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.
Allyjambo says:
September 30, 2014 at 11:24 am
Some Bears asking the same re Zaliukas on the Bears Den.
Very funny comment re the preferences of Zal over Mohsni.
Monies could have something to do with that situation but as I discussed previously the biggest fly in the ointment for any shareholder’s plan to reach the promised land of the Premiership is McCoist.
He has had years to get some form of system together and still comes up lacking.
Neilson and Levein at Hearts seem to know what they are doing and where they are heading footballing wise and my guess is that Stubbs will come good. Houston is no mug and still think more to come from the likes of his Falkirk team, Raith and Queens.
The question of why he is still there, similar to the puzzlement of Zaliukas not playing, must be related to T’Rangers not being able to convince McCoist to walk away without a pocket full of cash.
As seen elsewhere when a club wants to go in a different direction even your dad can make the call to sack you!!
That’s pretty close to Sandy Easdale’s shareholding.
ulyanova says:
September 30, 2014 at 11:49 am
Much talk of both incidents over on jamboskickback, especially in relation to Jamie Walker’s retrospective red card over a ‘simulated’ headbutt. Most are interested in how the Boyd incident will be treated under review! I’d suggest, though, that these incidents were more petulance than ‘doing one for the jersey’. In my experience of watching football, a team of determined players, having a nightmare, tend to get stuck in and the tackles fly with many ‘accidental’ crunches leading to multiple bookings and often sendings off. From what I’ve read and heard in seems the misdemeanours were more of the petulant variety of a depressed side rather than of the ‘getting stuck in’ type.
Allyjambo 11.24
Any player who joined Rangers without due thought to the risk he was taking deserves all that is not coming the way of his bank account.
It is nearer to Charles Green’s holding. While there was notification to AIM that there would be a transfer to Laxey of 714265 and from memory just a statement/rumour he would sell the rest to the Easdales there has never been an official AIM notification of a fall behold the threshold. Charles had just over 5m shares and if the Laxey transfer happened 435k left
giovane says:
September 30, 2014 at 11:54 am
That looks like a parcel of shares bought for an investment of £1m at a price of between 23-24p. I wonder if any of our more astute posters can calculate when such an amount, at that price, was invested, and, possibly, by whom? Of course, it could well be a parcel of £0.01 shares, or someone’s bonus for the good work they’ve done 🙄 on behalf of the club. The price shows how ridiculous the small deals referred to yesterday actually were, though I do wonder if this trade is related to them by making the purchase price look more attractive?
Auldheid says:
September 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Quite so, Auldheid, but many will have already made a small fortune that their talent didn’t merit!
Nothing like a wee bit of speculation re the selling of shares.
Surely this time there will be a RNS given the more than 5% shift
Just as a reminder Easy jambo posted this the other week at the time of the Open Offer
easyJambo says:
September 22, 2014 at 4:16 pm
12 0 Rate This
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%
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore a few parties at the 4 million mark prior to the the Open Offer with Sandy Easdale getting to that number having taken up the offer.
We’re probably both wrong:
Trade 30/9/14 4,265,000
Easdale shareholding per Aim announcement 24/9/14 4,242,110
Tykebhoy estimate of Green’s shareholding 4,350,000
RIFC website share information re. A Easdale is consistent with the figures provided above by wottpi but it was last updated on 8/8/14.
And green reputedly has another 2m share options
Blu James Easdal has over .5m though http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12082477.html
From wottpi’s repost of Easy Jambos figure it could be any of the Instittions above Blue Pitch and include Blue Pitch if they took up the rights offer. It isn’t Mike Ashley either as he bo holds less than 3%
I think it will be more interesting, and probably more important, to discover who has bought the shares rather than who has sold them; though, undoubtedly, who is on the way out is an important question too.
Who might have wanted to increase their shareholding? Is there a new player entering the game? Could it be Dave King? (I bet there’s a lot of speculation along that line over on TRFC fan sites 🙄 ) Will the name of the beneficial holder be known, or will it be another nominee name?
All these questions, and more, will be answered in next week’s episode of Sevco Soap!
Well, some very helpful small trades over the past few days lifted the price up to a level acceptable to someone. Since Laxey P. are in for the forseeable future could they be seeking to gain more influence?
The buyer will be announcd, I take it?
New PhilBlog
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/mr-mccoist-and-the-pet-goat/
is it possible that any major share sell off might be because those in the know are aware the Whytes reappearance, this time, might just be significant, so the anonymous are getting out while gettin is good?
tykebhoy says: September 30, 2014 at 12:23 pm
———————
Green no longer had a notifiable holding from 10/09/2013
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=RFC&ArticleCode=ovy6obkz&ArticleHeadline=Holdings_in_Company
——————
The 4.265M shares represents 5.23% of the shares. There aren’t many Spivs who held that many shares.
