How Not To Govern Scottish Football

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

  1. http://sfm.scot/scottish-football-an-honest-game-honestly-governed
  2. http://sfm.scot/an-honest-game-convince-us/
  3. 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

  1. Yourself, acting as the investigating agent for the SPL, was not provided with all the documentation you requested on 5th March 2012
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,518 thoughts on “How Not To Govern Scottish Football


  1. Smugas says: October 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    The share offer was undersubscribed by around 4.2M shares so he could have pretty well achieved what he has now had he bought into it. But the bit I don’t get is why he didn’t put his cash directly into the club. He must have a reason for siding with the UOF and SOS in starving the club of cash.


  2. Sorry meant to add – if there’s an upside to Ashley’s increased shareholding it is that a high profile successful club would sell the most Tshirts long term you would think. It would surely be a massive risk too far to count instead on a “yer aw agin us” play on a short term “the end is nigh (unless you buy a Tshirt)” strategy.

    Shirley?


  3. I don’t know anything but here goes.
    Ashley & Laxey now control over 25%.Add the fans blocks and they can comfortably block any attempt at share dilution.
    Could they also set up a pre- pack administration that would protect Ashley’s contracts whilst allowing costs to be slashed to the bone and maybe some of the onerous contracts nullified?.


  4. EJ, apologies my add-on was sent before I read your reply.

    Who would have had the say so on who was allowed to take up the under subscription reserve? I can’t see how he could have indicated an intention to buy his allocation thus allowing him to purchase the reserve, been turned down and so he in turn turned down his original allocation?

    The shareholdings are too similar to be co-incidence, that’s for sure.

    And like you, I agree his eventual course of action has actually starved the club of (his) genuine cash, and left them dealing with either spiv cash (thinking about Phil’s comments yesterday) or ‘institutional’ cash from Laxey, both of which will undoubtedly be conditional in some shape or form.


  5. easyJambo says:
    October 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    The share offer was undersubscribed by around 4.2M shares so he could have pretty well achieved what he has now had he bought into it. But the bit I don’t get is why he didn’t put his cash directly into the club. He must have a reason for siding with the UOF and SOS in starving the club of cash.
    _______________________________________

    That would have added an additional 4.2m shares to the total shares issued and diluting everyone. Buying from an existing shareholder gives him a larger % shareholding for the same amount of shares bought.


  6. EJ,

    Apologies, I’m talking nonsense. The offer was undersubscribed and the ‘reserve’ wasn’t taken up at all was it? (I inferred above that Easdale/Laxey had somehow taken it up in preference to Ashley, but that wasn’t the case obviously, hence the shortfall in the moneys raised).

    As you were.


  7. easyJambo says:
    October 2, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Ashley’s tactics certainly don’t make sense from the outside, but we can be certain he knows what he’s doing. If we accept the premise that he can’t take control at Ibrox we have to presume he’s doing it, either to secure the wonderful contracts he has over the naming rights of Ibrox and the merchandise, or because he genuinely want’s to secure the club’s future because he loves football. I think it could be either, or both, or even some other reason that isn’t too obvious.

    TRFC has to have a future for him to benefit from these ‘onerous’ contracts, but unless he’s in it purely for the glory, he surely won’t want to put in more than he’s taking out. What’s more, the supporters have shown they are prepared to take action if they think their club is being ripped off, and if Sports Direct continue to receive all, or even just the lion’s share, of the merchandising, they will almost certainly choke that profit avenue.

    One possible scenario, totally off the top of my thick head, might be; Ashley gets hold of RIFC, which immediately becomes a property company separating itself from TRFC. As part of the separation TRFC’s debt to RIFC is settled/partially settled by the oft mentioned sale and leaseback. Ashley/Sports Direct gives TRFC the loan they need to survive at reasonable rates, thus endearing him, because that’s what the PR will achieve, to the club’s support, who will be happy to buy the merchandise and, despite much gnashing of teeth, will be prepared to accept the renaming of Ibrox because it gives their saviour, who now holds a big gun to the head of their club, his required profit.

    Ashley will move into television and give Super Ally his own program at a salary equal to his current one, thus allowing the club to move forward on the football field.

    But less fancifully, Ashley shunned the opportunity to put money into the company/club but still increased his holding. Looks to me like he wants to have some power to influence events (protect his interests) but doesn’t want the current board to get control of any of his cash. This, to me, would indicate he is not best friends with the board and a battle is about to commence, a battle, I would suspect, that will only be helpful to TRFC if Ashley wins (whatever his plans) as such a battle could strip the company of whatever cash it has. It would then be down to whether those in power are prepared to hand over the keys to Ibrox to the man who ruined their scam, sorry, business opportunity, or fight to ensure they get maximum return on the money they screwed from the unsuspecting investors and supporters.


  8. From the Herald article, having squandered bank’s/taxpayers’ funds Murray’s message is simply:

    The businessman said: “…the focus has shifted to private interests…”
    ===========================================
    This ‘journalist’ Simon Bain certainly earned his :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: for that PR boll*x.

    And is Irvine still lurking then ?


  9. Martin says:
    October 2, 2014 at 4:16 pm
    ==========================================

    I wondered about this…no doubt I’ve forgotten something mentioned previously on this site.

    The governing body has a rule that no individual holds stakes in two clubs, but compromised, while applying limitations, when Ashley was brought into RIFC as a shareholder by previous chief executive Charles Green.


