A Guest Blog for TSFM by Auldheid
It has been some six months since we drew readers’ attention to documents that should have been provided by Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps in March 2012 to Harper MacLeod who acted on behalf of the then Scottish Premier League to investigate the use of side letters and employee benefit trust payments made by Rangers from the inception of the SPL in July 1998. You can read the previous blogs/correspondence for background at
- http://sfm.scot/scottish-football-an-honest-game-honestly-governed
- http://sfm.scot/an-honest-game-convince-us/
- http://sfm.scot/an-honest-game-convince-us/https://sfmarchive.privateland.net/it-takes-two-to-tangle/
In the latest letter below sent to Harper MacLeod and SPL Board members on 5th September 2014, you will find the story of what happened when the LNS Decision was delivered to the SPL Board and how the withholding of those same documents not only meant The Commission was misled from the outset in its terms of reference, but how the SPL Board were also incorrectly advised as a consequence of the same concealment.
It is a matter of some regret that secrecy, concealment and non-accountability continues to be the order of the day, not only in Scottish football but in the media coverage of this particular part of its history, but if this series of blogs does nothing else it will bring out the truth not only about the use of ebts but the deceitful attempts thereafter to try and minimise the damage caused. The Inaction will also stand as an indictment against all those responsible in the game and the media who cover it.
Letter to Harper MacLeod
Dear Mr McKenzie
We write further to our letters of 19th February, 29 March and reminder letter of 18th May 2014 to ask if the SPFL are now , after studiously ignoring for 6 months the correspondence and evidence provided, going to reconsider their position in respect of the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission and Decision of 28 February 2013?
In the detail of our letter of 29 March we suggested that It may be prudent to wait for the results of HMRC’s appeal to the UTT concerning the regularity or otherwise of ebt payments made under the MGMRT arrangement before embarking on any premature decision on the integrity of the LNS Commission Decision with regard to the true nature of the REBT payments being concealed from it.
The UTT have ruled and we know that payments under the MGMRT ebt arrangement are, for the time being and until the Court of Sessions re-examine the case at some future date , “lawful” or “not irregular” in tax terms.
However convenient as that may be to put off addressing the wider issue of the true nature of the MGRT ebts used by Rangers, it is no reason in terms of the LNS Commission, not to examine the effect of the concealment from yourselves as commissioners and the SPL of ebt payments made from 2000 to 2002/03 under the REBT arrangements to Tor Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer which were already ruled irregular by a separate FTT investigating the use of the same Discounted Option Scheme by Aberdeen Asset Management.
We remind you that in the earlier undated letter sent on 19th February we provided irrefutable evidence that
- Yourself, acting as the investigating agent for the SPL, was not provided with all the documentation you requested on 5th March 2012
- That documentation clearly demonstrated that in the case of two players named on the Commission list (Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo) payments were made via an irregular ebt mechanism that subsequently rendered them subject to tax which HMRC has been trying unsuccessfully to collect since May 2011, a year before the commissioning process commenced.
- That in both cases side letters concealed from both football and tax authorities were a feature, whilst later relevant documentation revealing their true irregular nature was not provided as directed by yourselves to the Commission itself.
It is now our firm contention that
- The findings of Lord Nimmo Smith from paras 104 to 106 of his Decision that no sporting advantage accrued must be set aside where now known irregular payments have occurred. Using Lord Nimmo Smith’s argument sporting advantage had to accrue from season 1999/2000 to 2002/03 and the SPFL need to address that truth and consequences for our game to move on.
- Whilst it is unclear which SPL/SFA rules would have been breached by making irregular payments, it was not the rules the Commission was directed to examine as, according to the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision para 88 “ There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset “
- Payment by irregular means clearly constitute such a fundamental defect and so an extreme case. These payments should not have been conflated with other payments which are for the time being not irregular and to allow an investigation to stand that wrongly treated them under the same rules as the Commission did for regular payments would be a clear miscarriage of justice caused itself by apparent deception of the Commission by those whose very behaviour it was commissioned to investigate! (If we were using lay man terms we could say that the SP(F)L clubs and their supporters were and are being treated like mugs by those governing our game.)
On the matter of that apparent deception we can even go further on its impact. It is a fact that the SPL never made any public announcement as a Board of acceptance of the Lord Nimmo Smith decision. There was one individual statement but no official SPL Board announcement.
We understand that the matter of making an appeal was raised by the SPL Board on 28 Feb 2013 during a telephone conference meeting, not a face to face one, to discuss the most serious issue ever facing Scottish football and that a decision was delayed for 7 days by which time the date for lodging an appeal was about to end.
During the discussions by e mail some Board members expressed dissatisfaction at the token nature of the punishment for what Rangers had been found guilty of (basically misregistration of players) but also concerns about how no sporting advantage had been obtained through the use of ebts with side letters.
The Board were persuaded by your good self that Rangers had a sound argument that no sporting advantage had accrued. The Board were told that Rangers in effect had said that if the EBT details were required to be disclosed, the reason they did not disclose them was because of an error by Rangers in understanding what was required to be disclosed and that in any event they had secured no competitive advantage from not disclosing since the tax position would have been the same whether they disclosed to the SPL/SFA or not.
Given our opening points we suggest that during the investigation had you had in your possession the withheld evidence we supplied in our letter of 19 February 2014 (and notwithstanding the point re different terms of reference resulting) you would have been able to demonstrate the flaw in this argument to the SPL Board when they were asking your advice on the legal position in early March 2013.
It is difficult to accept that there was an error in understanding that side letters should not be disclosed as part of player registration when our supplied evidence shows that in 2005 Rangers deliberately concealed the existence of side letter for De Boer and Flo from HMRC.
