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.
If Mr Letham has been gullible enough to take discounted shares instead of £1m in cash he will regret it when his holding is diluted
Neepheid
Thanks, my mistake. Apologies for misleading the forum.
ecobhoy says:
September 23, 2014 at 10:05 am
2 1 Rate
———-
Yes, the world of football has moved on. Just seemed to me that for a club that was in such huge debt the individual director resembled the cat that got the cream.
Btw, I was also a little puzzled by your response to JC’s post about the Bain appointment. Being Jewish is not a religous condition any more than being Scottish is. Wasn’t the point just about who you know and ease of getting on with via a shared background/culture?
Sally Magnusson.
😀
John Clark says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:57 am
what Bain says about the history of the club having similarities to the history of ‘Rangers’.
Was their history also sold to Charles Green for three marbles, two conkers and a sherbet dib dab?
toadinthehole says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:38 pm
…Was their history also sold to Charles Green for three marbles, two conkers and a sherbet dib dab?
==========================================================
I think you have overstated the consideration Toad. Wis it no’ a soor ploom?
Scottish Football needs a more competitive Premier League – I mean, Celtic are walking away with fourth place! 😈
In other news, according to the Telegraph, the FA are allegedly putting up Rio Ferdinand as their candidate for the FIFA British vice president’s position. And the rumoured SFA candidate – only the world’s greatest football administrator and man of integrity, C Ogilvie Esq!
What a fine fellow to represent the UK in that hotbed of transparency and honesty.
I can understand the Laxey plan B being get them to promotion and then sell on to a Rangersness faction.
What I cannot yet determine is the flexibility in Laxey’s stance to play hard ball, surely if they continue to lose money then its promotion or bust, and bust is no good to them (still not convinced about the property play). Meanwhile I equally cannot fathom the Rangersness faction’s appetite for said hardball. Their best play, particularly if promotion is not earned outright, with a suitable safety margin, is obviously for admin and even liquidation to get best value. Paying relative top dollar to inherit overbaked expectation and underbaked infrastructure does not a fortune make IMHO.
Danish Pastry says:
September 23, 2014 at 12:19 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 23, 2014 at 10:05 am
——————————————————
Yes and I was more than a little puzzled by the original post which indicates Mr Bain is possibly descended from a Jewish background. I have no idea what that has to do with the price of bananas or even being picked for a plum job where – going by the new owner’s reported management style – a sabra might be more suited to taste.
I haven’t a clue why @JC made the ‘Jewish’ assumption rather than simply assume that Mr Bain was of Scottish descent as I have always done and, indeed, he is a fellow Glaswegian afaik.
I am also at a loss to understand the shared background/culture that you conclude Martin Bain has with Canadian born, property developer billionaire Mitch Goldhar.
Now, unlike Bain, it has been reported that Goldhar is Jewish. Therefore to use the same argument you have used wrt Bain: Goldhar should be regarded as Canadian and I therefore struggle to understand what shared basckground/culture the two men have in common.
It is correct to say that not all Jews practice any of the separate and distinct strands of Judaism but in my personal experience of Jewish people I find it difficult to separate their culture and history from the religion that the overwhelming majority of them practice and which is integral to family and community life.
However that is a personal viewpoint and, in a sense, irrelevant because we don’t know whether Mr Bain is Jewish or not and I for one don’t care and don’t wish to know as I fail to see the relevance of that fact wrt him getting a job.
Now if it had been said he was a Zionist that may well have been relevant but we don’t know that either.
Just for a laugh I checked the SFA website about the upcoming Georgia game.
As we are not Tartan Army members, if I wanted to take my family [including a 17 & 18 year olds], the cheapest tickets I could get would cost the princeley sum of GBP 140 !
Add in pie&bovril, programme etc probably looking at GBP 170+
…to watch a game against Georgia.
Seriously ?!
http://www.scottishfa.talent-sport.co.uk/PagesPublic/ProductBrowse/ProductHome.aspx?ProductSubType=SMEQ
StevieBC says:
September 23, 2014 at 6:08 pm
It is outrageous. Thank God my kids are grown up, given comparable circumstances, i don’t think we could afford family fitba days
Is this game on CO Friday night out hence the ticket prices
Apologies
Copywriting to chick young
From Ian Black quote on the BBC. How can so much be so wrong in so few words;
“It’s not going to get to that stage. It’s too big a club. The fans have helped out and stood by us through thick and thin,” said Black.