What we don’t know is everyone who took up the share offer thus the exact holdings are not known. However, it is likely that the vendor will come from this list:
Laxey
Sandy Easdale
Blue Pitch
River & Mercantile Asset Mgt
Artemis Investment Mgt
Hargreave Hale Ltd
easyJambo says:
September 30, 2014 at 2:04 pm
EJ more than likely. Who sold and who bought that is the question?
Also Phil reporting that worthington sent a letter to RIFC by courier today.
They don’t seem to have their troubles to seek
indy14 says:
September 30, 2014 at 1:37 pm
is it possible that any major share sell off might be because those in the know are aware the Whytes reappearance, this time, might just be significant, so the anonymous are getting out while gettin is good?
,,,,,,,,,,,,
Doubt it
There is no serious market for RIFC shares Otherwise the share price would have collapsed by now given doubt over ownership of assets
What we are probably seeing is trades between Spivs for various reasons
Now that the majority Spivs have over 75% any big trades are most likely to be tidying up exercises perhaps to improve anonymity or move shares from front men to their real owner
I doubt if any sizeable money has changed hands
Read on another site that there might not necessarily be a buyer as the sale might have been to a market maker who must now find a buyer. I know this is how the market works, but would a market maker be prepared to take such a risk with such a large parcel of stock in an ailing company? Can market makers refuse to ‘make the market’ by refusing to accept such a sale?
We’ve previously seen large trades (and some not so large) showing as two separate trades as if they were the purchase and sale entries of an agreed transaction. Would this always be the case with a large sale and purchase? In most normal deals the purchaser and seller are not known to each other, and someone buying a large number of shares will actually be buying the shares of a number of smaller sellers, and vice versa, so, say, 5 sales of shares will be balanced out by one purchase, and would naturally show as 5 sales and one purchase (and very unlikely to be an exact match), so it’s highly likely that there will either be an exact matching purchase or a few totalling an amount to cover this sale if it is an agreed transaction involving one purchaser.
If the poster on the other site is correct, and the shares are now held by market makers, I’d imagine the price will drop as they try to offload them, no doubt in smaller amounts.
Whatever, it looks like some big player in RIFC has decided that he (they) is very unlikely to make any more money from the company than his (their) 20p per share.
The Worthington share price jump is decidely odd. there is no information in the public domain which would possibly explain a 50 fold increase in their share price. At least if they are expecting some sudden infux of cash, they can use some of it to plug the enormous hole in their pension fund.
Loans now paid back
RNS Number : 0396T
Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
30 September 2014
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Repayment of Shareholder Loans
Further to the announcement on 25 March 2014, the Company has repaid the secured short term credit facilities provided by Mr George Letham for the principal amount of £1 million plus interest (the “Letham Facility”) and by Mr Alexander Easdale for the principal amount (interest free) of £500,000 (the “Easdale Facility”). Accordingly the security over Edmiston House and Albion car park properties has been released. Mr Letham retains the right to receive a premium payable on the Letham Facility of GBP 45,000 payable in cash on 23 February 2015 or at the option of Mr Letham, and subject to the Company having all necessary authority, in new ordinary shares of 1 p each in the Company at any time before 23 February 2015.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12100502.html
Or is some kind loan ar-ranger shoring up the accounts before the sign off deadline
Easyjambo
Writing as you where posting,someone has pulled there finger out of the dam
yourhavingalaugh says: September 30, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Easyjambo
Writing as you where posting,someone has pulled there finger out of the dam
======================
I’m thinking that too. It seems that we are moving closer to an end game.
We should redo the sums from the share offer.
Proceeds from the share offer £3.13M
Net proceeds from the share offer £2.75M
Outgoings
Letham – £1.05M (inc interest)
Easdale – £500k
Ahmad – £400k (estimate)
Wallace – £300K bonus
Total outgoings £2.25M
There can’t be much left to pay this month’s paybill far less next month’s.
easyJambo says:
September 30, 2014 at 2:47 pm
Loans now paid back
RNS Number : 0396T
Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
30 September 2014
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Repayment of Shareholder Loans…
=============================================
As a suspicious type…is this RIFC statement of repayment of loans/lifting of securities over properties in any way connected to the sudden reappearance of Whyte/Worthington ?
Or is it just coincidence ?
A bit confused over this latest development, but it ‘feels’ like something significant is happening in the ongoing TRFC saga.
Repaying the loans makes sense being that all the assets are unencumbered for the next Wonga applications.
