A guest blog by former Celtic & Scotland defender, Jim Craig
“What time is this to come back?”
Dolores McCann (her Mother had been a great fan of foreign films) stood in that classic pose of the wounded woman – up to her full height and chin forward – as she glared at her husband who had just come in the front door. Before he could say a word, she gave him another volley;
“you left the house at half-past-two for a three o’clock kick-off, it only takes you 20 minutes to get to the ground, a match lasts only one-and-a-half hours plus ten minutes for the break and you’ve just walked back in the door at half-past-seven! So where the hell were you?”.
Wayne McCann (his father liked Westerns) tried to calm her down.
“Dolores, you don’t know what it’s like at football matches nowadays ; it has changed out of all recognition; a match goes on for much longer”.
“In what way?” Dolores asked.
“Well, for a start, the players and even the managers can complain about any decision that is given against them. If that happens, the referee then goes and has a word with firstly, the two assistant referees, then the fourth official and gets their comments before he reflects on the situation. If he is still in any doubt that he made the wrong decision then he can ask the guy upstairs sitting in front of a television screen what he thinks. And, of course, all through this, the managers and players of both teams can chip in with their comments. That all adds a fair bit of time to the match”.
“Aye…but turning up at half-past-seven is still a bit over the top…is it no’?”
“Well, no’ really……you see, nowadays you are not allowed to have a drawn game, so if the match is level at the full-time whistle, there is extra time, which takes a minimum of half-an-hour”.
“The time is still no’ matching up!”
“Aye, mibbe so, if that was the end of the match. But if the match is still level at the end of extra-time, then it goes to a penalty shoot-out. I told you…you are not allowed a drawn game”.
“ A penalty shoot-out disnae take long”.
“That might have been the case at one time but because so many keepers were being accused of moving before the ball was kicked, nowadays they are strapped in to a harness which anchors them in the middle of the goal. They can only move when the foot of the guy who is taking the penalty actually touches the ball. So, after each kick, the keeper has to be put back into the harness and it all starts again. And, of course, you get the complaints from the managers and players that the harness wasnae working properly or that the officials who put the harness on didnae put it on right. That all adds up to the time factor”.
“Did you go to the pub?”
“As God is my judge, Dolores, after the match finished, I came straight here”.
“Who won anyway?”
“That’s a difficult question… there was so much noise and kerfuffle both on the pitch and in the stands, nobody was quite sure what the final score was. And the guy who usually does the announcing had gone home. Somebody said that he had a date. Anyway, if you let me turn on the radio, I’ll hear the score there. And Dolores?”
“Yes”
Wayne walked over to the drinks cabinet and took out a couple of glasses. “I don’t suppose you would fancy a wee drink”
We will leave the smooth-talking Wayne to his attempts to mollify Dolores and reflect on the situation. What you have just read is probably the ultimate scenario for those who wish to tamper with the current rules of football. Do I think that the game needs radical changes like that? No but I do think that some change is necessary and in one specific circumstance.
Now, I was a professional footballer for 9 years and in all that time, I can put my hand on my heart and state with complete conviction that I never pulled any other player’s jersey. Did I try to half him in two with a tackle, yes! But no jersey-pulling. And, of course, I was penalised for the challenge.
Today, though, I feel that there is a lot of body-checking and jersey-pulling going on in every match. Very often the referee lets it go and then you get the ridiculous scenario at a corner kick when all those waiting for the ball to come in are pulling and pushing, with the referee watching it and ignoring it. It is a foul, ref!
When the referee decides that an offence has been committed, then the player will be spoken to first. If he does it again, he will be given a yellow-card. The problem is, though, that the offence might possibly have affected the play in the match, whereas the yellow card does not affect the player’s participation.
If the player is daft enough to do it again, then of course he gets another yellow and will be off. Most, however, are sensible and keep the head, so they go unpunished as far as the current match is concerned. What we have to find is a punishment that affects the match in which the transgression occurred. Which means that we have to consider the sin bin.
This works very well in rugby and gives the referee a means to punish an offence a little more harshly – yet more efficiently – than a yellow card but without having to go for the ultimate, drastic – and for many unpalatable – option of the red card. I hope it comes in soon.
And now an ibrox club can’t say that
HomunculusFebruary 28, 2018 at 17:35
My take on what the guys have reported is that he has been told that either he or NOAL will have to do it.
If NOAL don’t that leaves it up to him.
————–
I’ve no doubt that is the intention. The introduction of NOAL just seems like an opportunity to delay, pass the buck, obfuscate etc., which would fit KIng’s modus operandi.
What, with an 11 million bill hanging over his head…
I can see why NOAL was eager to tour again with Liam.
I’ll get my tambourine.
wottpi February 28, 2018 at 17:17
EasyJambo, think you are usually on the ball re the current T’Rangers Plc share holding. Do you have an idea who the runners and riders may be for taking up a 20p offer?
=============================
The Takeover Code allows for a few exceptions / conditions to be attached to an offer. The relevant one for this case is that King/NOAL will have to obtain sufficient acceptances to take the Concert Party’s holding above 50% before he has to buy any shares.
The Concert Party is currently 13m shares short of the 50% mark, so he needs acceptances for at least that number. So who might sell?
Blue Pitch 4,000,000 (currently frozen)
Margarita 2,600,000 (currently frozen)
Norne Ansalt 1,200,000 (currently frozen)
Putney Holdings 700,000 (currently frozen)
Sandy Easdale 5,256,110
James Easdale 572,749
(Rangers website suggest that the Easdale “family” owned 6,434,387 @ 29 March 2017 https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/)
River & Mercantile 3,523,059
Glenmuir 1,000,000
Ally McCoist 1,092,988
Feel free to mix and match the above. If he gets over the 50% mark then the minimum cost to him will be £2.6m. You would be looking at something in excess of £4m if all the above took up the offer.
gunnerb February 28, 2018 at 18:09
Grateful thanks to the intrepid JC and EJ for their efforts today. May I ask if there is a time limit specified within the ruling?…seems to me Mr.King has used/abused more than enough of this commodity already.
=======================
No time frame wasn’t specified today, but I think the takeover code indicates 30 days to make the offer and 28 days to finalise it (pay up).