Far from suggesting an error in understanding, this suggests that Rangers understood that to reveal the existence of such letters would remove the tax advantage that ebts gave them and that this advantage depended upon side letters being kept secret from authority and that includes football authority, lest informing them alerted HMRC to their existence. The QC advice contained in the withheld documents is that this deliberate concealment in 2005 demonstrated Rangers true intention of putting cash in the hands of player as part of their remuneration package.
It is also clear that revelation of these particular side letters and their circumstances would indeed have changed the tax position since HMRC have billed Rangers for the tax due on the payments to De Boer and Flo.
HMRC have not done so for Moore because the absence of a side letter puts the tax due on that transaction outside the extended time limit rules that allowed them to pursue payment for Flo and De Boer, but regardless of this and regardless of whether it was notified to the SFA, Moore was paid by an irregular means not available to other clubs..
The questions for yourself Mr McKenzie is had you been in possession then of the information supplied by TSFM would you at the time of investigation been in a better position to either refute the case Rangers made in their defence or to advise the SPL Board that the evidence of deliberate concealment from HMRC in 2005 of what transpired to be irregular payments, gave the SPL Board reason for entering an appeal?
Did the very absence of that material, which was not your fault, prevent you from briefing the SPL Board in a way that you might have done had you had all the evidence to hand?
We think the original evidence supplied and the questions raised now as a result of more fully appreciating what was hidden from the then SPL Board (and so SPL clubs) in March 2013 requires that the SPFL conduct a new cleansing investigation into :
- The apparent deception by Duff and Phelps of the SPL led Commission ,
- Why the SFA President, Campbell Ogilvie, did not advise or correct Lord Nimmo Smith or The SPL and
- The implications of the use of now revealed irregular payments by Rangers FC during seasons 1999/2000 to 2002/03.
This letter has been sent by e mail to the current SPL Board members and also by mail or e mail to the then Board Members who, whilst no longer in position might have their own views on what needs to be done on this issue to restore integrity to the very processes Scottish football relies on to ensure fair play.
Fail to plan correctly you plan to fail spectacularly
The dropped points left gers trailing leaders Hearts by three in the championship-but Alloa thorougly merited the draw……..Roger Hannah.
From what i read Alloa were in front for 84min,and if anyone thorougly merited a draw it was not Alloa.With reporting like this no wonder SMSM sales are down 😕
Given the rumours that CFC players were forbidden from disclosing their Yes/No allegiances publicly, surely this is further evidence that these all-to-often repeated desires to face TRFC are officially sanctioned by the powers-that-be.
Stuff going on
IMO Controlled PR/Media BUSTED
Folk have had more than enough
mtp
Selfish[£] power hungry incompetent twits / PR messing it all up for far too long
Add in some nasty explotative financial manipulation lining insincere pockets
Wish they’d go away
mtp
Selfish[£] power hungry incompetent twits / PR messing it all up for far too long
Add in some nasty explotative financial manipulation lining insincere pockets
Wish they’d go away
mtp
To Paraphrase, to all would be exploiters of this non political blog.
‘This is a Football blog….., for Football people……., There’s nothing for you here!’
Oh to live in ‘Royston Vasey’, Coatbridge is close enough. 😀
MercDoc says:
September 21, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Oh to live in ‘Royston Vasey’, Coatbridge is close enough.
________________________________________
Again I have missed a paragraph or maybe a chapter!! Please explain.
MercDoc says @ 10.16
My post was re exploitation of Footie Bears[ettes]
It’s not right what’s going on at Ibrox IMO
sinc apols MC if not clear
mtp
Jean you haven’t missed anything, ‘Royston Vasey’ is a fictional town, in a comedy.
Sorry ‘two panda’, not directed at you! Just sometimes the blog can get sidetracked by non football related issues. 😀
MercDoc says:
September 21, 2014 at 10:40 pm
_____________________________________
Yes I know that MercDoc. Just don’t know how the comparison with Coatbridge works as I know it as a real town with real people, brilliant values and integrity. ❓
Jean, its a joke. I shouldn’t have to justify a joke. Should I?
Just to clarify! Born and Bred Coatbridge!
MercDoc says:
September 21, 2014 at 10:50 pm
______________________________________________
Hahaha!
“You cannot trust this boy! His mind has been warped by colours, sounds and shapes!”
Edward Tattsyrup.
Is that a political reference? 😀
What politician are you referring to? 😯
I make it about 12 days since Roddy Forsyth was talking about Graham Wallace on his way out.
Yet, Lydsay Herron states in the DR, and at least two other papers have picked up on the story/PR release, that the same Mr Wallace is reassuring players (in the dressing room?) that’s it’s all rosier in the garden than the doom-mongers are predicting.
Will rocks melt in the Sun and Strichen Loch run dry, before Ibrox goes bust? That would be a pretty catagoric assurance.
Danish Pastry says:
September 22, 2014 at 7:44 am
2 0 Rate This
I make it about 12 days since Roddy Forsyth was talking about Graham Wallace on his way out.
===================================
Wasn’t Wallace on “gardening leave” allegedly, with Longmuir waiting in the wings to take over? There is so much about this Pantomime that I simply don’t understand.
For instance, has Letham got his money back yet? And how long will the money from the latest share tranche last? This company spends over £2m each and every month, just to keep the lights on and a team on the park. So that share money, less than £3m net, can’t last much beyond the end of October, even if Letham isn’t repaid, since matchday income is currently pretty low.
What about the AGM? No announcement yet, but 3 weeks clear notice is required, and the judge in Imran’s case was assured the AGM would take place by the end of October. Which raises the question of annual accounts to 30/06/14. These should be published before the AGM.
There are persistent rumours of suppliers and bonuses not being paid on time, yet nobody takes any recovery action. Are the rumours nonsense? Or what is going on?