“They won’t let us go into that situation.
redlichtie says:
September 23, 2014 at 2:29 pm
36 1 Rate This
======================
Fit numptie gave me a thumbs doon and spoiled a perfect score? 🙂
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
ecobhoy says:September 23, 2014 at 3:36 pm
Now if it had been said he was a Zionist that may well have been relevant but we don’t know that either.
——————————————————————————————–
In my opinion by taking the job as CEO of Israeli champions Maccabi Tel Aviv, Martin Bain is implicitly endorsing Zionism.
redlichtie says:September 23, 2014 at 8:06 pm
😆
Usual daily chip wrapper press `output` today
Paid for nonsense ripping off Bears with no real news as per
Translates as yet more cash for spivs onerous get rich quick, carry on
No future with asset strippers [most £ important now stripped]
NONE
#salvagingbacksideswithnointerestbuttheirownshorttermtogetsomecashback
WTF is really going on?
Where`s this going?
Worried Sick
mtp
I do not post often, though lurk a lot.
Thanks to many of you for your marvellous insights. 😀
One thought I keep coming back to is this….
Would those currently steering the ship RIFC be looking to pick their moment, probably next summer from “the club” being in the premiership to sell on “the club”.
Keep the ground. 😀
Keep the Merchandising. 😀
Keep the Brand. ❗
Keep the history 😀
Sell “the club” for a pound but ensure it is just a football team playing in blue at ibrox.
The attachment of the original rangers fans to sevco has shown how strong their attachment is to a football team playing in blue at ibrox called “Rangers”.
Keep coining it in after the sale. 😉
From where i sit there is no one who can break into this sequence.
Strangely the original rangers fans who walked away are now showing the “we do not do walking away” fans the strength of mind required.
Only the starting of another rangers playing in blue, though probably not at ibrox can give them a way out.
I personally am glad i am not a rangers supporter, the choices seem like the devil and the deep blue sea.
Buddy
twopanda says:
September 23, 2014 at 8:27 pm
________________________________________
Don’t understand
#Thick as shoite
Please explain. 😎
Redlichtie
if I give you a thumbs up does that help?
😉
buddy_holly says:
September 23, 2014 at 8:55 pm
Would those currently steering the ship RIFC be looking to pick their moment, probably next summer from “the club” being in the premiership to sell on “the club”.
Keep the ground
Keep the Merchandising
Keep the Brand
Keep the history
Sell “the club” for a pound but ensure it is just a football team playing in blue at ibrox.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Absolutely spot on
However
Putting this proposition before 40k Bears will be fraught with danger
There are sufficient Loonies in the support to create civil disorder and threaten personal safety to any Spivs on the ground
This explains why UK Spivs will sell on to Bottom Feeding offshore Spivs who can remain out of reach and be oblivious to pleas from the fans, the SMS and the SPFL
Bottom Feeders will not be remotely afraid of taking on the Loonies. They live with risk all the time and can afford to wait
The least worse outcome is a 100% fan boycott that closes down the club in the hope that Bottom Feeders will sell off their stranglehold at a price agreeable to some mega rich Saviour lurking in the woodwork
The alternative is to form a new club with a similar name playing out of another ground. There is the possibility of the newco arbitrarily claiming to be TRFC without legal title. However the SFA would have legal problems recognising any claims irrespective of how much they favoured it
Its got all the ingredients of a real mess that could go on for years
What an extraordinarily small world it can be!
This afternoon I went into Glasgow by bus , and then got a bus in Renfield St to get to the Victoria infirmary to visit a friend. A guy sits down beside me, and we start a conversation.The conversation ( and by gum how long it takes a bus to get down Renfield St!) turned to football.He said he had played for Aston Villa.I said a former school acquaintance of mine had also played for that team. And mentioned his name. He replied that my fellow school pupil had in fact been his chum at Aston Villa: and gave biographical details that only someone who knew the school and the person could have known.
