Is Stewart Regan, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Football Association a DIDDY?
Disingenuous: Incompetent: Dishonest: Duped? You decide.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Scottish Football Monitor sorority/fraternity jury, who want an honest game, honestly governed, are invited to pass judgement on Stewart Regan, the CEO of the SFA.
The main stream media are finally asking questions of Regan’s performance in that role, but based on a rather shallow (by comparison to what he has presided over) single issue of the recruitment of a national team coach, and not his character.
Maybe we can help the three monkeys media men (you know who they are) push for change at the SFA. How? By highlighting for them the appropriate response to Regan’s performance on the basis of what follows if he really is a DIDDY.
Disingenuous is defined as:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Evidence of such can be found in the written exchanges with the SFA that Celtic initiated on 27th July, and continued on 18 August, 21 August, 4th September and 7th September 2017; and published on the Celtic web site with SFA agreement at http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf
This from the SFA letter of 18th August 2017:
Comment: the statements are not alleged, they are a matter of court record and if untrue represent perjury.
…. And then this from subsequent SFA letter of 4th September 2017
Both paras give the impression that the SFA were unaware that Rangers had accepted the liability without question before 31st March 2011. Yet the SFA’s attention was drawn to this fact in July 2015 by lawyers acting on behalf of Celtic shareholders as follows:
- Our information in respect of this £2.8M in unpaid tax is that Rangers PLC had been alerted in November 2010 by HMRC that they would be pursuing payment of this exact sum.
- From that date onwards, the Directors of Rangers PLC should have known there was a potential liability to HMRC for back taxes specifically relating to payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer. These sums became an accepted liability in March 2011.
- Matters had been brought to a head on 23 February 2011 when HMRC presented Rangers with a written case for payment of back tax owed in respect of Flo and De Boer. As your department may well be aware, that case for payment involved hitherto undisclosed side letters which were found to be an adjunct to their declared and disclosed contracts of employment.
- Those contracts of employment were, of course, disclosed to the Scottish Football authorities (including the SFA) as part of the necessary compliance procedures followed by all clubs and demanded by both the SFA and UEFA.
- Additionally when replying to the initial enquiries by HMRC in 2005 regarding these alleged side letters and ancillary agreements, the then Group Tax Manager of Murray International Holdings (MIH) acting for Rangers PLC on tax matters, apparently advised HMRC that no such agreements or side letters existed.
- It ultimately proved that these representations to HMRC were completely untrue and without foundation. The tax Inspectors concerned in turn saw these false misrepresentations as being an attempt to simply hide the true financial position and an attempt to avoid paying the taxes which were lawfully due on the contracts of the players concerned.
- As mentioned earlier, Rangers PLC accepted liability on 21st March 2011 for unpaid tax having taken legal advice on the matter.
- In turn, HMRC then chose to formally pursue payment of the back taxes and penalties in relation to these two players, all in terms of HMRC’s debt recovery procedures under what is known as regulation 80.
- Prior to 31st March 2011, there was clear knowledge within Rangers Football Club of the liability to make payment for these back taxes and, as can be seen from the attached documentation, by 20th May 2011 HMRC had served formal assessments and demands on Rangers PLC for the sums concerned.
The impression given by Regan’s reply to Celtic is that the first time the SFA were aware there might be an issue on granting was in June 2017 as result of testimony at the Craig Whyte trial. This is clearly not the case and the only explanation that would clear Regan of being disingenuous is a that he was incompetent as in not knowing what the SFA already had in their possession, however a bit more on being disingenuous before looking at incompetency.
The above extract of the exchange of 4th September where Regan mentions Celtic being satisfied on the UEFA Licence 2011 issue was challenged by Celtic on 7th September 2017 as follows:
“on the matter of the Licensing Decision in 2011 it is not accurate to describe Celtic as having been “satisfied” at any stage. Like everyone else we were in a position of responding on the basis of information available to us. In correspondence, Celtic raised continuing concerns as did a number of Celtic shareholders.”
In dealing with the Celtic shareholders the SFA and Regan appeared keen to welcome from the early days of correspondence that only the process after granting i.e. the monitoring phase of June and September was being questioned and not the granting itself. That was the case initially but as new information emerged in respect of what UEFA judged to be an overdue payable, upheld by the Court of Arbitration on Sport in 2013, focus swung back in 2016 to the significance of what the SFA had been told by the Res 12 lawyer in July 2015. However the emphasis the SFA put on shareholders accepting the grant was in order was puzzling at the time. The suspicion since is that the SFA did not want the circumstances around the granting investigated and the SFA and Regan were being disingenuous in their attempts to keep that aspect under wraps. especially when their defence of not acting as required in 2011 was based around when the SFA responsibilities on granting ended and UEFA’s on monitoring began. (for more on that read the Incompetence charge)
In response to a separate point in Regan’s letter of 18th August about the QC advice on there not being a rule in place at the time to use to sanction Rangers or the limited sanctions available to a Judicial Panel, Peter Lawwell responded on 21st August to Regan’s disingenuousness as follows:
” In your letter you refer to advice from Senior Counsel that;
‘there was very little chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any compliant regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would be very limited in their scope.’