It looks to me like this farce still has a long way to run.
Here’s a surprise appointment:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-rangers-chief-martin-bain-4301876
Very interesting piece in The Herald:
I see Rangers say ‘No Approach’ to the ‘Club’. What about TRFCL or RIFC Plc?
The ‘Club’ also claim there has been ‘No Approach’ by the Indonesian Government. Has anyone else been in touch such as Interpol direct or even the Scottish Liaison Officers for Interpol? As we all know too well on this site: ‘It’s all in the name’.
At the end of the day the Indonesians know full well that Rizvi – a UK citizen – can’t be extradited to Indonesia because it has no extradition treaty with us.
I think Indonesia is probably creating a lot of noise so that ‘diplomatic channels’ in Malaysia whisper to the ‘businessmen’ who were only interested in youth football development – according to the Club – get a clear GTF message from the Malaysian Government and Royalty.
Obviously this is a story doing the rounds in that neck of the world which IMO will do Rangers even more reputational damage and frighten-off any other potential investors or Sugar Daddies.
And what about the SFA? Back in May/June 2012 when Richard Wilson – then of The Herald – exclusively broke the story of Rizvi’s involvement with Rangers the SFA nearly went into meltdown.
They demanded proof of the identity of the shareholders in Green’s original consortium who were originally the Sevco 5088 investors and it is claimed verbally agreed to transfer their dosh to Sevco Scotland which became TRFCL.
Of course they were treated to a snow-job which they gratefully accepted. It would appear they are still clutching tightly to that fig-leaf although everybody and their granny knows that no one knows who the shadowy offshore figures who control Rangers actually are.
It may even be the case that the man who wields their proxy votes on the Rangers Board, under instruction, doesn’t have a clue who the ultimate Masters are.
But the SFA are still hunkered-down in their Hampden Bunker praying and scheming to return Rangers to its Rightful Place so that Scottish Football can be saved 😆
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/century-fugitive-bid-football-club/
Bank Century Fugitive in Bid for Football Club
Story wrt to Rizvi 3 days ago in Jakarta Globe which also carries the line that Rangers had been contacted.
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/regulatory-announcements
Ashley took up no new shares, and falls below 5%. Laxey took 5 million new shares, and go to 16.32%
With Ashley not adding to his existing 3 million shares the dilution effect of the additional shares that were issued have seen his shareholding percentage drop from 4.56% to 3.68%.
The Laxey bloc in the name of SECURITIES SERVICES NOMINEES LIMITED increased the number of shares held from 8,292,957 shares to 13,299,415 shares which is 16.32% of shares issued.
Back in May this year Sandy Easdale increased his shareholding to 3 million shares which at that time represented 4.61% of the issued share capital.
Easdale also held voting rights over a further 14,387,003 shares – which he didn’t own – representing 22.10% of the RIFC shareholding.
This gave him voting rights over 17,387,003 shares representing 26.71% of the company’s issued share capital at that time.
It will be interesting to see if any other threhhold changes are notified on AIM.
How far are the spivs away from getting actual control of club / company, if they block vote. Is it 75% they need?
Laxey had right to buy 2.5M shares but have doubled that by subscribing for another 2.5M at a total cost of £1M (of the £3.13M raised).
I think that is a significant move on their part to obtain a larger slice of the pie.
There will be no requirement for an announcement in respect any other party who just took up their entitlement as their percentage share of the company will remain unchanged. (Directors excluded of course)
RIFC however should be updating their major shareholder list with the new numbers but I won’t hold my breath for that.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/sep/22/rb-leipzig-germany-red-bull-fans?CMP=twt_gu
The above is not directly related to Scottish football, but it does relate to FFP amongst other things.
Journalism?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763847/Did-rogue-poll-cost-Britain-45bn-Analysis-SIMON-WALTERS.html
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/21/has-rogue-journalism-cost-mail-sunday-its-reputati/
Peter Kellner:-
“As a recovering journalist myself, I am reminded of the parable of the reporter and the meadow, recently retold in the BBC’s excellent drama series, The Village.
A reporter encounters two men returning from the fields. He asks them what they had been doing. The first man says they have been to the meadow to cut the grass; it was now immaculate. The second man says they have done no such thing; not a blade of grass has been touched.
A bad reporter quotes just one of the men. A mediocre reporter quotes both.
A good reporter goes and looks at the sodding meadow”
Magic 😆
Woodstein
A SMSM reporter quotes just one of the men.
But only after he has been told which one.
I think it’s worth noting what the shareholding position of the Institutional Investors was prior to the recent share issue according to the FT.
Afaik the only post-flotation info we have so far wrt IIs relates to Laxey Partners who now hold 13,299,415 shares amounting to 16.32% of the total.
Adding that to the pre-flotation info above the IIs appear to hold at minimum approx 43.5% of the shares issued.
The directors between them hold 1.19% of the recently enlarged share capital. We also know that Mike Ashley holds 3.68% of the enlarges share capital.
Wrt Sandy Easdale we know back in May he held 3 million shares representing 4.61% of the share capital at that time. He additionally held voting rights over a further 14,387,003 shares – which he didn’t own – representing 22.10% of the RIFC shareholding. This gave him a total voting right of 26.71%
That accounts for 75.8% of the RIFC shareholding but that figure will change dependant on who has taken-up their share allocation or subscribed for more in the recent share offer.
The might that really interests me is what Sandy Easdale’s proxy people have done as well as the IIs as so far we only know what Laxey has done although in view of their property-based interests then that isn’t a big surprise IMO.