However it still looks like robbing Peter to pay Paul stuff, especially for the Easdales who put in around £250k in the open offer but just got their £500k back.
Like a pyramid scheme this trick is only going to work so many times.
Just means they can wonga the carpark and the other thing to someone else
On no doubt very generous terms
Spivs don`t miss a trick
mtp
This little snippet wad probably overlooked in July of 2011 but worth a wee return visit especially by Hugh
http://Www.BBC/news/UK-scotland
Glasgow & west of Scotland
Cost of policing old firm games was almost 2.4millions
James cook
22/7/2011
Understand how it was missed at the time
Shirley shome mishtake…
Strachan has failed to include any TRFC players in the Scotland squad !
Thought that wasn’t allowed – especially for a home game – and being played at Ibrox. 😯
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/scotland/29427160
Craig Whyte, ex-Rangers chairman, disqualified as serving as a director for the maximum tariff of 15 years by Insolvency Service.
easyJambo says:
September 30, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Has Wallace’s bonus been confirmed as paid, Easy?
Any of the players, and other employees, must be getting very concerned if they are aware of your figures. How things change so quickly at TRFC. A couple of weeks ago they’d secured their immediate future with a new share issue (I know) but now it’s almost gone. I wrote earlier of the apparent lack of commitment of the players in their last two games since Wallace’s meeting with them, and now wonder if somebody was asking the right questions of the CEO, or, if having secured his bonus, he gave it to them straight.
Again just conjecture, but if any of the players were/are owed money for bonuses and signing on fees, they must have believed it was coming once the share issue was a ‘success’. If they’ve been asked to hold off until the next one, maybe they are beginning to realise it’s not the mighty ‘Rangers’ they are playing for after all!
Pedantic point of order your worships – you can’t have more than one IPO for the same company/clumpany. The clue is in the name.
This move by Worthington must kick any plans for another share issue into the very long grass for quite some time, as it must create some genuine doubt as to the ownership of the assets, at least until the case is heard and a judgement made. And then there are the appeals…
Been a pretty bad last 24 hours for TRFC. Pass the Kleenex, someone 😥
From the BBC report on the repaid loans. Are these people at Sons of Struth for real? They’ve had a poll to say they want Mike Ashley to cancel his naming rights contract!
‘Meanwhile, fans’ group Sons of Struth say in a poll of their members there was overwhelming backing for the removal of Sandy Easdale as a Rangers director and for shareholder and Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley to cancel his seven-year contract for the naming rights to Ibrox.’
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been banned from being a company director for 15 years.
The 43-year-old was handed the maximum ban possible after a judge heard his conduct in dealing with Rangers was “shocking and reprehensible”.
Whyte was previously banned from being a director for seven years.
A second ban was sought by UK Business Secretary Vince Cable after Rangers’ liquidation in 2012 and the subsequent liquidation of Whyte’s firm, Tixway.
The petition raised on behalf of Mr Cable was heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Lengthy disqualification
Judge Lord Tyre said the case for imposing a period of disqualification on Whyte was “overwhelming”.
“He deliberately placed his own interests before those of the company.”
The judge said it was necessary and appropriate for him to impose as lengthy a period of disqualification as he was empowered to do.
David Thomson, counsel for Mr Cable, said: “He (Whyte) preferred his own interests to those of Rangers.”
Mr Thomson told Lord Tyre: “It is my submission that this is a case falling within the top bracket of 10 years or more.”
He maintained that Whyte’s conduct as a director had made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
Whyte, formerly of Castle Grant, Grantown on Spey, in Morayshire and Rue De Tenao, in Monaco, did not appear at court to defend the action.
Lawyers previously acting for him withdrew from the case.
Residence unknown
Mr Thomson was granted an amendment to the court document to state that his current place of residence was unknown.
Whyte bought Rangers for £1 from previous owner Sir David Murray on the understanding that he settled a club debt of £18m owed to Lloyds Banking Group.
The club was also involved in tax disputes with HM Revenue and Customs – known as the big and small tax cases.
During negotiations Whyte had a meeting with the independent board committee at Rangers where he was asked how he proposed to fund the purchase.
Mr Thomson said he was asked if the funding was coming from him as an individual and Whyte confirmed it was.
A subsequent email sent on his behalf indicated that the source of the money was funds generated by Liberty Capital, a British Virgin Islands company wholly owned by Whyte.
But it later emerged he had been negotiating with Ticketus for the provision of funding in exchange for money from the sale of season tickets over a three-year period.
Mr Thomson told the court: “His acquisition of Rangers was entirely predicated upon an untruth and the untruth was he would be funding the acquisition using his own personal wealth or that of his company.”