As I said in my last letter Celtic considers that this misses the point. The fact that disciplinary sanctions may not be secured is in our view not a reason for Scottish football to ignore the opportunity to review and possibly learn lessons from the events in question.”
Although they didn’t refer to it in that reply of 21st August, Celtic could have pointed out the following catch all rule in existence in 2011 (and presumably earlier) under Article 5 in SFA handbook.
5. Obligations and duties of Members (where all members shall)
5.1 Observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play.
This Article could have been used to demonstrate sporting dishonesty by Rangers FC. However by recognising this Regan would be on a collision course with an issue that he wanted to avoid at all costs;
whom to sanction? Rangers FC? The Rangers FC? Those currently at The Rangers FC who were officials or on the Board of Rangers FC in 2011?
Consequently, the SFA chose to hide behind QC advice – but to protect whom? Not the integrity of the game. Here is a suggestion to restore it:
That the Rangers FC admit that the trophies won in the EBT years were won as a result of clear wrongdoing (the wrongdoing Regan was so desperate to say never occurred – see later), and that The Rangers give them up. Surrendering them is not being defeated, it is simply the right thing to do for the game AND for Rangers to restore some integrity to themselves.
If they want to lay claim to their history, lay claim to all of it, just be honourable and act with dignity and we can all move on.
In summary then, Regan is being disingenuous by pretending to know a lot less than he does – and on that note the case of disingenuousness ends.
Incompetence: is defined as;
lack of ability to do something successfully or as it should be done:
Whilst a CEO would not be expected to know the minutiae of any process, he would be expected to seek such information before going public to defend the SFA’s position.
On 23 October 2013, Stewart Regan had an interview with Richard Gordon on BBC Sportsound. Excerpts from it can be heard at http://www.bbc.com/sport/scotland/24685973 . Interestingly or strangely, the following excerpt regarding the lines of responsibility between the SFA and UEFA fell on the BBC cutting room floor.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing
In it Regan is saying that the 31st March is a key date and AFTER that date, the SFA having granted the licence on evidence provided to the SFA (now under Compliance Officer investigation) have no more responsibility in the matter. Richard Gordon asks Regan to confirm that after 31st March there is no other course of action the SFA could have taken. To which Regan answers “Correct”.
This understanding however does not stand up when compared to the information supplied to the Res 12 Lawyer on 8th June 2016 by Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing and so ultimate authority on the matter.
That letter (more famous for its new club/company designation of the current incumbents at Ibrox), confirmed that the UEFA Licence was not granted until the 19th April 2011, so Regan was wrong on his dates, but even more significantly UEFA stated that the list of clubs granted a licence was not submitted to them until 26th May 2011.
This raises the obvious question (though not so obviously to Regan);
” how can UEFA start monitoring until they know who to monitor?”
More significantly, and one for the SFA Compliance chap to consider, should the licence have been granted, irrespective of what “evidence” the SFA Licensing Committee acted on in March 2011 , when it was obvious from a HMRC Letter of 20th May 2011 to Rangers, that HMRC were pursuing payment of a tax liability which could no longer by dint of being pursued, be described as “potential” which was the justification for granting at 31st March/19th April?
Here ends the case of incompetence.
Dishonesty;
lack of honesty or integrity: defined as disposition to defraud or deceive.
The line between incompetence and dishonesty is a thin one and so difficult to judge, however some discernment is possible from observation over time.
On 29 March 2012 Stewart Regan was interviewed by Alex Thomson of Channel Four news, a transcript of which with comments can be found on a previous SFM blog of 8th March 2015 at
https://www.sfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/
It is a long article, but two points emerge from it.
Stewart Regan bases his defence of SFA inaction on the fact that at the time of the interview no wrongdoing had occurred . Regan emphasises this rather a lot. Had he been an honest man, he would have confessed that this defence fell when the Supreme Court ruled that wrong doing in respect of Rangers’ use of EBTs had occurred.
This extract from Regan’s letter of 4th September 2017 beggars belief in light of his position on wrongdoing during interview with Alex Thomson.
” The reality is that the final decision in “The Big Tax Case” signalled closure for many involved in the game. It is hard to believe that a “wide review” no matter how well intentioned and how wide ranging could ever bring closure in the minds of every Scottish football fan and stakeholder.”