A judge, Lord Woolman gave the go-ahead for Dave king to take a seat on the rangers board.
King asked the law chiefs to consider his suitability for club office following his victory in a shareholders vote.
Was this judge duped?
CLUSTER ONEFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:47
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 17:31I suppose they really should provide a prospectus, so people can decide if keeping the shares is financially attractive. Rather than cashing in just now.—————- @Heavidor4mReplying to @_John_Smith1967Never made a profit, huge losses, rising debt, reliant on loans to remain solvent, significant outstanding capex. Who’d want to make an offer for that?
____________
The question should be, who wouldn’t accept an offer like that (20p per share), as it’s more than likely to be the highest price these shares will ever go for again?
AllyjamboFebruary 28, 2018 at 16:54
“… to come so quickly to a decision.Perhaps they have felt all along that it was a waste of their very expensive time, and wanted to make their thoughts obvious amongst the legal fraternity with this unusually quick judgement.wanted to make their thoughts obvious amongst the legal fraternity with this unusually quick judgement.@
_______________________
Mind you, Aj, two days had been set aside for the hearing. That might indicate that their Lordships may have thought that some really tricky points of law would be argued, requiring a lot of time.
I remember, for example, being intrigued during the initial hearing to hear that the Court was perhaps in relation to Section 955 being asked to operate as a kind of hybrid- partly as a Court exercising Judicial Review functions and powers, and partly as part of the Administrative body, which had powers to review the actual original matter and decisions and substitute its own decision.
Or the question of whether ‘may’ always meant ‘may’ and never ‘shall’ or ‘must’.
In the event, there was nothing as deep as that.
But Lord Carloway did make a point of asserting that he and his colleagues had read all the papers, were thoroughly acquaint with the facts and the relevant law, and had carefully listened to Counsel etc.
In other words, they had taken time to reach a view, and had not heard anything today that gave them grounds for altering their view that Lord Banntyne had applied the law correctly to the facts before him. Neither the Takeover Panel’s committee’s, nor the Executive’s , nor the Takeover Appeal Board’s findings of facts had been challenged before him.
In another exchange today, Lord Glennie appeared to be trolling Lord Davidson.
The QC had advanced arguments that the 20p offer price was lower than the market price so it wasn’t worth making an offer. He then went onto argue that letters provided by King’s trusts had indicated that they would not support the purchase of shares and that they had a duty to ensure that the beneficiaries interests were looked after.
Lord Glennie interjected to suggest that if the share price was so much lower than the market price, then it would provide a good investment for the trust to make for the beneficiaries.
Lord Davidson quickly moved on to another point.
Maybe just me but it seems that at roughly the same time as Kings QC was telling their lordships that NOAL would not support the share purchase as they have to act in the best interests of their beneficiaries,King was telling the RIFC/TRFC board that NOAL would buy the shares.
I am more than a stranger to the workings of financial matters ,in fact ,you could say we have never met .
I am though staggered that the GASL could have his lawyer state in a court of law that he is penniless and has no control over NOAL ,just months after telling auditors that he will pony up £4m to cover the losses of sevco 2012 .
AND NO ONE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY TO HIM ABOUT IT .
easyJamboFebruary 28, 2018 at 19:54
‘….Lord Glennie interjected to suggest that if the share price was so much lower than the market price, then it would provide a good investment for the trust to make for the beneficiaries.’
________________________
Yes, that was a good one.
There was also this: Mr Johnston, arguing that King had had ample opportunity to provide evidence of impecuniosity but had failed to do so, said that the Lord ordinary was entitled to found on those facts.
The implications arguing that the Lord Ordinary was NOT entitled to relate to those facts would be that an Order could never be made if the person was impecunious.
The purpose of the Rules (Rule 9 in particular) has to be observed to ensure…..
Lord Glennie interjected: So the Lord Ordinary disbelieved the letter from the Trustees?
Mr Johnston replied: The reclaimer [King] was able to buy the [concert party] shares to begin with. The lord Ordinary regards these letters as…
Lord Glennie: they help to prove he has control?
Away back in the day when the TOP first took King to Court Richard Wilson assured us via BBC Sportsound it was ‘no biggie’. I am sure that’s what King directly or indirectly told him to say. I wonder who will be wheeled out in the coming days to spin on Mr King’s behalf now that it appears to be quite a biggie after all!
Heard DK is telling everyone that
every cloud has a silver lining ,he reckons he has a good shout in claiming a cold shoulder as an industrial injury
Compo here we come
I wonder if DK is sitting tonight regretting the fact that he remained involved with the goings on at Ibrokes .
I mean why is he there what did he hope to achieve with the new club ,I just don’t buy the emotional line ,sorry but he does not seem the emotional type to me .
I firmly believe that his initial involvement in the old club had everything to do with moving money and nothing at all to do with wanting a stake in his boyhood heroes .
So it really puzzles me as to why he would get involved with CGs creation ,what did he see that was in it for him .
Any ideas ,anyone
confused ,com
A “what if” scenario.
What if King’s alleged email, passing the buck to NOAL for the share offer, is actually a defensive move to protect his glibness himself in the event of NOAL non compliance.
NOAL pulls out of the offer at the last minute (if it looks like it will cost a fortune).
The TOP decides that the cold shoulder will be applied immediately. King argues that the TOP/CoS can now only take action against NOAL. Cold Shouldering of NOAL would have a lot less impact than on King and TRFC. King could still claim to pass muster for the FPP assessment when the club makes its annual return.
UTH, I was just thinking that myself. Right, Mr Traynor, we are all sitting comfortably and paying attention. After the ‘loan’ and Morelos stories, this needs to be extraordinarily good.
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 21:11
A “what if” scenario.
What if King’s alleged email, passing the buck to NOAL for the share offer, is actually a defensive move to protect his glibness himself in the event of NOAL non compliance.
NOAL pulls out of the offer at the last minute (if it looks like it will cost a fortune).
The TOP decides that the cold shoulder will be applied immediately. King argues that the TOP/CoS can now only take action against NOAL. Cold Shouldering of NOAL would have a lot less impact than on King and TRFC. King could still claim to pass muster for the FPP assessment when the club makes its annual return.