Kilgore Trout says:
September 22, 2014 at 2:42 pm
True 😯
woodstein says:
September 22, 2014 at 2:33 pm
A good reporter goes and looks at the sodding meadow
=======================================================
In my experience the only person who would actually check the meadow would be Hector – who would then no doubt be accused of bias or a conflict of interest 😆
Without entering the political arena on the YouGov poll issue I personally became convinced that the polls failed to detect the level of NO voters within the ‘Don’t Knows’.
From my personal observations many people were apparently coyly failing to publicly commit to their voting preference. I had my own ideas as to why this was which was borne out in a number of conversations I had with people that I tended to know quite well.
I also think a lesser contributory factor is the lack of historical data and polling expertise on referenda as opposed to general and local elections.
There is also the peculiarity that one-off referendums are just that and therefore very unique. So perhaps a new rule book is required every time rather than the trusted and finely honed skills used for more ‘normal’ political voting.
I also think that the apparent ovewhelming success of the YES Campaign possibly affected the normally analytical approach of the pollsters and indeed campaign managers.
The evidence on the street appeared to show the YES camp was heading for an historic victory and that IMO created a self-reinforcing climate so that no real alarm bells were ringing as to why the polls were reacting the way they were.
At the end of the day in the polling booth there were no ‘Don’t Knows’ and I seriously doubt there were ever as many as being previously reported in the polls.
ecobhoy says:
September 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Without entering the political arena on the YouGov poll issue I personally became convinced that the polls failed to detect the level of NO voters within the ‘Don’t Knows’
—————————————————-
I would agree.
Does the news that BAE would like to close Govan, strengthen the argument of those who say of Rangers, “its all about the property, stupid”?
ecobhoy says:
September 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
At the end of the day in the polling booth there were no ‘Don’t Knows’ and I seriously doubt there were ever as many as being previously reported in the polls.
And so we move on to the next stage
Honour
Your
Promise
England
Based simply on conjecture…
I now don’t think TRFC will go bust during the season.
Like many other Bampots, I have been left scratching my head as the Govan club keeps managing to limp along.
If there was a ‘reasonable’ risk of TRFC going bust during this season, then it would have made sense to enter admin at the end of last season – or during the close season. Many of us thought that would actually happen.
So, IMO, a decision was taken NOT to go down that route and start the Championship full of bravado etc.
There is speculation that there could be an admin event by the end of the year, at which point the spivs could simply ‘take’ the property and the football club could be gubbed in the gutter.
But that is inconsistent with the spivs’ MO up until now anyway. Why did they not force TRFC into admin after they had receieved ST monies for last season ?
But the unexplained point – to me anyway – is this: is there another source of funds going into TRFC that we are not aware of ?
Gut feeling is that TRFC will survive the season and gain promotion to the SPL maybe via the playoffs.
And then who knows what might happen during next summer ?
But it might be a more appealing club to potential ‘investors/other spivs’ with SPL income and possible Euro income to look forward to eventually ?
StevieBC says:
September 22, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Pretty fair conjecture, though the obvious Risk/Issue that should be sitting at RED in any analysis, is that it depends on the managerial capabilities of Mr McCoist
ecobhoy says: September 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm
———————–
I’m afraid that the pre share offer percentages you have quoted above are wrong. There were 65.8M shares in circulation, Laxey held 12.6% and not 10.19%
Here are the figures from the RIFC website
Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital
Laxey Partners Ltd 8,292,957 12.6%
Artemis Investment Management LLP 5,479,000 8.33%
River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 4,795,500 7.29%
Hargreave Hale Limited 4,601,688 6.99%
Blue Pitch Holding* 4,000,000 6.08%
Miton Capital Partners 3,143,857 4.78%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 4.56%
Alexander Easdale* 2,942,957 4.47%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.95%
Trying to work out the strategy for this fiasco is nigh on impossible as “normal” insolvency and football governance rules appear not to apply to Govan based football clubs. However……….
I believe the plan was always to reach the premiership as quickly as possible regardless of how much mug investors and supporters cash was blown on the way. Perhaps they plan to build as much debt as possible this year, keeping “outside” creditors including HMRC below the 25% threshold.
With the promotion format giving the top 4 teams a chance of premier league status, coupled with the usual deluge of honest mistakes at key moments of the season, I believe they will have a controlled admin event in the new year. On taking the 15 point penalty they will no doubt finish in the top 4, but more importantly they will once again be “debt free” but this time in the premiership. This will offer them the opportunity to milk the mugs for more charitable investment with the lure of “rightful place” and European football to dangle in front of them.
Only conjecture, but I can see no other way for them to survive long term.
easyJambo says:
September 22, 2014 at 4:16 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm
———————–
I’m afraid that the pre share offer percentages you have quoted above are wrong. There were 65.8M shares in circulation, Laxey held 12.6% and not 10.19%
=================================
Be not afraid easyjambo and let me explain why 😀
If you actually go back and read my post you will see that I clearly stated the list detailing the shareholding of Laxey and other Institutional Investors came from the FT.
If you look even more closely you will see that the date given by the FT varied for each individual II and in Laxeys case it was 20 Dec 2013. IIRC the figure you have used comes from early May 2014 whereas the one I actually used in my calculation is the most up-to-date from this month.
Indeed, I stated:
However the thrust of my post wasn’t to show the individual % shareholdings but the relative strengths of what might comprise opposing shareholding blocs but pinning that tail on a donkey is almost impossible even without a blindfold.
However if you are unhappy with the figure and date supplied by the FT might I suggest you advise them they have got it wrong. At the end of the day it doesn’t actually – in any way – affect my calculation as I explained in my original post and again here 😆
ecobhoy says: September 22, 2014 at 5:30 pm
————————
I had noted the varying dates but the FT numbers are still wrong.
I have been tracking all the shareholdings of all the major shareholders from the RNS announcements and other sources.