How on earth did the Supreme Court decision signal closure to Regan given his emphasis on no wrong doing?
Had Regan (in response to Celtic in August and September 2017) acknowledged that wrongdoing had taken place, then that at least would have been honest, but the defence of not acting was on the grounds that admitting dishonesty would be raking over old coals. An honest man would have accepted that the situation had changed, and some form of enquiry was necessary, but instead Regan fell back on unpublished advice from a QC.
The second point is a new one. Regan was asked by Alex Thomson in March 2012
AT: But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR: Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT: I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR: No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT: Never?
At time of interview in March 2012 this was true but 2 months later on 25th May 2012 the issue of a Judicial review WAS raised by Celtic
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/celtic-still-pressing-sfa-for-inquiry-8p25q8wbb
for the same reasons that Regan had ignored in 2011 as the LNS Commissioning proceeded apace and Regan continued to ignore in the 2017 correspondence. An honest man would have recognised that his truth to Thomson in March was no longer true in May 2012 and acted. He didn’t.
These do not appear to be acts of an honest man, rather they appear to represent the behaviour of a man who is being dishonest with himself; although perhaps Regan was simply duped?
Duped is defined as;
“ If a person dupes you, they trick you into doing something or into believing something which is not true.”
In his e mail of 7th December to Ali Russell, then Rangers CEO , after a discussion on the 6th December 2011 with Andrew Dickson, Rangers Football Administrator and SFA License Committee member in 2011, Regan set out the basis on which the SFA granted a UEFA License in 2011.
This was a letter from Ranger’s auditors Grant Thornton describing the wee tax liability of £2.8m as a potential one with the implication that it was subject to dispute, an implication carried into the Interim Accounts of 1st April 2011 signed by Rangers FC Chairman Alistair Johnson.
The true status of the liability and the veracity of statements made that justified the UEFA License being granted are under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer.
However Regan’s belief that the liability was disputed and therefore hadn’t crystalized, is supported more or less by his Tweets at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9NG5CNXcwLW9RZjQ/view?usp=sharing
The case that Regan was duped is a plausible one, at least up to 2015, but I would contend that the SFA responses to Res 12 lawyers after July 2015 suggest that whilst the SFA may have been duped initially, they subsequently appeared more concerned with keeping events beyond public scrutiny (like the effect on the licence issue of HMRC sending in Sheriff’s Officers to collect a £2.8m tax liability in August 2011).
At this point, based on the foregoing –
You the SFM jury are asked to decide: Is Stewart Regan a DIDDY?
Copy paste this link for GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejizOV-IQEM
And this for NOT GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwXGdgFZmNk
The Sin of Omission by Margaret Sangster ends:
And it’s not the things you do, dear,
It’s the things you leave undone,
Which gives you a bit of heartache
At the setting of the sun.
Homunculus,
Good example to use. The problem is not the cunning sherriff (holding the aces) its the mayor, dignitaries and enthralled crowd accepting that “he’s not bluffing and he’s just mad enough to do it.”
They would be better adopting Mark twains lead and running the duke and dauphin out of town.
SMUGASFEBRUARY 7, 2018 at 15:50
5
1 Rate This
Homunculus
OK, so to call his bluff they have to crash the bus. A/ they don’t want to do that for hopefully obvious reasons if they can find an alternative.
————-
The alternative being sit and wait on King and his apparent, impending ‘cold shoulder’… Then it was king who crashed the bus
Allyjambo
February 7, 2018 at 16:34
===========================
I’m sorry but I simply don’t follow the logic, or see the evidence to support it.
King bought shares in the company, around 15%, give or take. So that is money he would have spent. He has also, albeit through NOAL provided £6.7m in loans. Cruicially he has promised a further £7.2m in loans, which if he does not provide the fans will know about it.
So if the whole thing crashes then he is as out of pocket as anyone else, and potentially left being blamed for it because he broke his promise.
With all the news of the cardigan for the scotland job. Has anyone from the SMSM thought to ask him if he wants it? after all he does not stay in China.
Now that “Walter” knows the score will he have Ally negotiate his contract if he “walter” takes the job?
————
The trial heard that when Rangers legend Ally McCoist became the club’s assistant manager under Walter Smith, there was a penalty clause put into his contract that said if he did not become manager when Smith left, the club was going to have to pay him an “enormous” amount of money. Smith, McCoist’s long-term mentor, only seemed to learn the full extent of the deal when he was given details in the witness box. He told defence lawyer Donald Findlay QC: “Mr McCoist obviously negotiates his own contracts, so he’s possibly a bit brighter than I am.”
Came across this on the BBC Shortbread Sports Site.
It sums up the fact that the SPFL are just as out of touch with the fans as the SFA.