==============================
Nothing, absolutely nothing, would surprise me about the man. Of course, things are made a whole lot easier with the media permanently collapsed at his feet!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43230102
Surely as Sky staff member, Jeff is only too well aware that the club can’t be troubled by death?
The trusts had indicated they would not be willing to have their funds used for the share offer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43231582?__twitter_impression=true
—————-
Could this get messy?Or has the trust now changed it’s mind?
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 21:11
6
0 Rate This
A “what if” scenario.
What if King’s alleged email, passing the buck to NOAL for the share offer, is actually a defensive move to protect his glibness himself in the event of NOAL non compliance.
NOAL pulls out of the offer at the last minute (if it looks like it will cost a fortune).
——————
Would the buck not then pass to Mr king as the court have made it clear have they not that an offer has to be made
easyJamboFebruary 28, 2018 at 18:04
‘..We both heard the same discussion, but perhaps have interpreted it differently.’
______________________
My notes have:
” Mr Johnston next two grounds;
a) enough evidence for the Lord Ordinary , he accepted the findings of the Top Committee and TAB ” Mr King was contacted ” and evidence that NOAL did not have part in share buying, but King.
And L.O was entitled to form the view that impecuniosity had not been made out.”
He then went on to his last point ( about who set the share price, and how it was neither here nor thee whether people accept it or not, and how one could not make the assumption that no one would accept the offer at that price).”
It was at that point that the Court adjourned for lunch.
And the first thing that Lord Carloway said on resumption was to ask Mr J whether the interlocutor [when written as the judgment on today’s hearing?] should show that the shares were owned by NOAL[as opposed to merely being in their ‘control?’]
I interpreted that as Lord Carloway checking merely that Johnston was happy with NOAL being described as a matter of record as owning the shares, .
It was only after that the news of the email was announced, and NOAL came into the game as being prepared to fund the offer.
So I couldn’t see that Lord Carloway was doing a ‘King or Noal, it doesn’t matter which one makes the offer’ statement
That’s why I took the view that it is still King personally who will be obliged to make the offer.
In other words, King will comply, using the free gift of monies from a Trust fund of which he is a beneficiary but over which he has no control!)
But, of course, I freely admit that I may have misread , possibly misheard ( and isn’t it damned difficult when these guys mumble !) the whole thing!
When we see the Court’s judgment and reasons is when we will be seeing not through a glass darkly, but something like the full picture.
Cluster One February 28, 2018 at 22:16
Would the buck not then pass to Mr king as the court have made it clear have they not that an offer has to be made
======================
We will have to wait at least until we get the written judgement to get more detail, although the content of the interlocutor wasn’t revealed as part of Lord Bannatyne’s earlier judgement, so even then we may never know how it is worded.
To late to edit..for post above
TRISIDIUMFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 14:23
20
0 Rate This
For clarity, Dave King’s appeal has been rejected. Lord Glennie’s judgement includes a provision that NOAL or Dave King may make the offer – but the offer MUST be made. Written judgement to follow.
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 22:21
—–
Thanks for reply
If somebody decides to sell a few RIFC shares to his mate for 10 pence a share via JP Jenkins , that determines the share price ?
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 21:11
A “what if” scenario.
What if King’s alleged email, passing the buck to NOAL for the share offer, is actually a defensive move to protect his glibness himself in the event of NOAL non compliance.
NOAL pulls out of the offer at the last minute (if it looks like it will cost a fortune).
The TOP decides that the cold shoulder will be applied immediately. King argues that the TOP/CoS can now only take action against NOAL. Cold Shouldering of NOAL would have a lot less impact than on King and TRFC. King could still claim to pass muster for the FPP assessment when the club makes its annual return.
_________
That might well be the master criminal’s plan, but getting away with it might prove difficult, as the case was brought against the man, himself, and not NOAL, and the court has been generous in allowing him to use his trust as a vehicle for him to carry out his obligation. I’m sure that, by now, everyone involved is well aware of the type of person they are dealing with, and will cover such an eventuality in their written order to him, by making it clear his obligation is not fulfilled until the offer has run, and completed, it’s course. Plus, of course, the court has established that King has control of NOAL, and so would most likely hold him responsible for it’s failure to meet it’s liability. He might end up losing more trying that than he would otherwise. Which would be nice
For to make the offer, and fail to deliver, would surely be a greater offence than just failing to make the offer in the first place; and regardless, he would still face the cold shoulder.
On the NOAL makes the offer then reneges scenario. Isn’t that what putting up the full cost of a 100% acceptance, prior to making the offer, is to prevent? If the court takes hold of £11m from NOAL, there’s no way King can work this con
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/assets/documents/LotG2017/LotG_17_18_EN_Guidelines.pdf
3. Holding an opponent
Referees are reminded to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with holding offences, especially inside the penalty area at corner kicks and free kicks.
To deal with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play
• award a direct free kick or penalty kick and caution the player if it happens once the ball is in play
Was great to read all the posts yesterday. When some important news breaks this site comes into a class of its own. Many thanks to EJ, JC, BP and Tris. And of course all the commentators.
Heavy snow again. I’m an idiot, I ploughed round to the shop yesterday it was about a foot deep. I should have doubled up on supplies. It’s now about 2 feet deep and I will need to go out again. Just hope the shop is open, the owners travel in from Glasgow.
There is a major diversion just outside Hampden with Aikenhead Road closed due to sewer work by Scottish Water and will be ongoing until mid May. Traffic around this area, especially through Mount Florida can be horrendous and it is hard to believe that the SFA have scheduled a friendly match in March. This was an ideal opportunity to hold a game at another ground, using the works as a good reason. As usual no thought for the travelling supporter.
Hello, anyone at the SFA care to comment on the fact that Mr king has been found to have worked in concert to get into ibrox and has now been ordered to come up with £11 mill.A guy you,yes you at the SFA passed fit and proper to get into ibrox.
On the £11 mill and the £1 mill for the prospectus.It is Mr king or his family trust that must come up with this money. Will the SA Authorities be wondering where Mr king is getting this money from?
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 18:56
Thanks for the list of runners and riders.
I see that 8.5m shares (10.4%) are held by those frozen out from voting.