The Secretary of State alleged in the action that Whyte failed to act in accordance with his duties as a director of Rangers, including in particular his duties to act in the best interests and promote the best interests of Rangers and to avoid conflicts of interest.
It was alleged that by causing Rangers to enter the Ticketus contract, and using the funds received to repay the debt due to Lloyds, he caused Rangers to give “financial assistance” in breach of Companies Act legislation.
It was said in the petition: “The effect of the Ticketus contract was that RFC effectively funded the purchase of its own shares.
“Quite apart from the unlawful nature of such a transaction the Ticketus contract was not on any view a transaction into which RFC should have entered.”
‘Failed to cooperate’
In the case of the other firm where he was a director, Tixway, it was ordered to be wound up in July 2012.
Mr Thomson said: “Over pounds two million of assets have either disappeared or, if they still exist, simply cannot be found by the liquidator.”
It was alleged that Whyte failed to ensure that Tixway maintained adequate accounting records and failed to cooperate with the liquidator and Insolvency Service.
Whyte was previously banned for a period of seven years in a case concerning the misapplication of money and property to the detriment of creditors.
The Secretary of State was awarded the expenses of the proceedings.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29429752
No mention in the above report on Whyte of his reneging on the contribution he promised in his take over document of 3 June towards the £2.8m tax bill.
(e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax;
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/shareholders-circular.pdf
You would almost think they just don’t like folk to be reminded of that whole tax evading to the bitter end episode.
Strange timings for all this
Worthington playing their hand
And less than 24hours later
A Court picks right now to announce stuff on CW?
Co-incidence?
reckon we`re being played by succulent :slamb: who print anything they`re told
Oh hey ho that came from the `impartial` BBC
mtp
Questions for an enquiring and responsible individual ?
So not ones Campbell Ogilvie would dream of asking.
1 Who were the largest beneficiaries of Whyte buying Rangers for £1
Hint
A Bank who got their £18 million debt repaid and someone based in Charlotte Sq who’s business group was insolvent and under pressure from that bank
2 How would somebody with no previous connection to the football industry know about Ticketus ? How would somebody who’s advisors had no previous connection to the football industry , know about Ticketus.
Who could possibly have told them ? Who stood to benefit from Ticketus providing funds for Whyte ? Who would have been unable to use Ticketus in the manner Whyte did, but would have known of their operation and it’s capabilities ?
Remember that Ticketus did not publicly market its activities in a way , that would have made it known to anyone outside the owners and finance operations of football clubs.
Hint ……..even the constantly compromised and permanently incompetant President of the SFA might be able to figure this one out without a hint
Auldheid says:
September 30, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Interesting that the report doesn’t make it clear that Whyte inherited the two tax cases from Murray!
Whyte Tixway case
‘Failed to cooperate’
In the case of the other firm where he was a director, Tixway, it was ordered to be wound up in July 2012.
Mr Thomson said: “Over pounds two million of assets have either disappeared or, if they still exist, simply cannot be found by the liquidator.”
It was alleged that Whyte failed to ensure that Tixway maintained adequate accounting records and failed to cooperate with the liquidator and Insolvency Service.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Have I got this right?
Joe Punter gets hammered for not filing a tax return by the due date
Craig Whyte siphons off £2m in assets and gets told by the Judge he`s a naughty boy who won`t be allowed to be a Company Director?
Another announcement about the previous announcement. ‘Total Voting Rights’. Apologies if already posted.
———————————————
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Total Voting Rights
Rangers International Football Club today announces that the Company’s issued share capital at the date of this announcement consists of 81,478,201 ordinary shares of 1p each. The Company does not hold any ordinary shares in treasury. Therefore the total number of ordinary shares in the Company with voting rights is 81,478,201.
The above figure may be used by shareholders in the Company as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the share capital of the Company under the Financial Conduct Authority’s Disclosure and Transparency Rules.
For further information please contact:
Rangers International Football Club plc
Graham Wallace
Tel: 0141 580 8647
Daniel Stewart & Company plc
Tel: 020 7776 6550
Paul Shackleton / David Coffman
Newgate Threadneedle
Tel: 020 7148 6143
Roddy Watt / John Coles
I saw a little bit of chit chat that people a bit nervy having seen the accounts, therefore Easdales now choosing pronto repayment and (as mentioned here) H & H opting to bale out.
The thick plottens 🙂
John Clark says:
September 29, 2014 at 9:47 pm
“In the case of BBC (TV)Scotland , a brave start was made, but I think it’s pretty clear that an upper level of editorial management killed the story.”