Its a wee reaction to the SPFL stipulated timing (after 5pm on a Sunday) for the Inverness Caley Thistle home semi-final on Sunday versus Crusaders from Northern Ireland.
It should be a big and profitable occasion for both clubs.
Sadly not with the incompetence of the SPFL who seem to forget that the fans are the real stakeholders.
I’m glad the ICT chairman Graham Rae is speaking out.
More power to his elbow.
“Inverness Caledonian Thistle claim that scheduling their Irn Bru Cup semi-final on a Sunday evening has ended hopes of a money-spinning occasion.
The Scottish Championship club will host Northern Irish side Crusaders on 18 February, with a 17:15 GMT kick-off, and the match is live on BBC Alba.
“The kick-off time makes it extremely difficult for the club to market a semi-final that would normally attract significant interest,” chairman Graham Rae said in an open letter to the Scottish Professional Football League.
“An evening kick-off on a Sunday in the Highlands may suit BBC Alba, but it certainly does not suit the supporters of either club.
“Given the challenges facing life in the Championship, the arrangements for this cup competition have been less than satisfactory.”
The Sun is reporting that Rangers has obtained a banking facility with Close Brothers. I wonder what the terms of any lending will be.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/2189539/rangers-banking-facility-dave-king/amp/
EASYJAMBO
FEBRUARY 7, 2018 at 19:04
The Sun is reporting that Rangers has obtained a banking facility with Close Brothers. I wonder what the terms of any lending will be.https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/2189539/rangers-banking-facility-dave-king/amp/
…
======================================
Hmm…
Securitised future ST sales ?
Here’s one of the services that Close Brothers offer ……. Invoice financing.
https://www.closeinvoice.co.uk/
Let’s think …….. we have an £8m player that we will be selling in the summer. How much will you give me now against that income?
HomunculusFebruary 7, 2018 at 17:05
AllyjamboFebruary 7, 2018 at 16:34===========================I’m sorry but I simply don’t follow the logic, or see the evidence to support it.King bought shares in the company, around 15%, give or take. So that is money he would have spent. He has also, albeit through NOAL provided £6.7m in loans. Cruicially he has promised a further £7.2m in loans, which if he does not provide the fans will know about it.So if the whole thing crashes then he is as out of pocket as anyone else, and potentially left being blamed for it because he broke his promise.
______________
My reasoning is that King is a convicted criminal, a man who would fool old ladies to make himself a buck, while the rest, if not necessarily ethical, I doubt very much have the criminal mind of a King to either be in it only for themselves, or to even spot what King was/is up to. We also suspect that King has money in various tax havens that he will have difficulty moving to wherever it is (Britain?) he would like it to be. If King has ‘invested’, say, £5m in RIFC/TRFC and, if it all goes t*ts up, but he get half of that back, he will be quite happy. It’s called money laundering, and that’s one of the ways it works.
For the record, I am not suggesting King is involved in money laundering, just that that is one way he might benefit from what he’s done at TRFC. He is believed, by the South African authorities, though, to have moved money out of the country, so certain were they that he had, as part of the deal that kept him out of jail, an order imposed on him to repatriate all of that money.Moving money out of a country, against it’s Foreign Exchange laws, is very similar to money laundering, the difference being that the lawbreaker usually keeps the full value of his illicit squirrelling.
As lenders, those who have been keeping the lights on will be entitled to a share in any CVA, or winding up proceeds. The rest of the board will, no doubt, have used ‘clean’ money and so everything they lose is lost money to them, while King may well then have funds in the UK he might never have managed otherwise.
However, I am sure that is not the only way a man living on the edge, and sometimes crossing it, of legality might benefit from the administration or collapse of TRFC, or any other company.
Robertson is adamant the club is on sound financial footing and says they didn’t wish to sell their leading goalscorer because progress is being made on the park. He told the Scottish Sun: “There were all the rumours in January that the club was going into administration and it was nonsense. The investor base is there. We have fantastic financial support. A decent example of that came with the Morelos bids being rejected.
“Some folk raised eyebrows at that, but that’s a sign that we’re trying to grow something and take the club forward. We want to compete year on year at the top of the game again. “We’re not saying we won’t sell him eventually because we do recognise recycling players in the player-trading model is a key part of the business plan going forward. But we’ll do that when it’s on our terms rather than on the terms of a potential buyer.”
———–
The Sun is reporting that Rangers has obtained a banking facility with Close Brothers. I wonder what the terms of any lending will be
————–
Now we may know why Mr Robertson is adamant the club is on sound financial footing.
————–
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 7, 2018 at 19:16
1
0 Rate This
Here’s one of the services that Close Brothers offer ……. Invoice financing.
https://www.closeinvoice.co.uk/
Let’s think …….. we have an £8m player that we will be selling in the summer. How much will you give me now against that income?