  10. Try this
    With circa 1m to put in

    Either

    5% from HH
    Why
    When they`re short of cash is optimal
    Put in a bit and got retail etc when they were desperate for cash
    Put in bits more in dribs and drabs and pick up more assets for a desperate song
    Assets generate cash and control

    Or

    Diluted shares cash squandered on onerous contracts and so on
    & Shares don`t generate cash

    Pretty Obvious IMO
    mtp


  11. paulsatim says:
    October 2, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/ready-to-do-walking-away/#more-5137

    ,,,, If Phil is right and Ally gives notice of walking after the Livi game
    Then
    Ally may be leaving because he has got wind of an upcoming Prepack Administration to hand control to a new set of Spivs further down the food chain
    Although
    Even a discounted pay off would barely leave enough to pay for a Prepack Administration. Unless of course some of Ally`s recent conversations were taped to encourage him to walk with no package
    Either way I wouldn`t be a bit surprised if all employees (including Ally) don`t get paid next month
    The only piece of Spiv business outstanding is diluting the minority shareholders. This needs the RIFC Board to pass a resolution to dis-apply pre-emption rights then a resolution to increase the share capital by zillions
    They can then pay off some “debt” owed to fellow Spivs using freebie shares instead of cash
    Either way the stage is set for handing over the carcase to the next lot of Spivs
    If Wallace didn’t get his bonus put into an escrow account when he took the job he needs to get it prior to Admin or it will be greatly diminished. Unless of course he is able to convert it into freebie shares


  12. Hearts have taken an unusual decision in retaining approx. 2,000 seats in the Roseburn (away) stand for the visit of Rangers next month. That will limit the away support to a maximum of 1,500 (normally 3,500).

    It’s a reflection on the positive situation at Tynecastle, but was done so after consultation with police. This may be a bit of fallout from some “security issues” at the Rangers v Hearts game at Ibrox earlier this season.


  13. The winding down of MIH has one aim and one aim only.

    Avoid a liquidation , with Lloyds taking the hit. Pay all creditors, apart from Lloyd.

    Why would a bank , owned in large leasure by the UK government on behalf of UK citizens, behave this way.

    Simple . They and Murray are desperate that a liquidator does not get to look into the true nature of the dealings between Murray and the Bank of Scotland. What is a matter of public record is that Lloyds ( owners of Bank of Scotland) have swapped debt owed to them by MIH for utterly worthless equity. The question of why is one every MP & MSP should be asking. Every political party leader should be demanding answers, as cuts in public spending are necessary to fund this largessse to Murray. How much is involved ?

    1 The initial cost of worthless equity was £150 million. In return real and tangible debt was written off.

    2 Murray was allowed to demerge Murray Capital and escape exposure to £470 million of debt . Why? What benefit was there to Lloyds and UK citizens by allowing Murray to escape penalty free from this debt, whilst retaining ownership of his private equity business.

    3 Assets were sold out of MIH to Murray Capital. Were these assets subject to an open bidding process? Who did Murray negotiate with to buy the assets.

    4 The last accounts of MIH showed debt of circa £350 million with insignificant assets in relation to that debt. What has happened to this debt. It’s reasonable to assume most of this will be added to the huge sums already lost

    5 Circa £24 million shortfall in the MIH Pension scheme.

    6 Despite all of the above Murray was allowed to help himself to £6 million in an EBT , and £10’s of millions in salary , bonus and dividend whilst it shoukd have been obvious to any semi competent banker that MIH was in serious trouble and destined to fail.


  14. I don’t believe Mr Ashley is ploughing a lone furrow now nor has he ever in his links with the blue club.
    Is he still working with Charlie and or Craigie who were the dynasty which brought his nose to the trough during the carve up?
    I think he is.
    I’m not sure of the detail why and how but am convinced its just about money.
    Just business and maximising returns for the inner sanctum members of the cabal.

    Its a complex chess game with high stakes if you have the right contacts and contracts.


  15. Re
    Murray has spent a lot of time in India over the last few years,work it out,I also wondered year’s ago when he started transferring shares in RFC over to his son,some large amounts,why,did his son even know.this guy was the King of spivs in his day and has no doubt got a lot still to teach,in line with his flag waving it should be under HMP
    Also tsfm I will be back on terra firma next week and will donate


  16. Apologies if previous post not clear
    Roddy does it better
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11137078/Mike-Ashleys-possible-takeover-of-Rangers-moves-one-step-closer-after-he-buys-more-shares.html

    Although not convinced of a MA take-over, that would lose money
    And that`s not what MA does
    Further, not convinced by a future offer of 30m+ shares to get them to end of season
    Why dilute share value by say 30% to raise say only 5m after charges?
    That 5m would be wasted on current `onerous` contracts
    No, if there`s any group in control they`ll try to finish the season by financial hook or crook
    That be done by ditching super salary and getting rid of any malcontents in transfer window
    In the meantime desperate cash flow will drive further `assets` into MA hands
    He has immediate cash to hand to do this
    IF or whether they get promotion or not will be factored into MA thinking
    He`ll own all the `assets` by squeezing the cash-flow shortfall no matter what
    And if Bears think they can stop this by turning up at the gate then think again
    Any increased Bear money is going elsewhere in any event
    So MA may own just under 10% of shares, but he`ll own the lot eventually
    But have only 9% of any liabilities
    And what might he do with the `assets`?
    A: Sell them for a handsome profit

    This guy makes CG look like an amateur

    In the meantime he quietens Newcastle Support with a tacit sell to goodness know who
    Could be wrong, but?
    mtp


  17. Wrt Ashley an interesting article in the Telegraph by Roddy Forsyth especially in respect of the SFA’s position…..

    “Rangers asked the SFA last month if Ashley could take control of 25 per cent of the club’s equity – they, in fact, requested a response within 48 hours – and the answer was not a negative. Instead, Telegraph Sport can disclose, the SFA asked Rangers to make a business case for the proposition but never received a reply.
    The SFA has to take into account the possible consequences for a club if it runs into cash flow difficulties – as Rangers warned the Stock Exchange would be the case if the open share offer failed – and there is only one potential buyer.”

    Should that scenario emerge – and there is no certainty that it will not happen in the second half of the season – then the SFA could be forced to vote on an Ashley ownership bid.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11137078/Mike-Ashleys-possible-takeover-of-Rangers-moves-one-step-closer-after-he-buys-more-shares.html

    [Edit: apologies twopanda must have been copying and pasting just as you were posting]


  18. As I understand it written consent from the SFA is required if an individual or organisation takes control of a member club to an extent >3% whilst simultaneously being a ‘member’ of another club as defined in the SFAs articles of association.

    In the case of Mike Ashley an agreement was apparently reached to allow him to acquire shares up to but not exceeding the 10% mark.

    I have not seen any reporting on the details of the compromise struck between the SFA, Mike Ashley and Rangers Int, but I’d be surprised if this three way agreement contains no more than a simple – ok you can buy up to 10% no questions asked.