——————————-
I was told by an impeccable source that there was no appetite for a follow up of the ‘Men Who Sold The Jersey’ documentary. Indeed, following the recent UTT rejection of HMRC’s appeal, this programme was singled out for criticism as being part of a vendetta against Rangers. However, given the machinations surrounding the club, as others have stated, there has been plenty of drama and tension that could have been written about if the journo’s had chosen to do so. The absence of critical thinking is all too apparent.
StevieBC says:
September 29, 2014 at 11:54 pm
“Now there is a bullish/sympathetic article about Whyte and an associated company – and looks like the info has been simply copy/pasted by Ewing without any validation or challenge.”
————————–
The information concerning Worthington is 4 weeks old and was flagged up on here at the time. Why publish this now? Is Ashley circling an ailing beast?
Barcabhoy says:
September 30, 2014 at 5:16 pm
For folk used to using other peoples money to further their cause what better way of circumventing their problems than using other people’s money? It is learned behaviour.
It is abundantly clear that the only motivation at play as Rangers disintegrated was to keep their support turning up one way or another.
Some of that motivation will be simple support for Rangers and/or what they stand for, some will be from real fear of the consequences on other clubs from the perceived loss of income they might suffer.
Regardless of the motivation rules have been broken, lies told, rules circumvented, enquiries misled and all under a shroud of almost total media silence.
For that to be so it must go pretty high up the echelons of power and Ogilvie is in that line. What he must know would bring down the house of cards all the way up.
There’s either a sanctioned breach of the BBC’s “Keeping the myth alive” policy, or Rhona McLeod’s gone off-script. In reporting on Craig Whyte’s company director ban on Reporting Scotland tonight, she described White as “…the man who took the club into administrations which was followed by liquidation.”
Roddy News
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11131196/Rangers-fans-group-Sons-of-Struth-threaten-boycott-of-Mike-Ashleys-Sports-Direct-shops.htm
Bears tired of handing cash to various assorted self-centred vultures
mtp
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
September 30, 2014 at 7:13 pm
Edit: administration, not administrations
The proceedings whereby Craig Whyte has been disqualified were disqualification proceedings nothing more nothing less. Other action may well be taken against him and others. Rather than assuming that this is all there is, maybe the way to look at it is that this is the first action.
We can speculate
But the ratbags need HARD CASH COMING IN FAST
No more cash, and the nightmare is over
Fetid Garbage needs trashed a fact but
Bears can and will confidently rebuild, from scratch if needs
mtp
TRFC fans really giving it laldy on SSB. McCoist had no support tonight — except from pundits, who were themselves reprimanded for giving him an easy time. Things have changed, at least on that front.
Unless Vincent Tan or Mike Ashley are smitten by Rangersitis, or TRFC are deemed an illegal phoenix and the sale to Green adjudged nul and void, admin and liquidation would seem the best thing. Portsmouth and Hearts are current examples of what fan-based community clubs can achieve.
Might as well happen sooner rather than later. Mid-season would give a chance for fans to construct something.
But it’ll probably continue as the chaotic shambles it is.
Danish Pastry says:
September 30, 2014 at 9:35 pm
____________________________________
Listened to first two, Craig and John and they were magnificent. Giving it laldy right enough. Very erudite and informed. The pundits were out of their depth. Now there’s a surprise!!!!!
Does anyone know the outcome of yesterday’s hearing at the Chancery Court re Ticketus v Whyte?
I have just this minute accessed my emails, and before I do anything else, I have to report that there is an email from the Supporter Liaison Officer at Celtic plc.
He copies a letter that was sent to me on 14th September ( which, for some reason I did not receive) and makes a fulsome and handsome apology for the fact that I was not informed ,when I eventually raised a query, that there would be a ticket-collection facility at Murrayfield at which I might have picked up my tickets.
He has also said that, in the circumstances, my ticket money will be refunded, and he expresses regret for the inconvenience and upset caused to me.
A good letter of its kind: acknowledgement of the problem, explanation without excuses, sincerely expressed regrets, and remedial action.
Can’t really ask for more.
I feel much better now, and can proceed to catch up with today’s posts, of which there seems to be not a few.
Auldheid says:
September 30, 2014 at 4:55 pm
““Quite apart from the unlawful nature of such a transaction the Ticketus contract was not on any view a transaction into which RFC should have entered.” ”
—————————–
Barcabhoy says:
September 30, 2014 at 5:16 pm
“Who would have been unable to use Ticketus in the manner Whyte did, but would have known of their operation and it’s capabilities ?”