————–
“We’re not saying we won’t sell him eventually because we do recognise recycling players in the player-trading model is a key part of the business plan going forward.
I know it’s only trust pilot but 1 star? Who are these guys?
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.closebrothers.com
The Evening times article has Stewart Robertson describing it as a working capital facility.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/15945567.Positive_financial_steps_show_a_sense_of_normality_is_returning_to_Rangers__says_Stewart_Robertson/
Some sources are suggesting that up to £3m is available.
easyJamboFebruary 7, 2018 at 19:16
Here’s one of the services that Close Brothers offer ……. Invoice financing.https://www.closeinvoice.co.uk/Let’s think …….. we have an £8m player that we will be selling in the summer. How much will you give me now against that income?
__________________
So another loan, though it won’t show in the interim balance sheet submitted to the SFA along with the Euro Licence application, but will probably have to be included in the notes. I wouldn’t be surprised, if Morelos is the ‘security’, that the proportion of the £7.5m fantasy lent is no more than 25%, with an interest rate commensurate with a company achieving it’s first ever credit facility.
It may just be a coincidence, but this first ever credit facility, hot on the heals of the Morelos hype, is surely connected, and, for the first time since the 3bears and King arrived at Ibrox, substantial debit interest will appear in the P&L accounts at year’s end.
A question every hack, and every bear with a brain, should be asking is, where’s the interest free loany King promised in the accounts, published in November?
realshocks February 7, 2018 at 19:41
I know it’s only trust pilot but 1 star? Who are these guys? https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.closebrothers.com
=======================
I’m pretty sure that one of the Close Brothers companies did the lease for the catering equipment for the Oldco and had a security over some assets as a result.
But we’ll do that when it’s on our terms rather than on the terms of a potential buyer.”
———–
Our term could read as, we need to sell to pay close brothers
Oops! Mr Robertson announces that TRFC is in such good financial health that it can turn down an offer of £7.5m for one player. Then it is announced that they have secured borrowing facilities for working capital of, possibly, £3m. Unless the new credit facility is for capital expenditure, and it appears it’s actually for working capital, then it is safe to say TRFC are not in good financial health, and it’s getting worse!
These two statements do not go hand in hand with each other, nor, indeed, with honesty!
A check on the Creditor Reports of the Oldco confirm Close Leasing as providing the funds for the refurbishment of the fast food outlets. The lease payments were secured on the specific assets acquired.
Although Close isn’t named in the Newco accounts, it looks like these leases were continued by the Newco, but appear to have been paid off in 2016/17.
So, basically TRFC have secured enough money, through their new “banking” facility, to last out until the season ticket money comes in?
It doesn’t do anything, to alleviate the immediate concern warning, in the accounts, in fact, it adds further to it, as they will pay fees to Close Brothers, and it also doesn’t get them out of the FFS potential issue, for involvement, in European Football, next season, should they qualify?
It doesn’t removed the potential albatross, of the cold shoulder of Dave King, and all the ramifications that this will involve?
So, essentially nothing fundamental has changed. They are still spending way beyond their ability, they owe tens of millions in soft loans to “investors”, they have a large black hole in the accounts, and a host of players on rent, who will return to their parent clubs, because they can’t afford to sign them?
As you were……
Is it a wild guess to think that Close Brothers fees will be somewhere between exorbitant and prohibitive? Under the circumstances I think not. This seems like a quite major development to me. They must be really desperate.
The overdraft will be secured against Edmiston House and the Albion car park
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chiefs-rubbish-cash-strapped-11987995.amp?__twitter_impression=true
———-
The last person to hold that security was mike Ashley.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-mike-ashley-deal-really-5051682
Anyone got any idea what the interest levels will be from Close Brothers compared to Corporate financing from a High Street Bank?
easyJamboFebruary 7, 2018 at 19:16
‘..Here’s one of the services that Close Brothers offer ……. Invoice financing.’
___________________
Invoice financing= payday loans?
I haven’t for years thought of 3 brass balls and ‘Uncle’.
But the pledge won’t be the da’s best suit , but some charge over some valuable asset.
As another poster remarks, this is desperation stages.
And I wonder whether Close Bros Ltd knows that the Chairman of the holding company of TRFC Ltd is the first director ever to be taken to a court of law by the Panel on Takeovers and mergers?
If so, they’re very generous in offering any kind of finance to TRFC Ltd. Either that or their expected return one way or another must be astronomical!
If they don’t know?
Two paragraphs from the DR piece that show just how prepared that rag is to hide the truth about TRFC and KIng, making the TOP situation out to be something that will be ‘resolved’ by ‘talks’. Interesting, though, that they say it will need to be resolved before any share issue. Just a minor problem, I suppose.