What are the odds on that kind of random encounter? I was quite tickled by it.
On which happy note, happier for the fact that the friend I went to visit survived a very dicey operation and is on the road to recovery, I will say goodnight.
Anyone wondering about a reaction from the Rangers support only has to look back to February 2012.
It goes like this :
1 Scapegoat gets pilloried and run out of town
2 A brave new world , brave new journey is undertaken by a brave and charismatic new leader
3 All donations gratefully accepted.
4 Squabbling and finger pointing the order of the day , until ……
5 Revert to step 1
Thats if it goes the way of administration. Right now it doesn’t have that feel to me. It has the feel of dispirate groups who have decided on a common outcome to allow them to achieve their very different goals.
The ones who are shut out though, are the ones who only care about football. The other side are betting that battle fatigue will eventually settle on the fans groups , and that improvement on the pitch will marginalise the discontened even more.
The question though is what the controlling factions want out of control ? Thoughts on that are for another time, however as a first step i’m fairly certain that getting over the threshold of 75% required to succeed with Resolution 10 from the December AGM is high on the agenda. That will ensure any new money comes in from those not likely to rock the boat, and ensures “friends” can be the beneficiary of 1p shares.
Ally will be penning his Santa wish list shortly,asking for some money to buy a player,something he cant remember ever doing,where else would he get any cash.
Sandy Easdale’s new shareholding
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=12093157
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Holdings in Company
The Company announces that it was notified yesterday that further to the Company’s Open Offer, Alexander Easdale purchased 1,242,110 ordinary shares of 1 penny each in the Company (“Ordinary Shares”) at a price of 20p per share on 12 September 2014. As a result, Mr Easdale now holds 4,242,110 Ordinary Shares in the Company, equal to 5.21% of the issued share capital of the Company. Mr Easdale also holds voting rights over, but does not own, a further 17,062,395 Ordinary Shares, representing 20.94% of the Company, meaning that in total he holds voting rights over 21,304,505 Ordinary Shares, representing 26.15% of the issued share capital of the Company.
He was entitled to purchase 905,550 shares anyway so the additional shares bought is not significantly greater. The 1,242,110 shares would have cost him £248K, of which £67K was for the excess shares.
One wonders if he has taken repayment of half his loan in shares. That of course would mean that the club wouldn’t actually receive any new cash.
The 17,062,395 in proxies should be compared to the 14,387,003 he previously held. The increase of 2.68M is less than the entitlement of 4.34M so the proxies took up only 61.6% of what they could have done.
September 24, 2014 at 8:07 am
The 17,062,395 in proxies should be compared to the 14,387,003 he previously held. The increase of 2.68M is less than the entitlement of 4.34M so the proxies took up only 61.6% of what they could have done
Interesting
Not taking up the full allocation strongly suggests the Spivs have over 75%
GoosyGoosy says:
September 24, 2014 at 9:04 am
1 0 Rate This
September 24, 2014 at 8:07 am
The 17,062,395 in proxies should be compared to the 14,387,003 he previously held. The increase of 2.68M is less than the entitlement of 4.34M so the proxies took up only 61.6% of what they could have done
Interesting
Not taking up the full allocation strongly suggests the Spivs have over 75%
————
Trying to follow as best I can with my Winnie-the-Pooh brain.
The 75% may be now in place, which (in theory) allows many more shares to be offered hither and yon, to whoever, and at whatever price?
But for this to be ratified an AGM needs to be called?
And for an AGM to be called, audited accounts showing a going concern must be in house?
Btw, if this is also about Govan property, won’t there soon be more of it available for development after the recent school fires?
I see your winnie the pooh brain and raise you Eeyore!
I wonder if another way to look at it is that at 26.15% effective control it is Sandy that holds the 75% majority ‘button.’
Just thinking out loud.