===========================
Ticketus were aware of the dodgy nature of their arrangement with Whyte but pleaded ignorance when they sued Whyte for their money back. The Charlotte information suggested Whyte had enough documentation to show that Ticketus were aware of the nature of the deal they had done, yet this did not appear to be the nature of Whyte’s defence. So Whyte is now indebted indirectly to whoever funded Ticketus to do the Rangers deal. This indebtedness may be by agreement rather than default.
It’s far from clear whether the 5088 claim is viable but Phil Mac has indicated that its potential liability was sufficient to scare off city investors and it has also been present in accounts and mentioned in Ahmad’s earlier court proceedings. However this may be one method by which the chain can be closed.
I hope that more information comes out on Ticketus.
From the Charlotte leaks the Ticketus staff seemed to have a much closer relationship with Whyte and Co than a purely commercial one.
They were in on plans to remove Board members and appeared to produce an invoice from Rangers that the regime didn’t want to go through normal channels (the Accounts Department).
That episode would appear to have come to the attention of HMRC as officers asked the Rangers Financial Controller about it. He described it as ‘Cut and Paste’ and denied all knowledge.
False Accounting and VAT fraud charges could result. Wish they would hurry up.
One of life’s great mysteries
How the hell has Scotland’s greatest ever entrepreneur managed to stay out of all of this
Allyjambo says:
September 30, 2014 at 4:41 pm
To dry your eyes, or some other use?!
campsiejoe says:
September 30, 2014 at 11:38 pm
‘..One of life’s great mysteries..How the hell has Scotland’s greatest ever entrepreneur managed to stay out of all of this.’
———
Another mystery, of course, being how the hell the world’s greatest football administrator has managed to stay in post at the SFA.
Maybe they share a magical gift for making friends in, for example, Press, political, and legal and financial circles?
One of them ,consumed by blind hubristic arrogance founded on a hugely exaggerated idea of his own importance, instituted a regime of sports cheating that killed what had been a long established football club.
The other, once deeply involved in that club, failed, in the opinion of many, to exercise his proper role as President of the SFA to ensure that that club’s ‘player remuneration’ arrangements were properly and fully declared, under the rules, to the SFA- when he had personal knowledge of the use of EBTs by that club, and had indeed benefited personally by that means of payment.
That these two ‘gentlemen’ have escaped severe public criticism for the damage they have done,in their different ways, to Scottish Football is quite, quite astonishing.
The damage done to what had been RFC is, of course, of secondary, maybe even minor, importance in the long term.
The damage done to the entire notion that Scottish football is genuinely competitive and fair and justly and consistently administered by the ‘football authorities’ is gey near irreversible.
Richard Gordon humourously asserted before the League Cup draw the other day that ‘the balls are all of the same temperature’.
Many of us smiled wryly, because we know that in a fundamental way, the Football Authorities so compromised themselves over the ‘saga’that we cannot now readily trust them in any matter.
I say ‘we’. But perhaps I should only say ‘I’, because I know for sure only what I think. I just assume that others share my view, and that may be an assumption too far..
John Clark says:
October 1, 2014 at 1:26 am
19 0 Rate This
———
Those authorities you speak of John, evoke about as much trust as 3 WM politicians signing a vow for the front page of the DR along with a former (Scottish PM) who backed them up.
I suppose Craig Whyte could possibly drop some people into the cow manure. If there was ever a time for CF to make a reappearence, eh? But he seems happy enough to be portrayed as the lone nut on the 6th floor.
John Clark says:
October 1, 2014 at 1:26 am
Another mystery, of course, being how the hell the world’s greatest football administrator has managed to stay in post at the SFA.
===================================
I have long since accepted that his status as the world’s greatest football administrator does not come from his achievements, but from the club he is most associated with. Had he had exactly the same career at e.g Aberdeen, such a title would never be bestowed upon him IMO. It is similar to the way the English media say Gordon Banks save from Pele is the greatest ever. Had that exactly same save been made by Dino Zoff for Italy, we would simply be told another save made by Gordon Banks was the best ever.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/30/a-better-media-is-possible/
Great piece on what is rotten with the Media in Scotland and the UK.
“Censorship by Omission
Bad media in Scotland is not, in Scotland, about conspiracy. It’s often about lack of resources, imagination or consciousness. Ben Wray, Robin McAlpine and I ran press conferences for weeks in the run up to the referendum launching speakers, reports, think tank research, pamphlets, personal stories less than a mile from Glasgow’s main newspapers. None came.
This isn’t just a media that’s biased, it’s a media that’s useless.”
Danish Pastry says:
October 1, 2014 at 6:41 am
John Clark says:
October 1, 2014 at 1:26 am
———
Those authorities you speak of John, evoke about as much trust as 3 WM politicians signing a vow for the front page of the DR along with a former (Scottish PM) who backed them up.