    If any of the posters on TSFM can point me to the details of the compromise reached I’d be very grateful.

    From the SFA articles of Association :

    DUAL INTERESTS IN CLUBS
    13. Except with the prior written consent of the Board no club, or nominee of a club,
    may at the same time either directly or indirectly:-
    (1) be a member of another club; or
    (2) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of
    another club; or
    (3) have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of
    another club.
    13.1 Without prejudice to the foregoing, a club or nominee of a club, is required to
    notify the Board in writing within seven days of any such event of its being entitled
    to hold or own or its acquisition or dealing with the securities or shares in excess
    of 3% of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such
    club.
    13.2 For the purposes of Article 13 ‘club’ means any club in membership of the
    Association and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA
    and/or FIFA.
    13.3 For the purposes of Article 13, “member” means involvement directly or indirectly
    (and whether as principal, trustee, nominee, beneficiary or in any other capacity)
    in a club as a shareholder, holder of options over any share, holder of convertible
    loans or securities or any like instrument; member of a company limited by
    guarantee; the holder of an interest in any unincorporated voluntary association; or
    as possessor of any other right of ownership or control in relation to a club.
    14. Except with the prior written consent of the Board no person, whether absolutely
    or as a trustee either alone or with one or more associates may at the same time
    either directly or indirectly:-
    (1) be a member of more than one club; or
    (2) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of
    more than one club; or
    (3) have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of
    more than one club.
    14.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the person, is required to notify the Board in
    writing within seven days of any such event of his being entitled to hold or own or
    his acquisition or dealing with the securities or shares in excess of 3% of the issued
    share capital of another club or the holding company of such club.
    14.2 For the purposes of Article 14 ‘club’ means any club in membership of the
    Association and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA
    and/or FIFA.
    14.3 For the purposes of Article 14 ‘person’ includes any body corporate and a
    partnership.100 ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
    14.4 For the purposes of Article 14 ‘associate’ means if the person referred to is an
    individual –
    (1) a close relative of that individual, including that individual’s spouse, parent, step
    parent, child, stepchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, or a child or stepchild of such
    parent or spouse or anyone else of a close relationship to that individual who
    in the opinion of the Board is or is likely to be acting in conjunction with that
    individual;
    (2) any company of which that individual is a director or over which that individual is
    able to exercise control or influence;
    (3) any individual who is an employee or partner of that individual or a close relative
    of any such employee or partner.
    14.5 For the purposes of Article 14 ‘associate’ means if the person referred to or any
    associate of that person is a body corporate –
    (1) any other body corporate associated with it either through the holding of shares in
    it or by reason of control by contract or other form of agreement;
    (2) any director or employee of that body corporate or other associated body
    corporate or any close relative of any such director or employee;
    (3) where any person has an agreement or arrangement, whether legally binding or
    not, with any other person in relation to the exercise of his voting power in a club
    or in relation to the holding or disposal of his interest in such club, that other
    person;
    (4) for the purpose of Paragraph (3) above, the word “person” shall fall to be defined
    under reference to Article 14.3.
    14.6 For the purposes of Article 14, “member” means involvement directly or indirectly
    (and whether as principal, trustee, beneficiary or in any other capacity) in a club
    as a shareholder, holder of options over any share, holder of convertible loans or
    securities or any like instrument; member of a company limited by guarantee; the
    holder of an interest in any unincorporated voluntary association; or as possessor
    of any other right of ownership or control in relation to a club.
    15. In considering whether to give any such consent, as may be required by Article
    13 and/or Article 14 the Board shall have regard to the need to promote and
    safeguard the interests and public profile of Association Football, its players,
    spectators and others concerned with the game and shall have regard also to
    the Articles, rules and regulations of the Association and to the constitution and
    rules of those bodies of which the Association is in membership and accordingly
    any such consent shall be subject to such conditions as the Board shall consider
    appropriate in all the circumstances.ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION 101
    PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP.

    It seems there is no overriding rule that prohibits ‘duel ownership’so long as consent is granted. But questions remain. Why 10%? On what basis was that figure reached?


  19. Martin says:
    October 2, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    `three way agreement`
    Pl. take TSFM copyright honours on that insight Martin

    Parttimearab- apols not needed at all, your SFA angle very well-articulated, sound, very sound!
    mtp


  20. mungoboy says:
    October 2, 2014 at 10:38 am
    34 0 Rate This

    …”I think it’s interesting that all of a sudden the stenographers in the SMSM seem to have had a mass appointment at Specsavers…”
    ============================================================================================
    Mungoboy…that is just a superb line of prose.
    I am quite sure that every past incumbent of the English department at our Alma Mater would be quite proud of you…not that it had anything to do with them of course.
    Enjoying a few days lurking around the site and greatly appreciating all contributions.


  21. Oh and while I’m on, there is No Fracking way I would try to slip a political point into any of my posts. 🙄


  22. Ah yes
    `Accounts` Due
    Something informative to look forward to
    Tell Bears everything they need to know
    Won`t they Deloittes

    mtp


  23. scapaflow says:
    October 2, 2014 at 11:49 am
    16 0 Rate This

    Did someone mention David Murray?

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/end-of-an-era-as-murray-closes-illustrious-charlotte-square-hq.25482419
    =====================================================================================
    …and the rehabilitation of David Murray continues.
    These soft fluffy question and answer sessions make my blood boil…This guy Simon Bain has certainly joined the ranks of the lamb munchers…and I will assume he is not even a “sports” churnalist…!
    Based on this pathetic piece, I think Fred Goodwin was victimised. I cannot stand him either,
    but at least he had no (apparent) motives that bordered on the down right criminal!
    Rant over!


  24. twopanda says:
    October 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm
    0 0 Rate This

    Ah yes
    `Accounts` Due
    Something informative to look forward to
    Tell Bears everything they need to know
    Won`t they Deloittes

    mtp
    =======================================================================
    Mtp(or tp) the accounts as published will be produced (or manufactured/concocted) by the goodly CAs on the board(s) of RIFC and TRFC.
    Deloittes will pass an opinion, aka “audit opinion), on those accounts…no laughing at the back!
    As we speak, I can only imagine the amount of horse-trading, sorry, technical discussion going on between the two camps.