‘King is currently in talks with the Takeover Panel after they ordered him to make an offer of 20 pence a share after he was found to have acted in concert with the Three Bears when seizing control of the club three years ago.
King appealed the decision by the Court of Session and that issue needs to be resolved before Rangers can offer a new shares issue.’
Ashley’s £2million interest-free loan.
The terms of his loan now gives him security over the Albion Car Park and Edmiston House facilities on the doorstep of Ibrox.
It will give Rangers some much-needed breathing space following rumours the club were due to run out of cash on Tuesday
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2809150/Mike-Ashley-s-2m-loan-accepted-Rangers-board-Graham-Wallace-resigning-chief-executive.html
———-
Will the close brothers be giving an interest-free loan.? If not are they worse off than they were when Ashley provided an interest-free loan.
John ClarkFebruary 7, 2018 at 20:48
easyJamboFebruary 7, 2018 at 19:16‘..Here’s one of the services that Close Brothers offer ……. Invoice financing.’___________________Invoice financing= payday loans?I haven’t for years thought of 3 brass balls and ‘Uncle’.But the pledge won’t be the da’s best suit , but some charge over some valuable asset.As another poster remarks, this is desperation stages. And I wonder whether Close Bros Ltd knows that the Chairman of the holding company of TRFC Ltd is the first director ever to be taken to a court of law by the Panel on Takeovers and mergers?If so, they’re very generous in offering any kind of finance to TRFC Ltd. Either that or their expected return one way or another must be astronomical!If they don’t know?
____________________
They have, reportedly, taken heritable security, John, anything that is coming down the pike won’t hurt them!
I love this from Robertson:
“Close Brothers would not have come to us if they thought there were still issues with the club in any shape or form… ”
I would suggest that if they took the initiative it is precisely because they know there are issues, and they could be on a right good thing when TRFC LTD defaults.
Just as quickly as they would re-possess a car that they had loaned the purchase money to some punter who defaults!
It would seem that the corpulent PR guru has briefed the rags and in a co-ordinated move that Field Marshall Rommel would have been proud of we have the big announcement from Ibrox this evening of
(a) the finances at TRFC being sound footing
(b) an overdraft facility now in place
The Daily Record tells us that, “The overdraft will be secured against Edmiston House and the Albion car park and is in addition to the £7 million King promised auditors he’d underwrite for any losses in the current financial year.”
I was under the impression that the car park had to be available on match days to meet Glasgow Council planning regulations. Should Close Brothers call in their chips on it then this would greatly reduce the crowd numbers at a stroke and consequently the club’s income. Wasn’t Edmiston House suspected of having asbestos problems a couple of years ago and was only fit for demolition? Both the building and the car park would have to have a current value well in excess of the ‘just under’ £3m overdraft figure that Close Brothers have agreed to take as security. Surely King isn’t pulling a fast one with smart operators like Close Brothers?
The Daily Record tells us that: ‘The facility will be used to bolster the club’s finances at a time of the year when clubs are traditionally stretched and it also comes ahead of the start next week of a £3 million refurb of the Ibrox fabric.’ If the distressed loan – oops, I mean overdraft is for less than £3m how can that bolster the club’s finances AND pay for roof refurbishment work? I am assuming that King’s £7m will go elsewhere towards keeping the ship afloat. The hacks seem to be happily copying & pasting the guff without so much as asking Jabba to explain himself as to the nonsense of his ‘press release’.
It also states in the Record that ‘King is currently in talks with the Takeover Panel after they ordered him to make an offer of 20 pence a share after he was found to have acted in concert with the Three Bears when seizing control of the club three years ago’. Why would The Takeover Panel be in any type of discussion with King while the court hearing is pending?
I wonder if Close Brothers have a side letter in their filing cabinet assuring them that they will have first dibs on the expected season ticket cash. I just can’t see these sharp payday moneylenders opting to settle on a worthless piece of real estate in G51 as collateral.
REALSHOCKS@19.41
No surprise to me that folk are hammering Close Bros in your link. I’ve had the dubious pleasure of dealing with this lot who tried to con me out of money. I’ll never go near them again, even as a last resort!
If the new facility is in addition to the NOAL guarantee, then why do they need more cash now?
Have they incurred additional and unbudgeted expenditure?
“Some folk take pleasure in winding us up because we don’t have a bank facility SR.
Are close brothers a bank facility or a loan company?
The loan from Easdale is for £500,000. Both are secured against Edmiston House and the Albion car park. This was also an interest-free loan.i believe.