You would have thought that unless they are still somehow getting cash via onerous contracts or some other means, these guys would perhaps be looking to cash in as they most likely have no say in how the company is run.
That leaves the Easdales as potentially the last big player to reach the 13m share mark.
And of course if the Gardener is feeling a bit skint just now then he can quickly grab £200k to make sure things go past the wining post without the need for River & Mercantile to be involved.
Firstly in respect to the blog article itself, the sin-bin option could also play a role in discouraging abuse of referees and their assistants (linesmen in old money). By having 10-minute suspension/cooling down period it’d offer the referees an option.
In rugby the referee gets respect not because rugby players are genetically different or morally superior but because of self interest. In rugby the refs are taught that their position is one of wielding absolute power on the field – abuse the ref? Penalty. Abuse him again? Penalty 10m closer to the posts, again? same punishment, eventually a penalty pretty much on the tryline – giving an opportunity for a try or a chip shot 3 pointer. In football giving away a freekick for abusing the referee wouldn’t be that big a deal, but given its usually after a decision, moving that free kick closer to the goals (including diagonally to a more central position) would also work, if anyone actually was bothered with enforcing that level of discipline.
As for the Lyin’ King: I want him to be cold-shouldered for 2 reasons. This first is because he has clearly misled pretty much everyone, from the use of the concert party to enforce his will to the detriment of NewGers themselves and Scottish football as a whole; to the obfuscation and shell-game (literally) as to who owns what assets and who is responsible for the 11 (12? haha) guys on the pitch at kick-off; to the pleading of poverty but accessing funds in excess of £11m at the drop of a hat and finally, simply time and again trying to ride roughshod over the law of the land.
Secondly, because I’d just love to see a cold-shoulder in action. I know we’ve written about it on here, but it all seems a bit lame for an ultimate punishment by the all-powerful City of London – I want to see it enacted and forensically discussed on here, with all the detail under the spotlight.Keep it up Dave, you’ve almost made my wish come true!
Could someone please tell Mr Devlin at The Sun that the Chinese transfer window has closed. No need to publish the latest and very, very – I mean it this time – final offer for Morelos. No offer then, no offer now and no offer ever. (Who puts a final offer in which is LOWER than the previous one?)
David ‘toon clock’ King has a face for everyone, SARS, the South African courts, the SFA, Sevco fans, Sevco Board, UEFA, SMSM, the British courts, the auditors of Sevco accounts, HMRC, Club Scooby Doo, TOP, Hamilton Accies, Aberdeen, Brighton. Have I missed anyone out?
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 28, 2018 at 19:01
No time frame wasn’t specified today, but I think the takeover code indicates 30 days to make the offer and 28 days to finalise it (pay up).———————————————————————————————————-
Thanks for the reply EJ. I was hoping the consequences would be more immediate given the length of time that has passed since the original TOP instruction. I was wondering how any cold shoulder might impact on collection of season ticket money.I believe that a finance house acts as a recommended lender to individuals wishing to spread the cost of a season ticket . This is akin to taking a personal loan and I assume the full amount is forwarded to TRFC rather than a recurring card payment arrangement.Thus the two month stay of execution you intimate should be sufficient time to push the early season ticket renewal campaign.Thereafter any failure to comply with the court ruling might allow us to see just how effective a punishment cold shouldering actually is.Fun,fun,fun.
Many thanks totour intrepid Court reporters. “Respect!”
Looking down the pipe, The Big Liar needs to lodge circa £11m in an escrow account tout suis.
Assuming, that itis possible through whatever means it seems unlikely he may have to cough this amount in total.
All fine and dandy, and his total outlay could be as low as a a couple of mill.
Jist a wee question……. How happy will the Sevvies be if he decides to trouser his change?
After previous promises made, it could rightly be argued this is their “club’s” promised funding.
Jocky @ 10.30 1 Mar
Like you , I take an interest in matters financial in the Square Mile & it will be fascinating to see how the TOP handle this situ – what we have confirmed is a group (concert party) gained control of a football club through illegal means – if this occurred with a club in England the FA would be all over it but up here ? No chance .
JOCKYBHOYMARCH 1, 2018 at 10:30
As you imply the problem in football is that the referee is seen as fair game for abuse by managers, players and fans.
This tends not to be the case in the vast majority of other sports.
Interestingly enough at the weekend the boys team I help with had their first experience of having a game refereed by a suited up official as opposed to the game being run by the coaches on the side lines.
In the pre-game chat a couple of boys piped up asking if the ref was any good.
In the post-game chat a few boys started to make comments on the refs performance. Even got moans from my own boy despite us talking about the attitudes to ref and the 10 yard rule, sin bins etc when watching the Scotland – England rugby the day before.
This is all learned behaviour from what they see elsewhere be it live football, TV or even the computer games, as they have had never personally experienced a ref at first hand.
Football Managers and players have a hell of a lot to answer for, regardless of what we believe is the quality of referees.
I told the boys in no uncertain terms that any such talk and disrespect for the officials would see them dropped.
I further emphasised that next season they will have refs at all games and that these guys are doing the snotty nosed little oiks a favour by turning up to allow the games to proceed.
They were reminded that these guys are giving up their weekend morning to allow them to play when they could easily be tucked up in bed with a coffee and the papers.
There will be no grief given to refs on my watch.
As a side note there was much coverage of John Inverdale trying to bring up the refs performance in the Scotland England game only for Paul O’Connell to put him straight.
http://www.givemesport.com/1264531-paul-oconnell-wasnt-buying-what-john-inverdale-was-saying-after-scotland-vs-england
naegreetinMarch 1, 2018 at 11:43
Jocky @ 10.30 1 MarLike you , I take an interest in matters financial in the Square Mile & it will be fascinating to see how the TOP handle this situ – what we have confirmed is a group (concert party) gained control of a football club through illegal means – if this occurred with a club in England the FA would be all over it but up here ? No chance .
____________________________
I don’t think there is anything illegal in what the concert party did, irregular perhaps – breaking TOP rules and regulations, but they didn’t break the law. Should King comply with the TOP order, then everything will become ‘regular’ and no law will have been broken by him, or any other member of the concert party (at least in the matter at hand). King, however, will break the law if he fails to deliver on the offer and will be in deeper water than he has been since his many visits to the High Court in Johannesburg.