  25. Some background to Ashley from Speedo on Toon Forum

    User avatar

    Speedo

    Not at 66-1, f*** that.

    Not at 66-1, f*** that.
    Posts: 6144
    Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:40 pm
    Location: Sheffield/Newcastle

    Ashley, Pardew and Bishop: A Strange Power Structure

    PostTue Sep 30, 2014 11:01 am

    So Sky’s ever-reliable sources have announced that Pardew is safe until at least the international break. Mike Ashley is telling journalists that he will be fired. Keith Bishop hangs around in the background as a ‘crisis management’ expert. But that doesn’t tell the full story. Here I propose one version of events that I think explain all the facts. The conclusion? Ashley wants to sack Pardew, but Keith Bishop is, at this point, restraining him.

    It has never been made public how long Keith Bishop has been working with Mike Ashley and Newcastle United. However, an important clue can be found on Bishop’s website, http://www.kbapr.com. His company, Keith Bishop Associates, lists Newcastle United and Rangers (and Leeds United) as clients. This is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it suggests that Ashley has involved Bishop from a very early stage with Rangers, pointing to a deeper relationship than a mere one-off crisis. Secondly, if you read the bio for the Newcastle United client page, it has a news section. That news section’s last item was two years ago: Alan Pardew signs 8 year contract with Newcastle United (http://www.kbapr.com/articles/alan-pard … le-united/ ). This strongly suggests that Keith Bishop Associates were involved in, if not the contract negotiations themselves, the handing of those 8 year contracts. Remember, at the time, Pardew et al. still had 4 years left on their deals. Furthermore, given that the KBA statement uses the word ‘stability’ in the statement 3 times in its four sentences, even more than the club. All this points to two things: Bishop has been involved with running the club for at least three years, and that it is Bishop pushing the ‘stability’ agenda that has made firing Pardew so impossible up to this point.

    Added to that, how does the club get messages out to the public? Prior to a fortnight ago, every message that came from Mike Ashley and Lee Charnley appears to come via statements on the website. However, in the last two weeks, information has been leaked to Sky Sports journalists saying Pardew is safe. This is odd given that Ashley has never really shown much chumminess with any press, Sky or otherwise. But consider some of Keith Bishop’s other clients: David Craig (the North East Football Correspondent, no less) and Gary Newborn are both Sky Sports employees. But why would the club suddenly begin whispering to them rather than club statements as before? And why is Alan Pardew so unsure of his own future?

    As a result of these pieces of information, I have come to the conclusion that it may be Bishop, or at least Bishop’s influence, that Sky are getting exclusively informed of Pardew’s safety. This would make sense for a number of reasons: Bishop clearly sees stability as the watchword of crisis management/avoidance, and quite possibly the firing of Pardew would put his reputation, at least with Mike Ashley, into question. I doubt Ashley would be delighted that the contracts Bishop made him sign have made sacking Pardew several million pounds more expensive. Added to that, this would explain the apparent disparity between the club’s line to Sky and Mike Ashley’s loose tongue in Soho on Friday night. Indeed, I wonder how long such a disparity between Ashley and Bishop can last. Clearly, by his inaction up to this point, Mike Ashley trusts him, but how many more bad results can it take? Finally, the contrasting voices of Ashley and Bishop would explain why Pardew is so uncertain of his future. To quote his press conference: ‘I don’t know [whether I am safe].’


  26. Anything ringing bells lads and lassies re Keith Bishop? Been seen around? Dabbling in shares etc? Just asking.


  27. Again though it’s a PR disaster for the greatest administrator. He’s slipped through the 10% compromise selling it on a get tough it’s 10% and no more. And now they’re asking for 25%. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. That that alleged response wasn’t a flat no is just another nail.


  28. Whatever else comes out of the Mike Ashley move on Rangers Int. shares he at least has the opportunity of doing something quite unique.

    Could he actually sack two football managers on the same day?

    It’s an action that currently would suit the fans of both clubs.

    A world record that for obvious reasons could remain unchallenged for years if not for ever.

    What footballing authority would allow such omnipotence?

    Surely not the SFA.


  29. essexbeancounter says:
    October 2, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    So you know EB, tp V upset by SJ reaction on here
    He did see the vain nonsense dissed yesterday against DP and didn`t like it at all
    mtp


  30. I repeat a previous posters plea.

    Any news of Ticketus (and others) v Craig Whyte (and others) This Monday past.

    Anyone got an account or contact. Keen to see if dates set.

    Also looking for return match dates of BDO v Collyers (the Charlotte show)

    All at High court London.

    Got to book leave.

    Thanks ever so much if dates available.


  31. ianagain says:
    October 2, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    ‘..I repeat a previous posters plea.
    Any news of Ticketus (and others) v Craig Whyte (and others) This Monday past.’
    ———
    I hear from one who knows about these things that you could write to the appropriate clerk of court at the ‘time-tabling’ hearing to ask what date(s) were agreed by the judge and the parties.other than that, I suppose you would just have to keep scanning the weekly court rolls lists.
    Trouble is, the web-sites that I have looked at relating to the English Justice Ministry/High Court of Chancery don’t seem to give any kind of general point of contact, or information about communicating with clerks of court or whatever.And, of course, routine business matters such as fixing diary dates are not published.

    But if you can find a way of getting hold of the dates-mind and let us all know!


  32. Mike Ashley seems by all accounts to be a shrewd operator so he is not buying shares to watch the thing go bust. There is no point in him tying up the merchandising only for the company to collapse because that way he gets nothing and the new, new club will simply do what they did to JJB Sports. They will claim that the agreement was with the old club, while claiming to be the same club, and renege on the deal.

    He is buying them to protect his investment that is already there.

    Now the big question is how much of the cake does he want?

    Is he happy to keep the merchandise money rolling in and, when the club makes it to the premiership, have five years free advertising or sell the naming rights back to the club at a handsome profit?

    Does he want to see the club limping along as various factions remove financial chunks and yet still take his own huge cut from the merchandising or does he actually want to seriously invest in the club?