The lower than allowed take up by the proxies means that Sandy Easdale’s overall voting rights actually fell slightly from 26.71% to 26.15%
Some upbeat comments on the share chat thread at LSE:
[blockquote]
The AGM will take place in December. The £2.8M raised will trigger the release of the season ticket receipts, as opposed to the former drip release basis. This is circa £9M. £1.2M is the cash position presented in court. So a minimum of £13.M. There is a VAT bill of £1.8M due. So £11.2M. This is enough to cover 9 month’s payroll until end of May, end of season. Then there is another public offering of shares, at which point any loans outstanding will be met. Plus there is the pay at the gate receipts. Plus a retail consideration. A little more than 50 p[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
The improved cash position is now being reflected in the share price. The market shares my confidence. All the stakeholders who participated now have a profit of 0.5 per share. So much for the doomsayers who predicted 15p by Friday last. The future is bright. The future is Red,White & Blue.
Smugas says:
September 24, 2014 at 10:11 am
“I see your winnie the pooh brain and raise you Eeyore!
I wonder if another way to look at it is that at 26.15% effective control it is Sandy that holds the 75% majority ‘button.’
Just thinking out loud.”
……………………………………………………………..
Are you meaning the CVA block 25%?
If so, remember it’s 25% of the debt, not the shares which is required to block the CVA.
If not, sorry for interrupting.
Actually meant controlling the apparently inevitable share dilution motion at the AGM. Have to say the LSE comments quote 1 would make a lot more sense (the first bit anyway) than some of the ‘running on fumes’ rhetoric we’ve had.
It has the same old weaknesses of course. 1/ that the loan providers might not want to wait 2/ that a successful share issue is par for the course, and every season as well apparently, 3/ taking an earlier contributor’s point that sale value equalled maximising asset value (what’s that you say £9m been released mmmmm) and 4/ that the purchaser in point three is rangersness enough to buy club for x’m rather than wait and see it crash through lack of funds and get it cheaper, much cheaper!
EDIT: I’m aware it has many many more weaknesses, but that’ll do for now!
Smugas, what makes the LSE poster (and you) think the ringfenced season ticket money will be released? Remember, it may not really have been physically ringfenced in the first place as Deloitte cannot enforce this; only advise it. So 1) it might not be there to release (we’ve all been wondering how the lights have been kept on until now).
Also, if it has indeed been ringfenced, do you think Deloitte will really see £2.8m as sufficient to convince them that RFC* is now a going concern? Remember, £2.8m is top whack here – £1.8m of that is due for VAT (as stated) and Letham/Laxey might need repaid too.
I can’t see RFC* suddenly having an extra £9m if I’m honest.
Nawlite,
Agree entirely, in which case shut the doors (ie. admin) now and protect what cash you’ve got to try and kick start yet another phoenix. But they’re not are they!
If they can make this fly to the season end it will surely be transparent to all that it is the wizard’s façade we all think it is and that if buyers, funnily enough, are not desperate to stand on and purchase all that heightened entitled expectation, it falls apart, at which point (any 😉 ) buyer can jump in and get the same thing with more realisable expectation much cheaper.
I just don’t get the true spiv motive for hanging on, season ticket funds or not. The onerous contracts will remain regardless.
I also don’t seehow ST cash is anywhere near 9m.By the clubsown admission,they’ve sold circa 23k..A 20% increase on last seasonsaverage price gives a price of around 260 quid.The commonly reported figure raised from sales is 5.2m.
We also know that April & Mays wage bill were met due to loans and a media payment.How did TRFC meet their outgoings over June/July?.
The only visible income was ST cash.Deloittes cannot stop the board from using this cash.Unless there’s another source putting in afew million we’re unaware of,the ST cash is gone.
Danish Pastry says:
September 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm
1 3 Rate This
Some upbeat comments on the share chat thread at LSE:
[blockquote]
The AGM will take place in December. The £2.8M raised will trigger the release of the season ticket receipts, as opposed to the former drip release basis. This is circa £9M.
==================
£9m divided by 23,000 = £391. Add VAT then the average price of a ST is £470.
Don’t think so 😀 😀
hmmmm…onerous contracts affecting clubs ability to continue.
Had a thought (rare enough these days so bear with me)
GREEN bought the club (aye right) alongside and in cahoots, as a front man for Whyte.
So, Onerous contratcs implemented by Mr Green are deliberate to syphon out cash for himself and Whytey.