The changes in Laxey’s holdings have gone as follows:
12/08/2013 3,250,000 4.99% of 65.1M
15/08/2013 4,250,000 5.22% of 65.1M
20/11/2013 7,578,672 11.64% of 65.1M – purchased from Beaufort Secs
24/12/2013 8,292,957 12.74% of 65.1M – share agreement with Green
01/07/2014 8,292,957 12.60% of 65.8M – dilution by Stockbridge
12/09/2014 13,299,415 16.32% of 81.5M – share offer
Scottish Football needs the FT to report numbers accurately ….. otherwise the TSFM super sleuths will catch them out. 😈
Eco/easy
Cut a bit of slack
yourhavingalaugh says: September 22, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Eco/easy
Cut a bit of slack
———————-
I wasn’t looking for an argument. I only pointed out that the quoted FT figures were wrong.
=================
ecobhoy says: September 22, 2014 at 6:55 pm
—————–
eco – I think it is you that is getting the wrong end of the stick in thinking that I was getting at you. I just pointed out something in your post that was factually incorrect (the FT quoted numbers).
I also do understand how you came to the figures you did ……… and yes you did use the FT figures in your calculation. You said so yourself.
16.32 + 6.17 + 5.89 + 5.27 + 3.86 + 2.46 + 1.54 + 0.8 + 0.67 + 0.53 = 43.51
I’m getting confused about the Laxey strategy. It is now clear that Laxey stepped in and got the share issue over the line, while other major shareholders sat on their hands. But I thought that earlier this year Laxey were all for an administration of TRFC, allowing the shareholders to get some value out of the properties. Now it looks as if Laxey have kept the lights on for a while longer. I assume that if Laxey hadn’t increased their stake, then the share issue would have failed and TRFC would have run out of money in short order.
So can anyone discern the Laxey game plan? It’s not like them to get in for the long term.
neepheid says: September 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm
——————-
It does look like a change of strategy, but there are links between Laxey and Imran Ahmad with regard to share dealings.
It was reported that IA had sold 2M shares to Laxey back in Aug 2013 (although I haven’t seen it confirmed). There was an AIM notification that IA no longer had a notifiable holding within days of Laxey upping their shareholdings to 3.25M then 4.25M
Laxey did pick up 3.3M shares from Beaufort Securities, who are part of the previous Hoodless Brennan, Beaufort, and Raven Nominees hierarchy, which have connections with IA.
Colin Kingsnorth and Imram Ahmad did attend the same private school. Although they didn’t attend at the same time, they may still know one another from that connection, e.g. maybe through a sibling.
I think that Laxey is now very firmly in the Spiv camp.
neepheid says:
September 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm
2 0 Rate This
I’m getting confused about the Laxey strategy. It is now clear that Laxey stepped in and got the share issue over the line, while other major shareholders sat on their hands. But I thought that earlier this year Laxey were all for an administration of TRFC, allowing the shareholders to get some value out of the properties. Now it looks as if Laxey have kept the lights on for a while longer. I assume that if Laxey hadn’t increased their stake, then the share issue would have failed and TRFC would have run out of money in short order.
So can anyone discern the Laxey game plan? It’s not like them to get in for the long term.
————
Might there not be a big pay-day from just selling the lot for £20-25m to this oft-touted consortium of real Rangers men waiting in the wings?
Danish Pastry says:
September 22, 2014 at 9:19 pm
But couldn’t the mythical group of real Rangers men have got the whole kit and caboodle for 1/4 of that two years ago?
scapaflow says:
September 22, 2014 at 9:27 pm
1 0 Rate This
But couldn’t the mythical group of real Rangers men have got the whole kit and caboodle for 1/4 of that two years ago?
———
Ah, but it’s part of a cunning plan …
On the Laxey Partners front ( and perhaps I may have missed developments) has PmcG indicated whether he ever received replies from Laxey to the list of questions he submitted to them on 19th May?
I’ve just been re-reading some of the reports on the LP v Alliance Trust struggle of a couple of years ago. And was astonished to find that LP had only 1.4% (one point four!) of the shareholding , and yet were able to bully and harass the Board no end.They lost that battle after a couple of years ( the majority apparently deciding that LP were into ‘short termism’ for their own benefit.)
What might they be able to effect with a 16% share-holding in an ailing company? They must be in pole position [and can anyone explain where that term comes from in relation to motor racing? I think I know what it means, but what’s its derivation?], they must be in pole position to get their own way. And that, I submit, is not to be involved in running a football club where the prospect of any decent return is pretty remote, but to liquidate and dispose of the assets.A 16 per cent share of the value of those assets would be a very fair return on whatever they have spent so far.
Or am I completely off-beam?
Poll position is standing in the street asking the wrong people the wrong question.
Pole position is between Russia and Germany.
Danish Pastry says:
September 22, 2014 at 9:51 pm
Would that be the cunning plan to continue with total spending until everyone’s skint except Chief Exec Wallace, Non Exec Easdale and their tortoise, Ally?
Blackadder, Brilliant
There was a time when a Laxey Partners’ loan of £1M allied to a potential £150K interest payment was considered beyond the pale.
The loan as proposed, secured as I understand it against Edmiston House and Albion car park was subsequently superseded by a more palatable loan at a substantially reduced interest rate amounting to £45K.
It is possible to look at these figures and conclude that the difference between one and the other is significant.
Within the narrow context of direct comparison it was clearly enough to motivate Rangers supporters groups to express dismay and distrust.
That said I’m sure that I’m not alone in thinking that most of the numbers making the headlines in the Rangers saga in recent times are surprisingly small.
As it happens Laxey Partners have now increased their stake in Rangers Int. to a little over 16% at a cost close to the loan value originally envisaged.