    If it is the latter then it will require serious investment. The stadium needs work, the training setup needs work, the scouting system is non-existent, there is an aging playing squad that needs replaced. The fans will expect to have millions spent on player acquisition and that is the real problem because with that comes a higher wage bill and a higher wage bill for a club already losing money cannot be good news.

    The only way this can be solved is by someone coming in and spending immediately £30M and that just solves this years problems but even that simply kicks the can down the road because the following year the club will be looking for another £15M just to stand still but yet again standing still is not an option for the fans. They want to spend money although obviously not their own. No they want to spend Mike Askley’s, Dave King’s money or a ‘We deserve better’ campaign starts (remember that from 2010) when they don’t. What they deserve is a board of directors who run the club, not for today, but for the future. That is clearly not been happening for a considerable time. When a club becomes dependent on Champions League football with no plan to downsize when they fail to qualify then the writing is on the wall. It may take three years or five years but it will ultimately happen.

    If Mike Ashley thinks he is having problems at Newcastle he will be in for a rude awakening if he takes control at Ibrox and doesn’t spend every penny he has.


  33. John Clark says:

    October 2, 2014 at 11:09 pm

    ianagain says:
    October 2, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    ‘..I repeat a previous posters plea.
    Any news of Ticketus (and others) v Craig Whyte (and others) This Monday past.’
    ———
    I hear from one who knows about these things that you could write to the appropriate clerk of court at the ‘time-tabling’ hearing to ask what date(s) were agreed by the judge and the parties.other than that, I suppose you would just have to keep scanning the weekly court rolls lists.
    Trouble is, the web-sites that I have looked at relating to the English Justice Ministry/High Court of Chancery don’t seem to give any kind of general point of contact, or information about communicating with clerks of court or whatever.And, of course, routine business matters such as fixing diary dates are not published.

    But if you can find a way of getting hold of the dates-mind and let us all know!
    =====================================================
    I will be in the vicinity a week from now. What do I need to ask at the desk for Case number judge etc?
    Always a pain getting by security just to find you could ask at the check point. (and be redirected up the hill from the High court to Chancery court). We could have told you that they said.


  34. ianagain says:
    October 2, 2014 at 11:54 pm
    ‘..I will be in the vicinity a week from now. What do I need to ask at the desk for Case number judge etc?’
    ———–
    The case number I noted down ( for last Monday’s case) was HC 12FO 3282. Ticketus LLP v Whyte and others.
    At least, that’s how I read my wee scribble on a wee bit of paper.
    Below that wee scribble is another wee scribble [2013]EWHC 4069(Ch).
    But I’m bu.gered if I can remember whether the two wee scribbles were scribbles about the same thing. ( At times like this, I really miss a PA!)
    I hope that helps whoever you might be able to speak to identify the case and tell you if any date was fixed for an actual hearing.


  35. Martin says:
    October 2, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    “100 ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
    14.4 For the purposes of Article 14 ‘associate’ means if the person referred to is an
    individual –
    (1) a close relative of that individual, including that individual’s spouse, parent, step
    parent, child, stepchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, or a child or stepchild of such
    parent or spouse or anyone else of a close relationship to that individual who
    in the opinion of the Board is or is likely to be acting in conjunction with that
    individual; ”

    I’m very curious as to how this sits with the current President of the SFA. I was under the impression that there was some sort of transfer of ownership of shares (RFC(IL)) to his wife when he took up his role at Hearts. Mr Donald Findlay QC also transferred shares to a family member (wife?) when he took up his role as Chairman of Cowdenbeath FC as I recall.

    Can anyone shed further light on this?


  36. @ Barcabhoy

    There must be some mechanism by which pressure can be brought to bear to try and bring this whole sorry episode under closer scrutiny?
    To my mind it is nothing short of embezzlement. Gross misappropriation of what turns out to be public funds. I was taught there was a name for people like this – THEIVES.
    Do I honestly believe that ‘justice’ shall be sought or dealt? NO. The whole rotten cabal is run entirely for their own interests. We are merely here to doff cap and service THEIR interest repayments. But I digress… Pass the baw!!


  37. I read earlier the SFA asked Rangers to present a business case for Mike Ashley increasing his club stake to 25%, even though the rules do not accommodate that. Surely the only business case they should be concerned with is one that sets out how Rangers will live within their means, no matter the consequences of that for Rangers. Despite Rangers being currently off the pace in the Championship, they clearly have an unfair advantage over others in that their squad is full of players they simply can’t afford, while all the other clubs only spend what they have. Why are the SFA not willing to address that through proper enforcement of financial fair play?


  38. Can’t resist copy and pasting this excerpt from the DR this morning, itself a direct quote from he of SoS fame.

    As Rangers fans we were well warned about Charles Green by supporters at Sheffield United. We chose to ignore them. Well we’ve had the same warnings about Ashley from Newcastle supporters so are we going to ignore them too just because the guy is a successful businessman?

    There may actually be an entire psychology PHD within that one paragraph!

    Don’t touch that successful businessman, unclean unclean


  39. One of the main issues I have seen Newcastle fans have with Ashley is that he won’t “splash the cash” and requires the club (“the Club”) seemingly to live within its means.

    What’s not to like?


  40. STICKY

    Just like to say a big thanks to the boys and girls who subscribe to the blog. The money coming in monthly is our life-blood, and it’s why and how we can still provide the service – and we don’t say thanks often enough.

    :irony:


  41. Mischievous thought for a quiet Friday.

    It is surely safe to say that Laxey aren’t desperate to put more money in – why invest further in a money pit, other than to retain control. The only parties willing to invest going forwards will be those with onerous contracts, such as the Rangers Retail tie up.

    One can only assume, in the absence of another generous benefactor (see previous comment re Laxey wishing to retain control), that we seem to be heading towards a Campbell inspired “Look we know we said (not publicly obviously) 10% maximum but his is the only money on the table, and without it the company, once again, hits the skids”

    My response of course will be, “Aye Campbell, but the club and company are two separate things aren’t they!”

    I wonder if the other clubs will toe the line this time? More fool them if they do. You can almost sense ND waiting in the wings with a miraculous IF we let RFC get more funding here’s a miraculous sponsorship and tv deal that’s been amazingly lacking for three years.

    Where the plan trips though, is that they need RFC on the field to be winning (ie. gaining promotion).