Billy BoyceFebruary 7, 2018 at 21:18
“….Why would The Takeover Panel be in any type of discussion with King while the court hearing is pending?…”
______________________
Exactly what I was thinking. So I have asked them, as follows:
“ToSupport Group Today at 22:17
“Dear support group
The ‘Daily Record” online ( at this link https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chiefs-rubbish-cash-strapped-11987995 )
reports today that
“King is currently in talks with the Takeover Panel after they ordered him to make an offer of 20 pence a share after he was found to have acted in concert with the Three Bears when seizing control of the club three years ago.”
Can this be true?
The rest of the report is about Close Brothers Ltd making some arrangement with the “The Rangers Football Club Ltd”.
Dave King , of course, is the Chairman of the holding company of that club, viz.,Rangers International Football Club plc.
It is in that capacity he was deemed to be the lead in a ‘concert party’ and that the Takeover Panel took him to Court , to seek enforcement of the Takeover Appeal Board’s determination that he should make an ‘offer’ etc.
The Court, as you know, made an order such as to secure King’s compliance.
He appealed against that judgment.
His appeal against that decision of the Court is not scheduled to be heard until 28th of this month.
Has he withdrawn his appeal?
If he has not withdrawn, what kind of talks can he be having? What would be the purpose of them?
If the ‘Daily Record’ is speaking truthfully, this whole matter is turning into something of a farce, where the Takeover Panel is left with egg on its face, its disciplinary measures being openly scorned.
Yours sincerely, in puzzlement,
JC
Close Brothers have certainly been in this saga before, and I thought it was by way of more than a catering contract, although this may have been one of the “onerous contracts” from Green’s time. I don’t have the archive that other posters on here have, but it would be worth a quick look.
Whatever their history in this, they are not naive about TRFC / RIFC and there will be a pound of flesh involved somewhere, with a better contract than the Venetian one.
A further £2.6 million was spent purchasing Albion Car Park and Edmiston House.
https://www.investegate.co.uk/rangers-int-f-c–plc–rfc-/rns/business-review-and-strategic-plan-update/201404251100045425F/
I don’t know how the bears will take the news of this new borrowing facility, I’m sure some will not like the idea that heritable security has been given, but I do wonder how much worse they’d take it if they hadn’t had the feelgood factor of the Morelos story to boost morale in the weeks leading up to this announcement!
They’ve got a player worth £7.5m, so having to borrow up to £3m is no biggy!
This borrowing facility won’t have just happened overnight, it will have been being negotiated for perhaps months, with RIFC first trying to borrow without security, I am sure. I also suspect that the timing is no coincidence either, and, even if the facility was agreed a while ago, it was probably there to cover the lack of very necessary player sales during the transfer window.
Whichever way you look at it, their borrowing is going up, and their annual accounts are going to look even worse than before.
My best guess would be Refinancing, Sale and Asset Back.
https://www.closeassetfinance.co.uk/asset-finance#undefined2
Where have I heard this before? What was that about the car park, Edmiston House, Ibrox, Murray Park?
This is entirely uninformed speculation of course.
easyJamboFebruary 7, 2018 at 21:23
‘..Have they incurred additional and unbudgeted expenditure?.’
______________
Not directly on your question, eJ, on the Close Bros Ltd’s website, there is a wee ‘find out how much you can raise as invoice financing etc.
The amount seems to be related to ‘turnover’ in companies within a broad spectrum of specified industries and specified industrial.
The example shown is on a turnover of £250 000. What you might het is £56.500.
Just for fun, I calculated ( on a bit of paper) how much a turnover of £30M (Robertson’s figure would get ( a whole lot of assumptions being made, of course) and that figure was £6.75M.
If they asked for that and only got something south of £3M, it might say something of Close Bros view of the £30M turnover and/or the value of the assets pledged.
Or they may only have asked for what they got, to meet an unforeseen contingency.
Or maybe they twigged that King wasn’t good for £7M, and naively thought they would get £6.75M from Close bros.
It’s amazing what fun one can have with idle speculation on the significance of the sum of £7M (or thereabouts).
I’ve enjoyed myself immensely.
some of the fans aint happy
If we take it for granted that Close Brothers know exactly the position RIFC/TRFC are in, then we can take it for granted that RIFC/TRFC have a very attractive deal in place, for Close Brothers!
It is normal in finance for a secured loan to attract a lower rate of interest than an unsecured one, but at the bottom end of the market, where RIFC/TRFC undoubtedly are, granting security will most likely be the only way they are getting the facility, and the interest rate will reflect that.
Not only does this facility mean that the club’s borrowings have increased, their outgoings have, too, by way of debit interest. At some point in the near future they have to start bringing in more money than they pay out, this loan won’t help in that respect.