AJ @ 12.06 1 Mar
Accept illegality aspect is debateable , however , what is incontrevertible is that control of one of the largest football clubs in Scotland was achieved through irregular means & those circumstances should be subject of an SFA investigation .
ALLYJAMBO
MARCH 1, 2018 at 12:06
================================
There’s an interesting debate to be had with regard “illegal”, does it only refer to criminal matters.
The dictionary has this to say.
Illegal – contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
Unlawful – not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
I would venture that what they did was unlawful, as it broke the rules, as opposed to illegal, as they didn’t actually break any laws (criminal or civil) as far as I am aware.
I suppose it would depend on how it sits with the companies act. Is there a specific law to prevent people operating as a concert party, and if they do so they have to make the offer for all shares.
NAEGREETIN
MARCH 1, 2018 at 12:29
=====================================
The SFA will hide behind it being in relation to the PLC rather than the club.
In the same way that he is Chairman of the PLC and not the club. So he doesn’t actually control it, ergo fit and proper is not required.
The SPFL accounts for the year to 31 May 2017 have been lodged at Companies House.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history
There are a few things of note
* Revenues up 27.1% to £34.6m
* Money distributed to clubs up 19.5%
….. so far so good
* Cash in hand down to £2.2m from £5.7m
* Directors emoluments up to £400k from £261k
* The remuneration of the highest paid director was £352,000 (2016: £212,844).
* During the year, two advances on club payments (2016: none) were made to SPFL clubs totalling £300,000 (2016: £nil).
……. not so good
JC – Please close your eyes for this last one
Homunculus, Is there not a clause about a ‘controlling interest’? What was the story with Mike Ashley & the SFA?
WOTTPI
MARCH 1, 2018 at 10:01
I see that 8.5m shares (10.4%) are held by those frozen out from voting.
You would have thought that unless they are still somehow getting cash via onerous contracts or some other means, these guys would perhaps be looking to cash in as they most likely have no say in how the company is run.
====================================
Agreed, as far as I am aware they have no voting rights and no rights to a dividend.
It’s difficult to see why they wouldn’t sell up, if they are part of the offer. However, are they restricted from selling them. What will take precedence.
“Currently 8,500,000 of the Company’s Ordinary Shares (c. 10.4%) are subject to restrictions affecting the right to vote the affected shares, the right to receive payments or distributions in respect of the affected shares and the right to transfer the affected shares. “
The discussion of the desirability or otherwise of adopting the ‘sin bin’ idea into football prompted me yesterday to look at the website of the International Football Association Board, to see whether disciplinary matters fell in any way into their brief, and, if so, whether there had been any previous discussions on the topic at their general meetings .
I got diverted from that task by a couple of things, one of which was finding that Stewart Regan was still being shown as one of the 5-person Board.
I felt obliged
to fire off the following email yesterday:
Toinfo@theifab.com 28 Feb at 9:03 PM Dear IFAB,
It may be a while before the Scottish FA has a new Chief executive Officer following the departure of Stewart Regan. Perhaps you should up-date your web-page to reflect that fact?There few things more annoying than an out-of-date website.
Cheers, JC
The following is the reply:
Tojohn clark Today at 8:33
Dear John,
Thank you for pointing that out – this has been updated with the interim chief executive of the SFA.
Best regards,
Boudien Broekhuis ”
I like a bit of efficiency, and an out-of-date webpage is worse than useless. I wonder if anyone at Hampden formally notified the IFAB of Regan’s departure?
JC, it’s a shame your guy who is efficient at updating websites is at IFAB and not UEFA – you could have asked him to update the Rangers* page so that it doesn’t show the old club’s history attached to the new club!!!
easyJamboMarch 1, 2018 at 12:48
‘…..JC – Please close your eyes for this last one..”
____________________
That was quite timely, eJ. I was in email-writing mood, and I was prompted to fire this off when I had had a read at the SPFL report:
“The Secretary,SPFL,Hampden Park,Glasgow,G42 9DE
Dear Secretary,
It is with disappointment but, sadly, without surprise, that I note that the SPFL continues to propagate what has become known as the ‘Big Lie’ at the very heart of Scottish professional football.
I refer you to the ‘Strategic Report’ in “The Annual Report and Financial Statement of the SPFL for year ending 31/05/17″,and to the fourth paragraph of the section headed ‘Business Review’.
In that section are the words ” ……they were joined by Rangers FC who finished 3rd in their first season back [my emphasis] the top flight”
Now, you know, and the Board members of the SPFL Board, know perfectly well that The Rangers Football Club Ltd, admitted into Scottish Football for the first time only in 2012, was never in the top flight in any season since its admittance. It is therefore misleading and untrue to assert that its entry into the top flight in season 2016/17 is any kind of return to that position.
Remember, please, that the club called Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the then SPL when it went into liquidation and ceased to exist as a football club.
The ‘Big Lie’ that ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’, founded in 2012, is the same club as the Rangers Football Club, founded in 1872 and now languishing in Liquidation under the name (possibly chosen with deceitful intent) of Rangers 2012 plc, is a monstrous assault on Sporting Integrity and a gross insult to the intelligence and decency of honest football supporters.
The Directors of the SPFL should be heartily ashamed of themselves, and of the damage they have inflicted on the sport and on their own personal integrity as businessmen/women engaged in the business of ‘Sport’.
Yours sincerely,John Clark ”
HOMUNCULUSMARCH 1, 2018 at 12:56
That is indeed and interesting conundrum.
However could that be another can to be kicked down the road if the ‘frozen group’ may wish to take up the 20p offer but cannot.
Another visit to court perhaps?
HomunculusMarch 1, 2018 at 12:37
ALLYJAMBOMARCH 1, 2018 at 12:06================================There’s an interesting debate to be had with regard “illegal”, does it only refer to criminal matters.The dictionary has this to say.Illegal – contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.Unlawful – not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.I would venture that what they did was unlawful, as it broke the rules, as opposed to illegal, as they didn’t actually break any laws (criminal or civil) as far as I am aware.I suppose it would depend on how it sits with the companies act. Is there a specific law to prevent people operating as a concert party, and if they do so they have to make the offer for all shares.