    Damn those pesky hearts!


  42. Good Morning
    Once again it appears from the media that the bears and bearettes are conflating TRIFC and TRFC.
    The investment which Ashley has made in TRIFC has nothing to do with TRFC and will not help TRFC one iota.
    What he and others have done is merely to strengthen their position in the plc which is lending money to TRFC at an unsustainable rate to keep a team on the park.
    There will come a time when the money lent by TRIFC to TRFC will have to stop as it will surpass the value of the bricks and mortar asset base.

    At that time the plug will be pulled on TRFC or sold on to people with real rangersness and if that doesn’t happen with the imposition of an onerous lease then shops and flats will be built at Ibrox.

    The money which has been ploughed into shares in the plc is therefore only to enhance their bargaining position and to maximise their return when the assets are sold.

    Profit is what it is all about.

    And that is the gamble in itself but it is also a gamble against whether CW’s claim through Worthington will stand up.

    The shareholders of TRFIC are gambling that it won’t but they could be in a win win situation as the people responsible for the IPO could face an insurance claim for riding out a prospectus full of misleading and inaccurate, if not false, information.

    The story that unfolds will not make good bedtime reading for the bears.


  43. justshatered says:
    October 2, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    Mike Ashley seems by all accounts to be a shrewd operator so he is not buying shares to watch the thing go bust. There is no point in him tying up the merchandising only for the company to collapse because that way he gets nothing and the new, new club will simply do what they did to JJB Sports. They will claim that the agreement was with the old club, while claiming to be the same club, and renege on the deal. He is buying them to protect his investment that is already there.

    ================================================
    It’s always hard to know what’s actually going on. But my reading of the Rangers Retail deal is that at any time, more or less, SportsDirect could take control of Rangers Retail. From memory any insolvency of TRFCL and other issues could also trigger that transfer. But any unresolved dispute between TRFCL and SportDirect could automatically trigger a process whereby SportsDirect can buy-out TRFCL for 50% of the previous year’s profits of Rangers Retail IIRC.

    This takes us back to the legal right to use the brand names, logos and trademearks which passes to Rangers Retail under the licence agreement. I find it hard to believe that if onerous contracts exist that the Rangers Retail one isn’t protected.

    Ashley obviously saw what happened to JJB and Rangers and wouldn’t repeat that mistake or even IMO even have been caught in that position. From memory JJB had paid a helluva lot of the Rangers contract dosh up-front and again it would appear that Ashley isn’t making that mistake but quite the opposite.

    You may be right but I have the feeling if Rangers goes down again then a Rangers Retail controlled by SportsDirect, as it always has been effectively, will still control manufacture and sale of the branded kit for whatever ‘resurrection’ entity is created.

    As a side issue – with Ashley increasing his Rangers shareholding and already having effective control of Rangers Retail (listed as a subsidiary of TRFCL) do AIM Regulations require this info to be imparted to the market?


  44. Why the cloak and dagger `mystery` via BNP Paribas?
    AIM Notifications on the 1 Oct had to be changed the next day

    Looks like someone`s PR ruse Tanked

    mtp


  45. upthehoops says:

    October 3, 2014 at 7:04 am

    I read earlier the SFA asked Rangers to present a business case for Mike Ashley increasing his club stake to 25%, even though the rules do not accommodate that. Surely the only business case they should be concerned with is one that sets out how Rangers will live within their means, no matter the consequences of that for Rangers. Despite Rangers being currently off the pace in the Championship, they clearly have an unfair advantage over others in that their squad is full of players they simply can’t afford, while all the other clubs only spend what they have. Why are the SFA not willing to address that through proper enforcement of financial fair play?
    ===========================
    As someone who was calling for more rigorous FFP in Scottish football three years ago, my conclusion is that if it had been adopted back then quite a few clubs would have failed to meet the financial criteria and those in charge of the clubs (not the SFA per se) recognised this and turned a blind eye.

    It is perhaps fortuitous for TRFC that Hearts appear to have enough football talent to succeed per buck spent than TRFC and Hibs might climb the table on their spend for it not to become a factor for them, but what of Falkirk etc? It seems the last thing Scottish football wanted was fair play, although with more clubs now operating on a sustainable basis they might start asking the very question you raise about the SFA treatment of TRFC, but will have to look at the part they play in it.

    What might be an interesting development is supporters of all clubs as well as TRFC supporters recognising that fair play is actually in their best interests, because as an example of what karma delivers when you ignore the moral dynamic of fair play, you could not look past the Ibrox story.


  46. I note that Ashley set up a new company Rangers Retail Rights Limited on 9th Sept.
    Anyone have a slant on why this is needed as opposed to Rangers Retail Limited?
    Is it just to do with taking over the stores and staff or more about trying to transfer control of the business streams he wants?

    EDIT written and posted at same time as James Forrest. Great minds… fools seldom etc etc 🙂


  47. wottpi says:
    October 3, 2014 at 11:52 am

    I note that Ashley set up a new company Rangers Retail Rights Limited on 9th Sept.
    Anyone have a slant on why this is needed as opposed to Rangers Retail Limited?
    Is it just to do with taking over the stores and staff or more about trying to transfer control of the business streams he wants?

    EDIT written and posted at same time as James Forrest. Great minds… fools seldom etc etc
    ==============================================
    I would take a guess and say this is where the licence agreement to make and supply Rangers branded kit is headed for.

    Rangers Retail has this ‘bluff’ that it is a TRFCL/RIFC subsidiary when in fact for every important aspect it is controlled by SportsDirect whose shares count as double on financial voting issues whereas Rangers don’t.

    From memory although the share split is something like 48 to SportsDirect and 52 to Rangers the separate class of shares held by the two mean that in terms of voting rights SportsDirect have 96 votes and Rangers 52 – or thereabouts.

    So control on financial issues – which is all that actually counts – rests with SportsDirect and always has.

    I suppose if I am correct that it removes the need for SportsDirect to take control of Rangers Retail which might cause a bit of fan unrest.


  48. Have undernoted post I did back on 4 September which is of some interest:

    The official ‘Intellectual Property Office’ site states that the TMs are all owned by TRFCL and that Rangers Retail has an exclusive licence to use them.