Clearly Laxey Partners see Rangers as an investment that could pay off.
If the share price looked like an undervalue prior to the open offer the immediate pressures of raising funds looks to have to have made increasing their stake a little easier on the purse.
There is some question as to how much Laxey actually paid for their initial shareholding. I’d appreciate guidance on this as I’m getting old and lazy.
One way or another Laxey Partners have spent money and anticipate a return, they can afford to wait.
As far as I can tell they don’t have any desire to run a football club so the expectation would be that the shares are sold at a profit.
All they need is a buyer. 😯
Martin says:
September 22, 2014 at 11:30 pm
‘..All they need is a buyer.’
——-
Yes, indeed, that is true.
But it doesn’t look as though there are any potential buyers of the new club as is.God knows,there were gey few prepared to put their money where their mouths were when it was going dirt cheap.
Who,now,is going to buy an ailing football club with a run-down stadium, football infra-structure that is markedly below par, and a fan-base deeply riven by internal discord, in the hope of any kind of worthwhile return within the next ten years?
It has not been Laxey Partners’ habit to wait for more than perhaps three/four years before looking to make a decent return on their investment: a definite, certain return instead of a highly speculative hope that in a year or so they might begin to harvest relatively huge returns, based on the prospects of a very, very third rate football team achieving European glory.
No, the Laxey way is to cut and run at the opportune moment, and bugger the consequences for anyone else. Craig Whyte and SDM style.
I suspect that their opportune moment is round about now.Very soon, I believe, we will begin to see reports in the financial press of pressure on the RIFC board coming from the single biggest shareholder. And that pressure will be aimed at forcing Administration.
But, as I keep saying ( to myself if to nobody else) what do I know about these things?
Except that, as our Polis know, the baddies are incapable of changing their modus operandi.They cannot help but act as they always act!
neepheid says:
September 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm
So can anyone discern the Laxey game plan? It’s not like them to get in for the long term.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
These guys are Spivs
Their only game plan is to make short term money
At the expense of anybody
As long as it is legal
As far as TRFC are concerned this boils down to getting the most value out of a TRFC Administration
The one remaining area where money can be made is to shaft their fellow shareholders
This is done legally by getting freebie shares while their fellow shareholders get no freebie shares This is enabled by a short term investment in the £4m Open Offer
Thereafter
Step1 is to increase the no of shares that can be created out of thin air This needs a 75% vote by the RIFC board
Step2 is the preferred Spivs are awarded freebie shares as payment for some legal but spurious services
This dilutes all the shareholders who didnt get freebie shares by reducing their % share of RIFC and hence the % value of their ownership of the assets
Step3 is to put TRFC into Admin owning zillions to RIFC
Since RIFC debt is over 75% they can appoint the Administrator .Its called a pre pack Admin and it puts the Administrator under the majority shareholders bidding
(more or less)
The assets are then divided among the RIFC shareholders in proportion to their % share of RIFC
When the freebie shares are taken into account the Spivs get a much larger share of the assets than they would have done before the £4m open offer
i.e.
The £4m open offer was intended all along to enable the 75% vote and hence the shafting of the minorty shareholders
Next Step is Admin
Timing?
Admin is most likely when the total assets of TRFC are at a maximum and the total debt owed to RIFC is also at a maximum
Danish Pastry says:
September 22, 2014 at 9:39 am
‘..Here’s a surprise appointment..’
—————
I think it’s possible that Martin Bain may be Jewish by descent.
If so, then it makes perfect, legitimate sense for the Jewish owner of an Israeli club to hire a man who has extensive experience of what had been a significant ( if on a false, cheating basis) football club in European terms.
I actually find myself wishing him well, in so far as he eventually spoke out about Murray’s crass and hubristic behaviour.
It’s incidentally quite interesting, and amusing, to read on the Maccabi Tel Aviv website, what Bain says about the history of the club having similarities to the history of ‘Rangers’.
As I also keep saying, this blog has prompted me to explore really quite interesting aspects of life that I knew nothing about.Quite humbling, really, to realise just how much I don’t know, about anything!
GoosyGoosy says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:20 am
“Admin is most likely when the total assets of TRFC are at a maximum and the total debt owed to RIFC is also at a maximum”
—————————-
I take it there will have to be an AGM/EGM for a disapplication of pre-emption rights to be tabled and passed. As an AGM is due fairly soon I would naively suspect that this would be the convenient opportunity. I don’t see much more money coming into the club or any more being forthcoming from the company.
You have been consistent in this extrapolation for some time now. Given that my capacity for comprehension is outstripped by your ability to explain, is my conclusion valid.
GoosyGoosy says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:20 am
“Admin is most likely when the total assets of TRFC are at a maximum and the total debt owed to RIFC is also at a maximum”
—————————-
Based on this clear, simple logic the total assets (or total value) will be much greater once promotion has been achieved or, at least, assured. Therefore the opportunity for extracting maximum cash seems to align with the supporters desire to ‘get back to where they belong’.
The penalty ‘imposed’ by the footballing authorities will be negotiated up front, so that would suggest an admin event this season, once promotion is in the bag. If I was running TRFC or RIFC I would not want to gamble on the success of the current management team if they ended up in the playoffs.
Is the ultimate payoff big enough for existing shareholders to keep the lights on until April?
John Clark says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:57 am
6 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
September 22, 2014 at 9:39 am
‘..Here’s a surprise appointment..’
—————
I think it’s possible that Martin Bain may be Jewish by descent.
If so, then it makes perfect, legitimate sense for the Jewish owner of an Israeli club to hire a man who has…
——–
Absolutely John. It was just a surprise. Wasn’t there speculation that he might have been CF at one point?