WHomever is in place now, they are acting on orders, partly if not exclusively for Green/Whytey. Everone who has come and gone, syphoning cash as they did so had STRONG relationships with WHYTE, moreso than GREEN.
Stockdale, Matehson etc etc all frineds and DIRECTORS with Whyte in myriads of other companies.
Whyte is pulling the strings via Charlie. end of, they only want income, they aint interested in football unless it makes more income for them, which it will. What they pay McCoist and players is relatively irrelevant in temrs of their income, they set it up to the levels they wanted, they’re getting it, happy days for them
Mr(s) Whyte and Mr Green in the boardroom with the contracts…….
I could be talking mince here, but…
Wrt Sandy Easdale and his ‘holding voting rights’ over 21% of the shares.
He owns 5% of shares in his own name so now holds 26% voting rights in total. I think I have got that bit correct.
But just being curious – is it at all possible that the Easdale(s) could actually also own these 21% of issued shares indirectly ?
[I can’t remember offhand but is he supposed to be fronting for Margarita & Blue Pitch ?]
What if the Easdale(s) are happy for the bears to think that Green & Ahmed are still involved, so that when unpopular decisions are eventually taken these 2 former directors’ names can be liberally used to distract from the Easdales involvement ?
Just thinking aloud, could be way off – and not sure if the numbers involved are within the Easdales’ reach anyway.
and next up…draw for the next round of the League Cup….The Rangers drawn at home to Celtic…am I the only one who fears this?
Haud on. Extra time at NDP.
cowanpete @9.41
Naw.
Aye carry on without us as usual. Awrabest.
cowanpete says:
September 24, 2014 at 9:12 pm
‘….The Rangers drawn at home to Celtic…am I the only one who fears this?’
——-
N0, indeed you are/were not.
I had already begun to wish I were a brilliant orator/writer/ public powerful person so that I could forcefully have urged the Celtic support to boycott any such tie as a sign of their unwillingness to legitimise the new club and therefore, by doing so, seem to be condoning the misdeeds of the SFA, letting them off the hook of corruption of the concept of Sporting Integrity.
Perhaps, though,St Johnstone and/or Partick Thistle might between them remove the need for a call for such a boycott.
A long time ago (or so it seems, such have been all the comings and goings, twists and turns, in this infernal saga) a poster on here, whose moniker I regret I cannot at the moment remember, reminded us of Cato’s insistent, persistent demand in the Senate that ‘delenda est Carthago’.
My cry is that the red rank rotten cheating behaviour of a) SDM and b) the Football Authorities and c) the SMSM football hacks, should not ever be forgotten. ( Sadly, I cannot put that into Latin)
TRFC quite simply are the cuckoo in the nest. They ought not to be there, and are there only through deceit.
That deceit still has to be fully exposed and dealt with.
And, I am sure, some day it surely will be.
So, never mind an ancient North African city, I say “Delenda est corruptela! in relation to Scottish Football Administration.
If the Club owes the Company, lots of hard cash. Say, all of the money it has used to run itself into the ground. If I owned 75% of said company, would I basically be owed 75% of said debt?
I don’t know anymore!
( I’ve said to much )
MercDoc
No. You would own 75% of the company that is owed 100% of the debt.
JC I agree. Delenda est Carthago.
MercDoc says:
September 24, 2014 at 11:37 pm
‘.. If I owned 75% of said company, would I basically be owed 75% of said debt?..’
———
“Yes, Mr Kingsnorth, I think you would! And 75% 0f the value of the assets, when you do a Craig Whyte and sell them off AS YOU NOW CAN at will,will net you a reasonable return.”
Did I hear an angel speak? Or a prophet? 🙂
Through proxy, could I call in the debt. Maybe, Administration?
Delenda est Carthago, more ‘Return of the Living Dead’
” Did I hear an angel speak?” ( my post at 11.59).
I first came across that question in “Ulysses” ( James Joyce) as being asked when someone in the company f.rted! I laughed out loud when I first read it ( 1978), and I’m laughing now, both at the expression itself and in fond remembrance of the circumstances and times in which I read it.Happy,happy times, when Scottish Football -all things considered- was relatively clean.