_____________________
There is nothing wrong, either legally or morally, with people acting in concert when buying shares in a company, they just have to stick to the rules regarding takeovers and mergers. The RIFC concert party didn’t break any laws or rules by going over the 30% threshold, it is just incumbent upon them to then offer to buy all remaining shares. By not acting timeously to make the required offer, I suppose they then breached the rules, and so acted unlawfully within those rules. The court action by the TOP gives their order to King legal backing, and so his failure to comply would then break the law, and so it is now ‘illegal’ for King not to make the required offer.
I’m not sure, but I would imagine this court ruling, and subsequent appeal, gives the TOP more legal standing when next they have to give an order to comply with their rules.
We all owe a debt to Dave King, and many of the others who have sat around the boardroom table in the Blue Room, for giving us this insight into the hitherto boring side of the company laws of Scotland and the UK that we probably would never have had otherwise
Hopefully none of us will ever have to put what we have learned (or think we’ve learned
) into practice, but it’s all been, and continues to be, great fun!
HomunculusMarch 1, 2018 at 12:56
WOTTPIMARCH 1, 2018 at 10:01I see that 8.5m shares (10.4%) are held by those frozen out from voting.You would have thought that unless they are still somehow getting cash via onerous contracts or some other means, these guys would perhaps be looking to cash in as they most likely have no say in how the company is run.====================================Agreed, as far as I am aware they have no voting rights and no rights to a dividend.It’s difficult to see why they wouldn’t sell up, if they are part of the offer. However, are they restricted from selling them. What will take precedence.“Currently 8,500,000 of the Company’s Ordinary Shares (c. 10.4%) are subject to restrictions affecting the right to vote the affected shares, the right to receive payments or distributions in respect of the affected shares and the right to transfer the affected shares. “
_____________________________
The fact that it doesn’t say ‘sale or transfer’ would suggest to me that King will still have to make an offer to those shareholders, it was, after all, on account of the shareholders refusing to reveal their identities that gave grounds for the loss of these rights, and that problem would disappear with the sale of the shares to King. To try to prevent those shareholders selling their shares might cause even more problems for RIFC, as, if they are of a mind, they could drag King/RIFC through the courts, causing a big delay and goodness knows what problems for King and the club.
I’d imagine the removal of the right to transfer would be there to prevent the shareholders involved from choosing who they transfer their holdings to, such as Mike Ashley or someone else the board would not want to see getting shares, but in a general sale, where the shares are bought by a stockbroker and then sold to persons unknown to the seller, there should be no problem. Now the shares would be going to a man well known to the board, and, we must presume, perfectly acceptable to them, so he would be the perfect recipient of those disenfranchised shares.
On top of all that, it would be hard to imagine it is legal to remove the rights to vote or receive dividends, and, at the same time, prevent the shareholders from disposing of what, to them, are now worthless shares. What a super money-making wheeze that would be for the Kings of this world!
John ClarkMarch 1, 2018 at 14:46
Well done, John, for keeping them on their toes, though I am sure you will receive nought but a glib and shameless lie in reply. if they do reply, it might be a good idea to ask why they felt the need to expand the narrative for TRFC, while not doing so for the other clubs, in a way so redolent of a level5 driven media! It did, as it always does, add nothing to the message – unless it is the message!
WOTTPI
MARCH 1, 2018 at 15:08
=================================
Indeed.
My guess, and AJ would appear to agree, is that King (woopsies, the entirely different NOAL) will have to make the offer and I would expect them to take it up.
That alone would be £1.7m.
Sandy Easdale would be just over £1m
I don’t know who River and Mercantile are but that would be about £700,000
So with admin of say £100,000 (pure guess to make the numbers easy) that would be about £3.5m if just those shareholders take it up.
EASYJAMBOMARCH 1, 2018 at 12:48
Maybe saying that TRFC finished third in their first attempt at the Premiership title wasn’t triumphalist enough .
Appeal has now ended folks and we have raised a fantastic £2100!
I do believe I will get my TBU for the podcasts at last
, and we will sort that out asap.
Really has been a fantastic response – especially as were asking for some Cap-ex as well as housekeeping.
Formal emails going out to all of those who donated and a general email to everyone who is subscribed.
We’re also not forgetting those who subscribe monthly, every month to help keep us afloat.
The community spirit on here is fantastic. It really is about more than our own clubs – and I think as a community we just voted with our feet to demonstrate that.
Thanks to everyone
A few weeks ago I sent an email complaint to the BBC following a Reporting Scotland item which claimed Rangers holding company had gone into liquidation, as distinct from Rangers Football Club.
Below is the generic reply I’ve received, a reply which entirely ignores the specific issues I raised, but which instead is based entirely on the BBC Trust’s 2013 policy decision to treat Rangers insolvency as having happened only to the company which operated the club, not the club itself, which was apparently sold to a new owner. Much of the Trust’s decision was predicated on LNS and Neil Doncaster’s subsequent proclamation that the LNS findings were definitive and final on the matter of ‘same club’.
A link to the BBC Trust decision can be found at pages 25-35 below, but I should warn that it is not for the faint-hearted. Please do not shoot the messenger. I intend to compose an appropriate reply in due course, but doing so may take some time given the extent of the utter b*ll*x fed to the Trust which was treated as fact by them despite the entire media, including the BBC, reporting the death of the club when the CVA failed in 2012.
The print media are a lost cause. More to be laughed at than pitied.
The BBC on the other hand are our state broadcaster who take pride in being the voice of truth. To be trusted. A massive reputation. Of course we all subscribe to the BBC and have therefore a vested interest that they do indeed tell the truth.
Other than in times of war when they will obviously toe the party line to a degree I expect an unbiased reporting.
Why the BBC Trust engage in the Big Lie is a mystery to me. Does a nobody like Neil Doncaster carry so much clout with the enormous BBC?
It’s going to be so much fun if and when The New Rangers go into liquidation. What the hell are they going to say?
continued,
I,m sure Big Brother BBC could loan some people to BBC Scotland to finally put this nonsense to bed. You know the kind of people with more than a couple of O levels and who are not part of ‘The Establishment’ (That’s me being polite).