I remember also being surprised that when Whyte was in trouble at Ibrox a director (can’t remember which one) went to court and got funds ring-fenced. The amount of money this director was due seemed to indicate that he and his colleagues were getting a fair few bob for their efforts — ‘not an inconsiderable amount’ as a judge might say 🙂
In my naivety, I’d always imagined directors of fitba clubs, unlike many other businesses, receiving only a token payment, if any at all. In it for the love of the club, a seat in the box, and all that. But that particular case showed that it was a well paid gig to be a real Rangers man. Still is, apparently.
That said, MB may have been one of the good guys. No idea what he took out of RFC as it sailed on financial fumes only.
According to wikipedia
The term has its origins in horse racing, in which the fastest qualifying horse would be placed on the inside part of the course, next to the pole.
GoosyGoosy says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:20 am
I agree with the above on a theoretical basis. The problem is I’m not sure how it will work in practice.
I won’t try and be too detailed about my thoughts but more scatter bullet-points about with a heavily loaded and very broad brush.
* We don’t know how many shareholders, especially initial consortium ones, are still in play at Ibrox. It may well be that many have filled their boots and moved-on and have left their fresh, cash-hungry replacements scrabbling to get a slice of the action as quickly as possible.
* Any such transfers might not even be dependent on share values but on ‘side deals’ tied into the alleged onerous contracts which the incomers may have bought into. Of course perhaps some of these ‘contracts’ remain with the original ‘owners’. However IMO successful spivs are seldom left holding the baby when the music stops – they have usually also sold the chairs by then as well.
* On maximising total assets that isn’t going very well. Ibrox is obviously depreciating through lack of maintenance/replacement and this could also be affecting ancillary plant and machinery. It’s hard to see how Murray Park can escape being sold to keep the Ibrox lights on.
The value of the players probably doesn’t exceed a couple of million and their best could well go in the January window – again to keep the lights on.
We have seen the value in Rangers Retail extracted and Edmiston House may follow by being turned into a SportsDirect retail outlet. The Albion car park’s role will probably continue as a handy ‘security’ for any loan. The importance of it’s security isn’t so much in the land but the useful cash income generated by home matches.
And then the gaping financial black-hole which has opened following the boycott and which may extend and grow in the coming season.
* Obviously some kind of sale and lease-back of Ibrox would be helpful – especially on a full insuring and repairing/maintenance basis – but I don’t see how the sums realisable would be of that much interest to the spivs as it really is chicken-feed compared to moving-on and starting all-over again with a plump new company rather than a financially ravaged and raddled Rangers.
It might make sense possibly to Laxey but I’m still not sure about that and their recent share splurge makes me doubt all the rumours about the allegedly Rangers supporting employee who was sacked for getting Laxey involved in the first place.
On the debt side it will inexorably rise because Rangers are quite simply loss-making and I see no end to that in the near future.
It may well be that they can limp along and be promoted to the Premiership next year which might trigger the dream vanity sale to someone who sees the club as a vehicle to Champions League football. Well even I still have dreams 😆
John Clark says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:57 am
———————————————————
I have no idea what Martin Bain’s religion is or even if he has any religious affiliation. I also fail to see what place his religion has to do with anything least of all a discussion on this blog wrt his suitability for his new job.
I also don’t know if the owner of the club in question is Jewish or not and whether that factor and the alleged religion of Martin Bain played any part in his employment.
Having personally experienced religious discrimination employment-wise because of my perceived religion and knowing that my forbears suffered the same because of their actual religious beliefs I tend to be touchy about the subject.
However I think we should all be careful about perpetuating the acceptance of such a corrosive divide even if it is done accidentally as I’m sure it was in this case.
I doubt if many posters would agree that it makes perfect sense for Rangers only to hire one religion and Celtic another when it comes to their managers and it most certainly wouldn’t be legitimate.
The recent share splurge may just be implementation of plan B or plan C withe the original plan(s) having been abandoned due to a Laxey employee not doing due diligence in the first place. Remember there is also a rumour that Laxey wanted to mark the 2nd anniversary of an admin with another one last February.
Danish Pastry says:
September 23, 2014 at 7:09 am
======================================================================
I think a lot of smaller football clubs which are owned by private limited companies are still very much as you state especially if they have a geographically local or community support.
But when you move to multi-million £ turnover public limited companies such as run Rangers and Celtic the boards are made-up of full time executive directors whose pay is commensurate with their professional experience and qualifications – well usually.
There are also the NEDS (Non Executive Directors) who at Rangers tend to be on £50k a year for quite a light work-load. But these people are supposed to have a mixture of relevant experience in business and the market and in properly run companies they do.
They also tend to have quite a large number of NED appointments across other companies and many have no ‘fan’ affiliation to the football club whose Board they sit on.
At the end of the day there is a large ‘cultural’ difference between smaller and bigger clubs has developed over the years since they all started out as local associations of like-mided individuals. We all have our different opinions as to whether the change has been for the better 🙄
tykebhoy says:
September 23, 2014 at 9:53 am
Plan B, C etc
When Laxey offered the £1m loan in February they had the right to be repaid in Rangers shares. Mr Letham suppered that.
Now they spend £1m on shares.
Whatever it is the plan remains the same.
tykebhoy says:
September 23, 2014 at 9:53 am
I’m not sure that Laxey would be interested in marking an anniversary. They are a pretty professional outfit who operate within the law and whose sole aim is to release locked-in value from companies and distribute it to the shareholders with Laxey having moved as near the top of that line as possible.
For Laxey and some others a February admin this year would have made perfect sense but it didn’t for other shareholders who apparently blocked the move.
The problem is that looking-in from the outside can never show the full picture and wrt Rangers it appears that there is some movement between the allegiances of some in the disparate shareholder blocs.