Am I right or a merangue? 😆
MercDoc says:
September 25, 2014 at 12:06 am
‘..Through proxy, could I call in the debt. Maybe, Administration?’
——–
“You have the voting power, as carefully orchestrated, to arrange such an outcome. You will ensure that no conniving ‘Administrators’ write down the value of the assets in a pre-arranged deal with a preferred buyer.No, your choice of Administrator-and it will be your choice- will ensure that the value placed upon the assets as a going concern will be as high as possible.It might be that some crazed South African might buy at your price.Well and good.You will have made your money.
But given that even South African millionaires wouldn’t cough up a mere handful of millions last time round, it cannot be expected that anyone this time is going to buy the football business at your price.
You must then put the assets on the open market as development sites, not as any kind of sports related property. The players must be sold, the admin staff cast aside, the offices locked and boarded up, and the grass on the pitch of Ibrox allowed to grow uncut.
And then the developers move in.
Among them,perhaps, even Mr Goldhar, with his connection through Mr Bain!”
I smile dismissively at the idea that that could be a real scenario. The Easdales surely would never be party to such a betrayal?
There’s a lot of talk about financial matters on this blog and rightly so, but I’ve just read the following sentence regarding financial fair play and football;
“According to Uefa’s rules, all clubs competing in Europe must limit losses to £35.4m over two seasons.”
How would Sevco comply with these regulations? :irony:
Quite a headline and subhead in The Guardian:
—————-
“Massimo Cellino’s Leeds reign under renewed threat after tax evasion ruling
• Italian judge rules Cellino guilty of ‘Machiavellian’ tax evasion
• Football League rules bar club owners convicted of dishonesty…”
————–
‘Machiavellian’ tax evasion. How would the SFA deal with him?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/24/massimo-cellino-leeds-reign-threat-tax-evasion-ruling
These FFP regulations get better;
“Higher-risk clubs that fail certain indicators will also be required to provide budgets detailing their strategic plans”
Shouldn’t the SFA requested such plans of Sevco Scotland from the outset?
I admit to being paranoid, my problem in the past was that I was not paranoid enough. I am now classed as obsessed, my obsession leads me to believe that the new entity playing out of Ibrox have had a inordinate amount of good fortune with a large imbalance of home v away fixtures.
I’m pretty sure there will be someone equally (or even more) obsessed than I who can give us the facts on home fixtures V away fixtures thus far.
Surely the paranoia will focus on who the hand belonged to that pulled the home tie(s)
6 home and 6 away fixtures to date.
Never cut off the hand that feeds you
yourhavingalaugh says:
September 25, 2014 at 9:36 am
Surely the paranoia will focus on who the hand belonged to that pulled the home tie(s)
============================================================
I think Richard Gordon assured all listeners that the balls in the draw for the League Cup quarter finals were all at the same temperature.
blu says:
September 25, 2014 at 9:49 am
2 0 i
Rate This
6 home and 6 away fixtures to date.
========================
By Monday 29th it will be 7 home and 5 away.
Of the the 7 home games 5 will be ‘big ticket’ items.
2 Games against Hibs, a game against hearts and game v ICT, QOS match too.
From the scotsman today:
“League Cup draw keeps Rangers and Celtic apart”
Tomorrow I expect:
” OAP not killed in a car crash”
” Student not refused a drink at University bar”
” Idiot journalist not carpeted for useless headline”.
I am aware that it is very likely TRFC and Celtic will play in a match together. Assuming TRFC remain in business and gain promotion it could be as early as August 2015, but possibly earlier.
It is my opinion that the only parties looking forward to this are the Scottish “press” and many of the TRFC fans.
If that game ultimately ends up at Ibrox I would love to see the CFC fans refusing to turn up.
Bawsman says:
September 25, 2014 at 10:27 am
=====================================
Apologies, it’s 6 home and 5 away to date.
Is that excluding the SC Semi 😈
tykebhoy says:
September 25, 2014 at 11:16 am
Apologies, it’s 6 home and 5 away to date.
Is that excluding the SC Semi
====================================
Tykebhoy, do you think that the SC semis this season will be played at neutral venues for all the participants – even those who play in Glasgow?