============================================
I really wonder what this political comment has to do with Scottish Football administration.
For those who are unaware of the facts: We have, in a devolved Scotland, the SFA which is a totally independent organisation from other UK FAs. If Scotland had voted for indepemdence in the referendum that would have remained the same. This also applies to the Scottish Legal system and the SPFL.
I stated pre-referendum that no matter the result I would accept it as the Democratic will of the Scots who had the right to vote.
I have no problem with any poster unable to accept or unhappy with the referendum result making a political point but there are other sites more suited IMO for that.
Especially when, whatever the result, it would have had absolutely no affect on the administration of Scottish Football. A main thrust of this site is obviously to unmask the corruption in Scottish Football governance and believe me that corruption would have continued in an independent Scotland through the cowardice of lily-livered politicians scrabbling for votes to remain on the political gravy-train.
In some ways I believe we are witnessing new and possibly ireperable divisions arising in Scottish society that may indeed be more dangerous and more widespread than the traditional evil of sectarianism/bigotry which has always had a fairly tight focus in geographic and societal terms and had a connection with football that the referendum result doesn’t.
I personally have been doing much more political posting – elsewhere I hasten to add – since realising that the traditional flaw in many Scots of having to find someone to blame for all the believed woes afflicting out nation is being fanned by cynical politicians who lost the vote and probably promotion.
ecobhoy says:
October 1, 2014 at 9:30 am
Well said, ecobhoy! It really makes me wonder why so many people seem to have a need to focus on issues that divide us rather than what should unite us. I don’t say that in any way as a criticism of how people voted in the referendum but rather as a plea for people to move on from that event – at least in this forum. Although not a regular poster on these pages, I have enjoyed following the informed debate by fans of opposing clubs who, in the main, can discuss passionately yet objectively about the important issues that affect Scottish football.
The problem at Ibrox is that no-one is in control – at least to the extent that a solution can be found. Warring factions deem it that everyone involved is doing far too much reacting and not enough pro-acting.
The fans turning on McCoist (in a managerial sense and not without good reason) make the money problems more present. For administration to be avoided (long) before Christmas, an alliance has to be formed involving competing interests.
One could say that Wallace has done an amazing job keeping the club afloat up to now, but lack of support is making that more difficult every day.
Folks, when it comes to moderation, either post on the Mod thread or directly to the mods. That way we can stop unnecessary OT debate.
readcelt says:
October 1, 2014 at 9:01 am
7 0 Rate This
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/30/a-better-media-is-possible/
=================================================================
An interesting and intelligent view of how the media frame our political and sporting landscape. I think that those who believe the Scottish political world and planet fitba’ are entirely separate are… misguided(?)
This is not to say that I believe there is a deep seated conspiracy: simply that the media are (generally) drawn from a number of very small demographic groups that are not representative of society as a whole.
In this context, DP’s contrast of the DRs willingness to proclaim the WM politicians “Vow” on their front page seems – to me – a relevant way of highlighting the distrust we have in anything the media have to say about the Scottish football authorities. It seems to me to be fair comment on this blog.
Stating that the governance of Scottish football may not change under independence is probably true; but misses DP’s point.
Given the recent performances by TRFC
I wonder if
We are witnessing a reaction to non payment of bonuses and signing on fees ?
i.e.
Have some players figured that an Administration event could be avoided by eliminating the possibility of TRFC qualifying for the play offs despite a 15 pt penalty?
Or at the very least
Maintaining uncertainty for as long as possible?
readcelt says:
October 1, 2014 at 9:01 am
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/30/a-better-media-is-possible/
Great piece on what is rotten with the Media in Scotland and the UK.
“Censorship by Omission
Bad media in Scotland is not, in Scotland, about conspiracy. It’s often about lack of resources, imagination or consciousness. Ben Wray, Robin McAlpine and I ran press conferences for weeks in the run up to the referendum launching speakers, reports, think tank research, pamphlets, personal stories less than a mile from Glasgow’s main newspapers. None came.
This isn’t just a media that’s biased, it’s a media that’s useless.”
=========================================================================
I haven’t a clue what was being run in the press conferences you speak of so don’t take this personally but it has always been the case: ‘Garbage In: Garbage Out’.
If the online media is ignored for a moment we have a fixed number of column inches available each day and a finite amount of radio/tv slots. Therefore with something like the referendum campaign the daily news output generated simply overwhelms the capacity of the system to carry it.
And, of course, every single person who comes-up with a PR wheeze to get their story of the schedule line believes it is so unique and important that it should be there. Sadly – in the broader picture – that is seldom the case.