Still we have interesting times ahead with the accounts, agm and the fate of the disapplication resolution. That will hopefully reveal where the power currently lies and possibly some of the future ‘direction’.
scottc says:
September 23, 2014 at 7:52 am
‘..The term has its origins in horse racing..’
——-
I am indebted to you, scottc. Never having been at a racecourse, I wouldn’t even have known there was any kind of pole at the start, as opposed to the winning post at the end!
ulyanova says:
September 23, 2014 at 10:14 am
==========================================
Good point – it had slipped my mind. Wonder if Letham has been repaid yet?
Good point – it had slipped my mind. Wonder if Letham has been repaid yet?
——————————————————————————
As the loan had to be notified to AIM, would its repayment not also have to be so notified within a specified period?
Cygnus X2 says:
September 23, 2014 at 2:36 am
GoosyGoosy says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:20 am
==============================================
All other things being equal – which will probably never apply in the topsy-turvy world of Rangers – I would agree that the ability to extract maximum cash from supporters could arise from promotion to the Premiership and whether that broke the boycott.
But there are just so many imponderables before that stage. I think a lot depends on whether Rangers can reach the Premiership finishing-line by living from hand-to-mouth and not requiring the Big share punt.
However they will still want to pass the disapplication of pre-emption rights as that could be the last big payday opportunity for spivs when selling the club for its European potential.
So I think any share issue will only be just enough to keep the lights on along with the other drip-feeds until it is clear whether they get promoted.
If promoted the club is sold and if not a further share issue will be made to limp through next season and then reach Journey’s End of the European Promised Land a season late.
Perhaps it’s always been the plan and we were blind-sided by Green being set-up as an Aunt Sally to provide entertainment as a panto-style villain while the brains were busily organising and pulling the strings behind the scenes in their offshore locations.
It’s always worth looking at Green’s business background – he has always been the ‘front-man’ and been well paid for taking the blows in public while the money men stayed in the dark.
It isn’t so much that Green is still involved IMO but more that the Ibrox Controllers have never changed since June 2012.
Some background on Green I did quite some time ago in September 2012: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/could-charlie-greens-rangers-float-turn-into-a-lead-lifebelt-by-ecojon/
ecobhoy says:
September 23, 2014 at 9:46 am
‘… I tend to be touchy about the subject.’
——-
My word, you certainly are!
Who said anything about religion, or discrimination?
I was offering a perfectly reasonable suggestion as to why Goldhar, with the resources to scout about through all the football director talent in the world, might have chosen Bain.I wondered what factors might have influenced his choice, apart from the man’s perceived abilities as a director, experienced in a big club.
A shared heritage might be one such factor.That’s all.Religion per se would not come into it.
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding Letham’s loan. The original Laxey £1m loan was not repayable in shares- it was only the premium of £150k that could be taken as shares. Mr Letham replaced Laxey as lender on exactly the same terms, apart from the amount of the premium, which was reduced to £45k, still payable in shares at Letham’s discretion. The company could not repay Letham’s £1m by issuing more shares, even if Letham consented, without first passing the disapplication of pre-exemption rights motion at a general meeting, since issuing 5 million new shares to Letham would dilute the value of the shares already issued.
Here is a link to the announcement setting out the terms of the Laxey loan-
http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/373
And a link re Letham’s replacement of Laxey-
http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/374
Castofthousands says:
September 23, 2014 at 1:41 am
I take it there will have to be an AGM/EGM for a disapplication of pre-emption rights to be tabled and passed. As an AGM is due fairly soon I would naively suspect that this would be the convenient opportunity. I don’t see much more money coming into the club or any more being forthcoming from the company
,,,,,,,,
Yes I cant see any other reason for Laxey to invest in the Open Offer
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Cygnus X2 says:
September 23, 2014 at 2:36 am
The penalty ‘imposed’ by the footballing authorities will be negotiated up front, so that would suggest an admin event this season, once promotion is in the bag. If I was running TRFC or RIFC I would not want to gamble on the success of the current management team if they ended up in the playoffs.
Is the ultimate payoff big enough for existing shareholders to keep the lights on until April?
Dont think so
Excluding Bear investors(perhaps 8%) all existing shareholders are in it for the money
However
Only those who got freebie shares along the way will make real dough. These people hold around 68% of the shares and are greedy wenough to get it up to well over 90% by diluting the rest
By not investing in the open offer the minority shareholders have signed their death warrant
They cannot now stop the majority spivs from legally diluting them. This is probably the real reason why King et al stayed out
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I suspect, having got the dilution lined up the focus will now be on selling on the onerous contracts to Bottom Feeding Spivs i.e selling to people who are comfortable to break UK law and move on before they get caught leaving the bill with a myriad of foreign cos to investigate
Someone wanted by Interpol would fit the bill nicely as a frontman for another Bottom Feeder
@Ecobhoy . I should probably have included the wink 😉 and irony :irony: emoticon. I’m well aware that Laxey would not have been swayed by an anniversary but February 14th would have been poetic.
@Ulynova and Ecobhoy. I was only really pointing out that Laxey may have dismissed employees because they couldn’t do what they thought they could in February. However if plan A was admin in February there would have been no need for the Laxey facility, therefore that was almost certainly their Plan B. You could say that Mr Letham scuppered plan B so the share buying could be regarded as Plan C even if it had the same aim as Plan B in increasing Laxey influence.
As for Mr Letham being repaid wasn’t there :slamb: MSM reports that he was about to get heavy and was talked out of doing so by Wallace pointing out he could be repaid from the proceeds of the share offer? I wonder what happened to the season book money he was supposed to be paid out from 😈 ? IF RIFC now have the proceeds of the share offer and haven’t repaid the principle then I suspect Mr Letham will be taking positive action very shortly. 😯