Maybe the type of people who would be aware that because a commission is titled ‘Lord Nimmo Smith’ it didn’t actually take place in the Court of Session. No, it was a rigged internal brotherly love meeting held at Hampdump.
Their findings were not passed into the statute book so to speak.
Lord Nimmo Smith will only remembered for one thing in his ‘illustrious’ career. What a shame for his family and descendants. I won’t break my heart. Unless he comes out and rights his wrongs. He might sleep better, although I doubt it. Dyed in the wool you see.
JIMBOMARCH 1, 2018 at 23:16
Jimbo , I’ve made four attempts so far to energise the BBC Trust to rectifying the erroneous stance of BBC Scotland on all things RFC/TRFC/RIFC and the blurring of lines . Everything is filtered down to -guess who ? – BBC Scotland , and you get the response you’d expect . Try it yourself, as I’ve suggested to others . There is always a long delay , well beyond their stated timescale for responses , with an accompanying apology . (If anybody has found things to be different I’d be glad to hear of their experience) . Then some person from BBC Scotland replies . On the same tack , I queried with Her Majesty’s Army the outrageous behaviour of their employees at Armed Forces Day at Ibrox three years ago . The first response denied any untoward behaviour or singing and gently questioned my loyalty to the Crown, given that it was a day of celebration . I then forwarded videos of the troops in action . A different officer responded and used the word “exuberance” in his reply . I responded by asking , since it was admitted that this behaviour was not the acceptable norm , what action had been taken and against how many . I still await a reply . They’re all the same , self-serving cowards . Once you know that , you know you’ve nothing to fear from them .
Strong drink has been imbibed prior to this nonsense .
HighlanderMarch 1, 2018 at 22:53
‘…..but which instead is based entirely on the BBC Trust’s 2013 policy decision to treat Rangers insolvency as having happened only to the company which operated the club, not the club itself, which was apparently sold to a new owner. ‘
___________
George Orwell and Lord Reith will be birling in their graves at the realisation that the BBC has reached such depths of ‘new speak’.
One has to assume that there is no honesty whatsoever behind that reply you received, Highlander, but a deep-seated contempt for what, as intelligent people, those in power in Pacific Quay know to be the truth.
And there is absolutely no excuse for them.
They simply have to be called out as liars of a more insidious and dangerous kind than even the guilty men in the SFA.
And drawing their pay from us, to boot, the bastar.s!
Fair play, Highlander, for keeping at the BBC. I find the BBC’s behaviour extraordinary. But together with everything else which has gone on, it’s downright alarming. Right from the beginning when the first minister attempted to intervene with HMRC on RFC(IL)’s behalf. The Scottish Parliament making a fool of itself over the behaviour at football legislation. The farce that was LNS. Lady Poon serving up two judges their dinner, but losing. The behaviour of Police Scotland re the Rangers take-over and their downright refusal to do anything about the bigotry on display every week. Their decision to stop publishing the instances of domestic abuse after ‘Old Firm’ matches. The media silence on negative Sevco stories and their printing of sheer lies. (I could go on about the revolving door between Ibrox and Hampden, referees, etc.. but I think most of us have long since realised that Scottish football is corrupt.) My point here goes way beyond football.
What power is at play here where so many of the establishment have been willing to throw their reputations away for the sake of a football club/company? If the Church of Scotland was going to be liquidated there wouldn’t be this amount of sleekit manoeuvring to try and save it. A multicultural Scotland? We haven’t even achieved a bicultural Scotland yet.
Paddy, I did indeed contact the BBC about it a couple of years ago, I reported on it on here. They have a bog standard (such an appropriate term) reply to everyone. They tweek it here and there to give the impression that they are addressing your complaint but the central message is always the same. As you and Highlander have experienced.
HIGHLANDERMARCH 1, 2018 at 22:53
Our intention in the Reporting Scotland script was to make clear the distinction between the business entity that previously ran Rangers and its successors, from the club on the field. However, on reflection, we should have used the term “liquidation of Rangers oldco,” or “liquidation of the company running Rangers” instead of “liquidation of its holding company”.
——————–
A reply back could have been.
While aspects of this finding may not entirely align with elements of my complaint, in future could you state the name of the company that was running rangers at the time that they had gone into liquidation.Or in future would you please name the business entity that previously ran rangers at the time rangers had gone into liquidation. If your Reporting Scotland script was to make clear the distinction between the business entity that previously ran Rangers and its successors, from the club on the field.The names of these business entity’s and the names of these company’s should be made clear to the Reporting Scotland listener.
Could you Andrew McCormick at the BBC Complaints Team now send me an amended reply with these details.For clarity you understand.
Your reply could really help to clarify matters.Not just for me but everyone else and even future Reporting Scotland scripts.
Kind regards
Dr. Heidi Poon. I’d forgotten about her. If ever there was a candidate to head up the SFA then it is her. It took 25 months for a three person panel to decide that EBTs were legal. A QC and a lawyer voted in favour of Rangers, Dr. Heidi Poon argued them silly. As it turned out at the Supreme Court, she was correct. She might not know football inside out like Regan – I jest – but she has more intelligence and integrity than anyone in the SFA at the moment.
Which brings me to another point. Nimmo Smith took it as read that at the time of his commission EBTs were legal. I know retrospect is a wonderful gift and he now looks foolish but was he not a bit hasty in taking that stance? It was not a done and settled issue, it was a work in progress, HMRC made that clear. He could even have looked over his shoulder at the outcome of the first batch of EBTs. But I’m afraid he was very well paid by the football authorities to come up with the outcome they wanted.
Imperfect/ irregular registrations were fine. Really? Never before or since.
JIMBOMARCH 2, 2018 at 09:40
Nimmo Smith took it as read that at the time of his commission EBTs were legal.
__________
Not quite, Jimbo. His lordship was acting under/within the parameters set by the SPL, and they had announced, beforehand, that that was how it would be. Just an example of how lacking in legal standing, even honesty, the result of the inquiry was. RFC’s only chance to get away with their cheating was for the BTC to go against HMRC. The game’s governors were aware of this, and also that the further down the line it went, the greater became the chance of an HMRC victory. Their only hope was an initial win for RFC and so made the result of the First Tribunal decisive for the inquiry.