    That raises the issue for me as to what Rangers Retail is paying for that exclusive licence. On past form I would hazard a guess at 1p per annum 😯

    The only ‘fact’ we have is what would happen if SportsDirect exercised its option to buy-out Rangers from Rangers Retail with the Rangers AIM Prospectus stating in that eventuality SportsDirect:

    Agrees to procure that a royalty according to a formula is paid by Rangers Retail to RFCL in consideration for rights under an intellectual property licence agreement relating to the grant of an exclusive worldwide licence of certain intellectual property rights of RFCL to Rangers Retail in return for Rangers Retail producing kit and branded products (at cost price plus 10 per cent.) (the “IP Licence Agreement”).

    Another thing I just noticed is that the start date for the Rangers Retail licenses is 31 July 2012 which is the date that Sevco Scotland changed its name to TRFCL.

    And as I pointed out in my earlier post BS and CG didn’t become directors of Rangers Retail Ltd until 28 August 2012. It’s amazing what you can find when you follow rabbit and wormholes and where you end-up.


  49. ianagain says:October 2, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    A simplesearch of the Keith Bishop Associates website located the following page.

    http://www.kbapr.com/our-clients/sports/rangers-fc/
    ——————————————————

    On looking at your link I had a wee laugh with the opening para and exercised a bit of poetic license 😆

    FOUR young men (Imran, Charles, Rafat and Craigie) shared a dream – to pluck a football club which had fallen on hard times.

    They had no money, no kit – not even a ball or a stadium. None of those four men could have foreseen what was to happen when they met in early 2012.


  50. ecobhoy says:
    October 3, 2014 at 12:27 pm
    ‘…It’s amazing what you can find when you follow rabbit and wormholes and where you end-up.’
    ———
    Very true.
    But I can’t be alone in feeling that we have somehow still to synthesise the various strands of speculation (speculation based on actual verified facts, of course, but with an admixture of supposition )as our theories begin to differ as to what the possible game plan is.

    My difficulty lies in the fact that I am essentially financially illiterate, with no real understanding of how even honest directors and major shareholders of honest businesses vie and contend with each other in protecting/enhancing their personal profit-making. Where any or all of the board of a company may be somewhat lacking in integrity, the problem is even greater.

    PmcG says ‘..but I do not believe that it is in the interests of the Institutional investors,Laxey partners and Mike Ashley for the club to fail’

    Ashley certainly, it would seem,would need the football club to continue in business, get into the top league, and into the CL. But quite clearly it could not do that, if he is syphoning off a significant part of current and future revenues,leaving little for investment in the football side.Does he have hopes of gaining control,dumping the ‘cut-and-run’ directors,and really( perhaps on an SFA promise?) trying to make money out of running a football club?

    If so, he would have to ensure that Laxey Partners bought into that plan.
    The question then would be, why would LP change their normal practice? Their potential share of the returns to be made from a ‘successful’ football club would be far in the future, and too distinctly uncertain to make it worth their while. They like quick returns , quick if not spectacular profits.Churning moderate sums on a big scale , short-term basis seems to them a better bet than hoping for the occasional really big return after a number of years.

    This is where I would like to see some academic finance/market guru sketching in the way things could go, explaining the ifs, ands, buts, and mights….

    The fact that the business in question is RIFC plc is a wee bit of a distraction from the absorbing business story, a story which would have made a good plot-line for Patrick Wymark in “The Power Game”.


  51. JC

    What you’ve now essentially got are two types of onerous contracts with football a by product (I hesitate to describe it as ‘mere’ as the relationship of winning on the field equals more money/exposure equals more ‘onerousness’).

    The contracts are the very very visible sports direct tie up and those less visible (that remain now that the HH conduit has left the scene). Both are being fed from a diminishing pie. Diminishing not because it was ever profitable in the first place, but because there were reserves to fund both the real operating loss and the onerous burdens on top.

    There were five spivs in the bed and the most spivvy one said go away…
    There were four spivs ……


  52. I see the annual armed forces embarrassment day is take plenty at the only Saturday home game on October,Rovers,you have been warned


  53. John Clark says:
    October 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    This is where I would like to see some academic finance/market guru sketching in the way things could go, explaining the ifs, ands, buts, and mights.
    ===========================================================
    I think the stumbling block for any accurate analysis is that the financial facts and objectives of the movers and shakers involved with the company have to be known and understood.

    However, I don’t think that Rangers has been that kind of open-book for a very long time which well pre-dates the arrival of Green and his merry band of ‘sturdy beggars’.

    I have absolutely no doubt that whatever Ashley and Laxey do will be completely legal but as to others – especially faceless, nameless, totally anonymous offshore investors? Well, what can I say?

    We also have a situation where the Board have been unable to ‘manage’ IMO in the ordinary sense of the word and often seem to be completely in the dark wrt the ploys of those who actually wield the power behind the scenes.

    But all involved – and that includes the spivs – know that time is running out as more and more fans wise-up and refuse to throw their dosh into a money pit or just walk away because of the shocking football being served-up.

    I am quite sure that the various Rangers shareholder factions know where they want to go to maximise their profit but the motives and strategies differ and it doesn’t help that the plots and alliances seem to change at breakneck speed.

    So I doubt if anyone on the outside – no matter how well qualified – can actually paint an accurate picture. I have long had the feeling that the final act might be something that no one could predict.

    IMO we are in the interval before the finale and the curtain dropping and it remains to be seen which characters are left standing, if any, to take that curtain call although it may be brickbats rather than flowers heading their way.

    McCoist is a minor distraction along the way – he has served his purpose and been well rewarded. I doubt however he will be getting moved to Newcastle so the pay-off will remain an issue but where there’s a will there’s usually a way.


  54. Whether or not T’Rangers are ‘successful’ matters not a jot to Ashley or the others.
    The key thing is the number of football junkies they need to keep their little operations in profit.

    Ashley’s aim will not be to put money into the club but seek to have enough influence to do just enough to keep the right numbers of fans onside and if that looks like failing he has/will organise a fall back position most likely linked to assets/ rights etc.