Blu might it depend on how strapped for cash the Clumpany singlehandedly holding Scottish Fitba together is 😉
Is Hampton unavailable again this season
Bawsman, Tykebhoy, even if the conflicted Doncaster wanted to fix fixtures to generate cash early in the season for Rangers, the additional monies from the home league fixtures for both home and away fans wouldn’t be enough to keep this ship afloat. The Queens and Dumbarton games would hardly be money-spinners anyway. The cup monies are shared of course, so of limited value.
My main point in this is that you haven’t provided evidence to support the claim. However, if you are right, these are the people who are responsible:
Neil Doncaster (CEO)
Ralph Topping (Chairman)
Eric Riley (Celtic)
Stephen Thompson (Dundee United)
Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen)
Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers)
Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic)
Ken Ferguson (Brechin City)
Tell me where that pro-Rangers bias comes from in that group.
Blu I was being somewhat sarcastic in asking whether that included the semi. However as mentioned at the time it was plainly ridiculous that the semi final venues needed to be known months in advance and equally ridiculous that it could result in a neutral venue being one of the home team’s home grounds. I can understand for corporate advertising/event purposes a finals location being decided several months in advance. For the avoidance of doubt with Hampden unavailable Murrayfield should have been the venue to avoid any possibility of a home team final.
The chances of a first league match of the season being at home to either Hearts or Hibs should have been one in nine (or 2 in 18 if you prefer). However the chances of it not being one of the two were one in a zillion
YHL Hampton (sic) 😉 was supposedly going to be suitable for use again in late 2014 but both the SFA and its own website are being a little coy on when we can expect the first international there. Ibrox has one and Celtic Park 2 of the Senior Team’s fixtures this autumn.
blu says:
September 25, 2014 at 11:58 am
=======================
blu mate, since when do I need evidence of my self confessed paranoia? 😎
The new entity were gagging for cash to keep the lights on (still are), what are the odds on Hearts and Hibs being the first two matches of the season? 🙄
yourhavingalaugh says:
September 25, 2014 at 11:31 am
2 0 Rate This
Is Hampton unavailable again this season
——-
Quite possibly for anyone singing GStQ 🙂
#royalpurr
Ttykebhoy says:
September 25, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Blu I was being somewhat sarcastic in asking whether that included the semi. However as mentioned at the time it was plainly ridiculous that the semi final venues needed to be known months in advance and equally ridiculous that it could result in a neutral venue being one of the home team’s home grounds. I can understand for corporate advertising/event purposes a finals location being decided several months in advance. For the avoidance of doubt with Hampden unavailable Murrayfield should have been the venue to avoid any possibility of a home team final.
====================================================
Tykebhoy, I guess we’re covering old ground, but I agree that the timing of the announcements for last year’s semis was odd. Flexibility should have been left to allow for wriggle room to avoid either of the Glasgow teams having home advantage if they got to the semis and it should have been declared in advance that there would be a draw to establish the venue should they have both got to the final. My view is that football shouldn’t provide cash for Edinburgh’s rugby establishment if it can avoid it and football fans shouldn’t be landed with extra costs for no good reason i.e. if the vast majority of Celtic and Rangers fans live in the Glasgow area why should they travel to Edinburgh for a match?
RLTJ at 8.11am. Snippet in redtop this am, Liverpool are under investigation by UEFA for breaching FFP rules. Debt in 2012-13 was £49.8m, and £40.5m for 10mths before that. FFP rules state that losses must not exceed £35.4m over two seasons. Monaco,Inter Milan and Roma are asked to provide more financial information on their losses. Withholding of Champions League places are a possible sanction. Edit. Apologies to RLTJ, You read the same snip, I misread your post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/11121232/Newcastle-United-owner-Mike-Ashley-perfect-for-Rangers.html Telegraph again.
andygraham.66 says:
September 25, 2014 at 3:24 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have to wonder what the Telegraphs agenda is.
Any way in case you missed it Ashley just took a £43m punt on Tesco.
Maybe if the bet comes in he will buy the club from Govan for a bit of fun.
http://news.sky.com/story/1341921/tesco-troubles-mike-ashley-makes-43m-bet