Just trying to keep up with events in Scotland from the Far East. It’s about 33 degrees in Sai Gon this afternoon, I hope you are all safe & warm back home.
i read on Twitter that BBC Scotland has misreported NHS issues in Dundee in the adverse weather and that some people are hoping for an apology. It strikes me that this may well be another example of the “sickness” currently affecting BBC Scotland – utter arrogance and complete disregard for the truth seems to be a particular trait at present.
@JIMBOMARCH 1, 2018 at 23:16
============================
Long ago the BBC used to try to be unbiased – though an establishment bias was always there to an extent but it was such a big beast there were always a number of voices (in e.g. documentary programs) who gave alternative views.
Nowadays – and for quite some time now – these voices have mostly been extinguished and more worryingly the “establishment” point of view is not only openly promoted but it is a much more right wing and extreme establishment which is being promoted (see the likes of Nick Robinson and Andrew Neil) and often promoted dishonestly.
In view of this it’s hardly surprising that a sports program where journalism was never so pure should be happy to go along with and promote lies about what has been happening in our sport. I’m constantly surprised that people say they are surprised by this and seem to think BBC is unbiased.
AllyjamboMarch 2, 2018 at 10:05
‘….Their only hope was an initial win for RFC ..
__________________________
And the shallow and incompetent and far from truly professional approach of two of the members of the First Tier Tax Tribunal raised their hopes no end!
The estimable Dr Poon serves as a model of professional integrity and thoroughness in the teeth of opposition from men who seem not to have been all that hellish interested in going to any bother to get to grips with serious legal argument, appearing to assume it was something of an open and shut case, and with ill-concealed disdain (so it appears to me) paying no heed to Dr Poon’s legal and factual analysis.
Ally, thanks I stand corrected. My accusation should be pointed towards the SPL.
But it is a point I have spoken about on here previously. In a court of law can a judge only consider the evidence put in front of him/her? What if they know more? Probably EJ or JC might know. In the past I mentioned Judge John Deed who wouldn’t hesitate for a moment if he felt evidence was being withheld. I realise it’s only a TV drama but they usually go to great lengths to ensure the basis is in fact within current probabilities, in real life.
When it comes to an internal hearing by football authorities surely Nimmo Smith was well aware that he was being manouvered. The timescales of the EBTs for instance. The current status of EBTs. He was not sitting in a court of law. It stinks to high heavens. Was he really sitting there like a dummy with his hands tied behind his back?
jimbo March 2, 2018 at 11:15
But it is a point I have spoken about on here previously. In a court of law can a judge only consider the evidence put in front of him/her? What if they know more? Probably EJ or JC might know.
===========================
As far as CoS cases are concerned a Judge can only rule on the evidence (documents and oral) presented to him/her and the precedents set in similar cases. It is also for the judge to determine what weight he/she may place on any piece of evidence when coming to a decision. That’s purely an knowledge and experience issue.
Where they can also use their knowledge and experience is in their questions to counsel. That was amply demonstrated on Wednesday by Lord Glennie appearing to have a better grasp of both the law and the case in hand than the counsels on both sides.
You would expect a judge to have an exceptional knowledge of the law, but counsels should know the case better than the judge.
In cases involving a jury, they are explicitly told that they can only decide on the evidence presented to them, and that they should not rely on what they have seen, heard, or read about the circumstances of a case.
Thanks EJ that clears things up.
In fact I think it was through clever questioning that John Deed teased out what he wanted to hear. You would think human nature being what it is, that if a judge knew more about the case than what was he was being presented with, it might weigh heavily on his/her mind. Although they would rightly never admit that.
So what happened to Nimmo Smith and his 2 fellow QCs?
Were we just very unlucky with the appointees?
JIMBOMARCH 2, 2018 at 11:51
“So what happened to Nimmo Smith and his 2 fellow QCs?
Were we just very unlucky with the appointees?”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Jimbo, the SPL hierarchy achieved exactly what they set out to do, in complete disregard to any notion of honesty or sporting integrity. The commissioning could have gone something like this????
SPL; Ok Brother William, we want you to head up this commission, but want Rangers more or less cleared with only a slap on the wrist, for minor admin failures.
LNS; I’m sorry I cannot be party to a predetermined outcome in this way.
SPL; Don’t worry we’ve seen the Rangers defense and the SPL legal team are on board and will not make waves.
LNS; But what about the Tax Tribunal outcome?
SPL; Rest assured, two other Brothers are adjudicating and although we’ve brought in a tax expert to add weight to the decision, if they dissent with the Brothers they will be outvoted 2:1.
LNS; Ok count me in, here’s my bank details, we can go over the details later.
Only speculation of course……..
jimboMarch 2, 2018 at 11:15
“In a court of law can a judge only consider the evidence put in front of him/her?”
__________________
In our legal system, jimbo, a judge is not ‘investigating magistrate’ such as some European legal systems have.
That is, it is not his function to independently investigate the facts for himself.
In criminal trials, the prosecution presents its case and the evidence on which it is based, and the defence challenges that evidence as best it can.
In civil cases, if the parties are happy to agree the facts, the judge is not interested in checking whether any or all of the facts are ‘true’: he will simply apply the law to the facts presented.
Disagreement as to the facts is dealt with as much as possible by pre-hearing discussions under the direction of the judge.( There were lots of these ‘hearings’ seeking ‘direction’ in the course of ‘saga’-related business, before final hearing)
If there are still disagreements , the parties can produce witnesses, and cross-examine and so on. The judge will then have to decide which ‘evidence’ to accept.
( I think Lord Carloway, when he asked Mr Johnston the other day whether he would be happy to see NOAL described as ‘owning’ the share rather than merely ‘ having control’, was making sure that that fact , in so far as it might be different from what was previously recorded ,was agreed )
At the heart of our legal system is the understanding and belief and convention that Counsel will not tell deliberate untruths in Court, however much they try to use language to aid their clients’ case.
[No lawyers have been injured or harmed in any way in the composition of this post, which may be total bollocks, but is how I understand our system.]
(and I have just seen eJ’s post, with which I concur.