    The Sons of Struth have it right. These guys need to be starved out. However as long as people, and SoS are amongst them, want to hold to the old traditions, wrap themselves in red white and blue and play out of Ibrox they are going to be shafted like any other junkie who cannot break their habit.


  55. Copied From – “Ibrox Noise”

    http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2014/10/why-mike-ashley-wants-rangers.html?

    . . .”He, simply, is buying Rangers slowly, methodically, and carefully, while the Club’s stock is cheap and low, and by the time he has fully invested and the Club is once again profitable, at the top and in the CL, he is making big cash.”

    The CLUB is ‘ONCE AGAIN PROFITABLE’

    excuse my ignorance, but in the 2 years since Charles of Normandy started “Operation Chateau”, have they ever made a profit?


  56. apologies if already posted

    http://news.stv.tv/west-central/294471-craig-whyte-racked-up-3m-in-personal-spending-through-failed-firm/

    Former Rangers chief Craig Whyte racked up £3m in “personal expenditure” through one of his failed companies.

    The new revelation came to light in a written court judgment after Whyte was banned for 15 years from being a company director.

    On Tuesday a court heard his conduct in his dealings with the Rangers was “singularly shocking and reprehensible”.

    A judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh said the case for imposing a period of disqualification on Whyte was “overwhelming”.

    Lord Tyre said: “He deliberately placed his own interests before those of the company.”

    The case also included Whyte’s conduct in relation to another company called Tixway, at which he became director in 2008.

    The judge said that the former Ibrox chief showed a “a wilful disregard” to his duties as director of Tixway, which liquidated in 2012.

    It was revealed that Whyte used £3m in funds held by Tixway for his own personal spending and his actions were branded “out of the ordinary”.

    Lord Tyre said: “It is clear from Tixway’s bank statements that the company held funds.

    “Entries in those statements strongly suggest that some of those funds were applied to meet personal expenditure of the respondent.

    “Tixway is estimated to have a deficiency of liabilities over assets of around £3m. In the absence of adequate records it is impossible to know how this deficit accumulated.”

    Payments from a bank account included £395,991 to American Express and £414 to a butcher in Grantown on Spey, in Morayshire.

    Lord Tyre said: “In my assessment, the conduct of the respondent in the present case consists of a combination of dishonesty, disregard for the interests of companies to which he owed duties and of the creditors of those companies, use of Crown debts to finance trade, misappropriation of company funds (at least in the case of Tixway) for private purposes, and wilful breach of a director’s administrative duties, the effect of all of which is that the case can be regarded as quite out of the ordinary.”

    Whyte, formerly of Castle Grant, Grantown on Spey, and RueDe Tenao, Monaco, was not represented at the hearing where he was banned.

    An amendment to the court document was granted to state that his current place of residence is unknown.

    Rangers could also face more expensive legal battles as it was revealed investment company Worthington Group has made a financial recovery.

    Worthington Group announced to the Stock Exchange last year that it was staking a legal claim to ownership Rangers.

    However trading in its shares was suspended by the financial conduct authority and as a result any legal action was put on hold.

    Worthington Group is now in a position to continue its litigation after the improvement in its finances.

    A statement from CEO Doug Ware read: “I joined the Company after the aborted pension fund transaction with Rangers and had no involvement with that decision.

    “However, in my role as custodian of Worthington’s interests, and in order to maximise the recovery of value for Worthington, I demanded that I be added as a director of Law Financial to oversee Worthington’s interests.

    “That job has now been completed successfully as full control has been transferred to Worthington and Mr Whyte is no longer a director. In total I met Mr Whyte for no more than 15 minutes during this period and had never met him previously.”


  57. jimlarkin says:
    October 3, 2014 at 3:39 pm
    Copied From – “Ibrox Noise”
    http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2014/10/why-mike-ashley-wants-rangers.html?

    Probably PR plant
    The summation of this on CL monies is delusional

    It`ll take a bag of cash to win the SPL
    It`ll take a bigger bag of cash to get through group stages
    Trouble is cash is been syphoned off
    There won`t be enough

    Can’t have cash haemorrhaging and dream of a CL future

    It`s nonsense

    Shouldn’t be difficult to grasp
    How hard can it be?

    Such articles serve no-one but the vanity of the writers and their sponsors!!
    & crafted to delude and divide Bears

    aka keep cash flow going to spivs
    mtp


  58. jimlarkin says:
    October 3, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    “On Tuesday a court heard his conduct in his dealings with the Rangers was “singularly shocking and reprehensible”.”
    —————————-
    From what I’ve seen Whyte has not been the most disreputable steward of the clumpany we have witnessed over the last three years. All this casting the villain into the pit of hell for a thousand years smacks of pantomime. We all know that basic due diligence before the event would have outed Whyte as a charlatan. All this outrage and condemnation from the judiciary just looks farcical.


  59. Odd one
    If Phils right and McCoist been encouraged to step quietly away
    Or the true nature of remuneration is revealed etc

    Then a bit of a poser for the SMSM as to how they play that

    They probably know what he`s getting paid in total already
    So SMSM could be accused of hypocrisy and jumping as febrile jackboot marionettes
    [surely not :slamb: :slamb: 😉 ]

    So they`re playing it real slow

    The `warm up`
    `Ally McCoist insists he is not ‘bombproof’ amid suggestions Rangers can’t afford to sack him`

    “Suggestions”?

    methinks
    Creepy monkey slowly surely (or whatever it is 😉 )

    mtp


  60. Castofthousands says:
    October 3, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    True, and timing suspiciously convenient
    Nothing better than a convenient scapegoat

    Back at the ranch plunder continues unchecked

    mtp


  61. Does anyone think the words transfer budget will start to appear in any speaches about future share issues,you can put the kettle on for this


  62. `Focused in the Job` – A Dickson
    Today`s Official `Treat`

    Raining on parades
    But over the last THREE Years aforesaid pilgrims above have introduced and supported!
    (Amongst Others)

    iamrangers
    Charles Green
    Stockcash
    Mystery Shareholders
    Emergency Loans
    Ashley
    `onerous contracts`
    etc etc etc

    Forgive me if I ignore such repetitious long term self-serving and expensive BS
    Wish they`d reform or go away

    mtpb

Comments are closed.