And often the problem isn’t that the item isn’t unique or important but way too often because it is formulated and presented by agenda-driven people – and for those looking for a slight that is not meant as a derogative remark. This invariably, in my experience, means that it ends-up far too long and complex and simply takes too much effort to whip into shape or fit an available slot.
There is also the problem that the news agenda each day is actually set by the main players in the sense that there might be a diary of events to be covered and some of them might look interesting.
But then a main player politico might go off-piste or simply get ‘pissed’ or mwhatever and in an instant the diary is out the window and the news gatherers are headed-off to cover totally different stories than they had planned to do. That’s news and it can make previously planned press conferences on what might originally have had some public interest – dead in the water.
As a constant and serious critic of SMSM I don’t accept your statement that we have ‘a media that’s useless’. It all depends on whose point of view you take. By and large if I was one of Jack Irvine’s clients then I would probably be very happy with the SMSM.
I also don’t accept your comment that: ‘Bad media in Scotland is not, in Scotland, about conspiracy. It’s often about lack of resources, imagination or consciousness.’
All too often it actually is about conspiracy although the definition of ‘conspiracy’ in my experience can be very elastic and often impossible to figure out.
As to lack of ‘resources’ well that’s a fact of life and it’s up to the people who believe they have a message worth telling to ensure that they have the expertise and ability to get it to the top of the news pile and not in the dustbin.
I have often found it useful to have journos with ‘lack of imagination or consciousness’. They are the easiest ones to feed a load of pap to as long as it is well packaged and presented which has nothing to do with the ‘message’ but PR skills.
Journos with imagination and not unconscious because they are sleeping through another dull press conference usually can spot good stories all on their own. But those stories have to compete against other similarly newsworthy stories and of course there is the ‘corruption filter’ which operates management levels above the journo and about which they usually know zilch.
Tbh if I was involved in producing a lot of press conferences during the referendum or any other campaign that had failed to make any media impact I would be asking a PR professional to take an impartial independent view of what they think had gone wrong.
Self-analysis of major internal disasters in my experience seldom expose the underlying problems which created them as often there are too many egoes to protect and it all becomes much too personal and dangerous for anyone involved.
It really is hard for people to admit they got it wrong and they usually steer the blame onto others and the media has become a useful dumping ground for burying mistakes. Many times they are guilty but more often they ain’t.
ecobhoy says:
October 1, 2014 at 9:30 am
Sorry, don`t concur with any of that
There are parallels in Governance
Lack of trust in Governance is one
Changes the rules to get the result they want is another
Manipulative biased media playing fears to exploit is another example
Incompetence could be added
Lack of Soul and Heart
Lack of Moral Fibre
Selfish Ambitions
Finance the priority
Forgetting Core Values
As we`ve seen the above contributes to a bigger mess long term
In other words no way to operate for the benefit of the vast majority
Questioning trust comparing those in power that operate so is valid comment IMO
It is a general problem reflected in this current football fracas
Citizenship, Standards Values and Trust can and should apply to football debate
mtp
ecobhoy says:
October 1, 2014 at 9:30 am
14 24 Rate This
————
I think you may have missed the point echo. This issue is trust. I was replying to JC’s comment.
There is very little trust of the football authorities and very little trust in the media to hold them to account.
The only reason we’ve had investigations into FIFA and the UCI regarding doping in cycling is because certain journalists have done their jobs properly.
The comparison was to the blind support of the recent promises and assurances from certain politicians by the ‘wealth off the radar’ media. Unlike yourself, I haven’t discussed the referendum in any detail on this blog apart from a few oblique references. Each to their own on that issue, although the question of media bias (which also surrounds the recent vote, and calls into question its very fairness) is entirely an issue for this blog. Don’t know if you heard SSB the past few nights but callers with Ibrox at heart are now reprimanding the pundits for their lack of criticism of McCoist, both for his football management and for his astronomical pay and perks.
readcelt says:
October 1, 2014 at 9:01 am
——–
If the writer seriously believes that the Irish Independent is a nationalist newspaper and the Irish Times is a unionist one, it’s not only the Scottish MSM that’s useless.
HirsutePursuit says:
October 1, 2014 at 10:19 am
I simply don’t see what the ‘Vow’ has to do with Scottish Football. However anyone attempts to dress it up IMO it’s just another one of the many political nuances being slipped into this blog since the referendum result.
[]
I have asked that posters should leave out moderation issues. As I guessed, it is being used as a platform for views which may be divisive.
For the record, I see no harm in what JC said in his original post. It wasn’t overtly political and was a valid analogy to reinforce the point he made about trust.
That is why it was not removed. Please let that be an end to it.