to come up with the win bonus i suppose”
This takes the cumulative shares issued this FY to 130,026,875 raising, @ £0.20 / share, £26,005,375. This has been principally necessary as non-season ticket “turn style” revenue and match day hospitality has been wiped out due to COVID. In FY 19-20 this income stream was £18.4m.) With 6 weeks before the books close there may well be more share issues to come in preparation for the annual debate over the “Going Concern” language the auditors are prepared to sign off on.
As I posted on the trial format, the P/L loss for FY 20-21 will be significantly higher than the total comprehensive loss of £18.1m recorded in FY 19-20. At the moment the projected loss will likely be at least the £26m raised with potential for further necessary cash injections over the next 6 weeks. This also assumes that the auditor doesn’t demand additional accruals with respect to the SDIR case.
That RIFC continue to find Rangers facing businessmen to fund these ongoing annual losses is remarkable. At the end of FY 19-20 RIFC’s cumulative losses sat at £61.9m. It looks likely they will reach, and maybe pass, £90m by end June.
Considering that SFM is a non-partisan site whose prime concern is sporting integrity, there seems to have been precious little or no discussion about the Lowland League’s decision to allow the ‘Old Firm’ colts teams entry to their league, after the two clubs involved failed to secure entry further up the pyramid.
It seems that Celtic and Rangers* can simply buy their way into any league willing to change its rules to accommodate them and their money.
So much for meritocracy. So much for sporting integrity. So much for Celtic not being part of the Old Firm.
My view is that either all Premiership clubs should have colts teams in a lower league, or no clubs should have colts teams in that league. The SPFL’s function is to serve its members equally, not pander to the whims of the two clubs with the largest support; two clubs who already have a massive financial advantage over their competitors.
It’s not up the rest of us to develop those club’s youngsters for them. Perhaps if they tried integrating them into their teams instead of importing expensive, mediocre foreign mercenaries, they might make some progress.
Please spare me the claims that having colts in lower leagues works for Barca and Real Madrid, because you’ll only strengthen my argument.
Rangers* managing director Stewart Robertson’s weasel words about helping Scottish football are as fake and unconvincing as those of Real’s president, Florentino Perez, on the subject of the European Super League being “for the good of all of football.”
The only thing occupying the otherwise vacuous cranial spaces of Robertson and Perez is self-interest.
Robertson, subsequently endorsed by Steven Gerrard, claims that pitting their young colts against the likes of Civil Service Strollers (with all due respect to them) will ultimately lead to an improvement in the quality of player available to Steve Clarke at international level. Seriously?
Anybody with an ounce of cynicism might suspect that the Old Firm, who seem determined to leave the Scottish domestic game behind as they pursue English, British, North Atlantic or European league aspirations, want to reserve a space at home in case their foreign endeavours don’t work out.
We can only hope that sporting integrity prevails and they’re told in no uncertain terms to organise their own two-team Glasgow Super League once the dust has settled after the inevitable post-Manchester type apocalypse sees them and their fans, with their ingrained pseudo-religious, Irish political nonsense, banned from all UEFA and FIFA competitions.
‘Westcoaster 12th May 2021 At 10:58
CO – “£43,397 worth of confetti issued over at ibrox, with each passing month it gets less and less.
Someone has to come up with the win bonus i suppose”
This takes the cumulative shares issued this FY to 130,026,875 raising, @ £0.20 / share, £26,005,375. This has been principally necessary as non-season ticket “turn style” revenue and match day hospitality has been wiped out due to COVID. In FY 19-20 this income stream was £18.4m…’
::
::
On the other hand, TRFC (as with other clubs) hasn’t had to pay all of the various costs associated with full stadia: some external, like policing; some internal (and mostly casual/part-time) like turnstile operators, stewarding inside & outside the ground, catering operations, post-match stadium cleaning & minor repairs etc. etc..
Some the money not spent on operating at capacity will have been required to ensure COVID compliancy, but I doubt if the sums are equivalent.
J.J – “On the other hand, TRFC (as with other clubs) hasn’t had to pay all of the various costs associated with full stadia: some external, like policing; some internal (and mostly casual/part-time) like turnstile operators, stewarding inside & outside the ground, catering operations, post-match stadium cleaning & minor repairs etc. etc..
Some the money not spent on operating at capacity will have been required to ensure COVID compliancy, but I doubt if the sums are equivalent.”
J.J. – Undeniably your logic on there being some cost reduction (YoY) in specific accounts must be true however I think those reductions will already be considered in the share purchases during the year.
As an example the share purchases / loan conversions from FY 19-20 totaled £17.7m and the Total Cumulative loss recorded was £18.1m – as both years have seen no “needle moving” player disposals and both years saw new players joining the squad I think it likely the same situation may well result in FY 20-21 as a minimum.
Highlander, you’re right – I too think the Colts issue should have formed more of the debate here….albeit I didn’t think to post on it myself! I cannot disagree with anything you’ve said and I find the ridiculous altruistic statements sickening. I am also annoyed that the Lowland league clubs have so easily been swayed by a paltry £25,000 bribe (though any size of bribe from the 2 clubs would have annoyed me anyway and I believe the decision has yet to be formally ratified). That the football authorities cannot understand the optics of this i.e. how it simply reinforces other fans’ view that the SFA and SPFL exist only to homologate what the ‘Big2’ clubs want to do is supremely blinkered of them.
Talking of optics, I cannot believe the Celtic board’s support/pursuit of this. From what I see on Celtic fan sites, there is already HUGE suspicion that the Celtic board has been doing its best not to stretch too far ahead of TRFC because it recognises the need for the traditional, religion-based rivalry to generate income. Anything like this, where the 2 clubs appear to be working in tandem to better their joint position, is absolute anathema to a lot of Celtic fans. Like you, I fail to see the real merits of developing young players by playing them against a poorer standard of opponent – I don’t really buy the ‘toughen them up’ argument or the ‘it was good enough for Kenny Dalglish’ claim. The game has surely moved on! That leaves the unpalatable reason of the ‘Big 2’ moving to another league leaving a fallback Colts team as you suggest. Given that they have been talking about the EPL, Atlantic League etc for 20 years plus, I don’t see that coming to fruition. This may be Celtic ‘hedging their bets’ I guess.
Highlander, as a Celtic supporter (albeit one who has not lived in Scotland for close to 40 years), I have to concur with your view that all Premiership clubs should do this, or none. The fact that there is no “reserve” or “up and coming” competitive football for non-first team players is a complete blight on the Scottish football landscape. Young players need to learn how to play competitively as part of their growth – I think the lack of this alone may underline why so few players come through to the Celtic first team (many former Academy players now do play elsewhere in football, so it could be said Celtic’s Academy does develop first team players, just for other clubs…).
I also agree on the apparent self-interest of Celtic’s Board and can clearly see where the “two cheeks” perspective comes from. In this example and in several others of late (not least of which, the ham-fisted removal of Palestinian flags earlier today), I do wonder whether the leadership at Celtic Park is really in tune with the broad support and society in general. And to be clear, I would not consider myself a socialist as many on here are, more of a centrist.
Overall, Highlander, you made some excellent points. I think, though, that your reference to a two-team Glasgow Super League does a dis-service to Scottish football as a whole. All teams need strong competition to grow. I concede in the current European football financial climate that climbing out of the well may be close to impossible.