ALLYJAMBO
oh they know alright
ALLYJAMBO
meant to add this
tony February 7, 2018 at 23:23 some of the fans aint happy
———————————
But many are and welcome the latest moonbeams from 150 Edmiston Drive. As expected the comments from the Ibrox fans display total lack knowledge of the dire situation that their club is in. A jubilant Bilkobear writes:
“Dave King and the Board of Rangers Football Club returning the patient back to full health with care, love and prudent attention.”
In a James Dolan tweet earlier this evening he posted this link
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.closebrothers.com
which contains the reactions of many unhappy customers of the said Close Brothers. Every recent post on Trust Pilot gives them 1 out of 5 stars, with some complaining they deserve no stars at all. Lo and behold, along comes a delighted customer called Dutch within the last few hours to extol the virtues of this financial benefactor (attached). I doubt Mr Dutch is a genuine customer of Close Brothers. I suspect he just wants to share his feelgood factor with the nation, hence his award of five stars. Although he comes from Paisley he might not necessarily be a Buddie.
Based on the information in the DR I calculate the loans at 30 June 2018 to be as follows
Accounts to 28 June 2017 £16.9M
NOAL (DCK) £ 4.0M
Close Brothers <£ 3.0M
Total circa £23.9M
Well, to be fair, the RIFC/TRFC somehow keeps sourcing cash and manages to limp along – much to the Bampots’ bewilderment.
But, if I have this right the involvement of Close Bros. could have unintended consequences.
As JC mentioned above this finance company will have screwed the Ibrox company with onerous terms.
And I believe they are now the only loan provider who does not have any emotional attachment to TRFC. [?]
They are not RRM.
They are only involved for the money and the high returns.
Could turn out to be a massive O.G. ?
How will any financial link with Close Brothers be affected by an implemented cold shoulder from the TOP?
As I keep saying, despite talk of Administration being just around the corner, the Ibrox club finds ways to just keep rollin along.
However I agree with Steviebc above that being in hoc to outsiders could potentially present a major problem down the line. (or at the very least another visit to the courts?)
My question would be where exactly is any monies from Close Brothers being spent?
Will the spend be of a nature that helps generate future additional income?
Or have the roofs and other building fabrics just got to the point where spend on repairs are unavoidable?
A memorial garden is a worthy project but is it something the club can afford st this time?
Any use of the monies as a stop gap to simply keep the lights on is a real red flag issue.
FinlochFebruary 8, 2018 at 08:16’…How will any financial link with Close Brothers be affected by an implemented cold shoulder..?’
______________________
In so far as King is not a director of TRFC Ltd, the argument would be that what he does is irrelevant, and directors of another company cannot be made to carry the can for what he has done.
In my email to TOP, I mention King’s role as Chairman of the holding company. I was trying to suggest , that since the holding company has ultimate control then it must surely follow that anything done by the TRFC Ltd board is, ultimately done by him.
And if the cold shoulder is applied to King (when he loses his appeal) then Close Bros should be cold shouldered as well.
I don’t suppose I’ll get a response of any kind, though.
StevieBC
The red flag issue for me is simply the fact that, unlike RRM softies at some point a commercial bank will want repaid!
Even if they’re providing a commercial overdraft that is fully fluctuating on the back of the season ticket sales if sevco continue to operate at a significant cash loss then they’re simply kicking the can and robbing peter to pay paul. And, as AJ said, I can’t imagine they’re doing it cheaply, a cost they didn’t have previously.
But of course they might get Europe! What could possibly go wrong…
Spare a thought for the local suppliers/creditors. What do they do now? Should they impose a credit hold pending payment of any outstanding invoices and pursue a policy of cash on delivery now that they look to be heading to the back of the queue (again)?
oddjobFebruary 8, 2018 at 10:28
It’s not just the local creditors and suppliers who’ve got cause for concern with this deal, the 3bears have just seen their potential loss, in the event of liquidation, suddenly increase. Even in the event of an administration that achieves a CVA, Close brothers will have to be repaid in full, and no doubt the security will include accrued interest, so, either, the ‘rescuer’ will have to cough up the quantum of the CVA, plus Close Brothers’ outstanding debt, or forego ownership of Edmiston House and the iconic carpark, which could bring problems on match days, and certainly the loss of carpark revenue.
Re my previous post. When I said the 3bears had cause for concern over this secured lending facility, I should, of course, have said all of the current lenders (and creditors) will have cause for concern!
Gary Ralston in the DR quoting Stewart Robertson:
“As trite as it sounds, the money is almost incidental. it’s about someone having belief in the club and the way it is being run as we move forward and normalise operations.”
If the money isn’t that important, why are you asking for it? Is it for a backstop? Has something occurred to other promised funds?
“Dave and the other investors remain firmly behind the club. The contingency is still there if we need money for a particular project or to head into the transfer market in the summer.”
This contingency; is that DCK/NOAL’s £6/7m? Are you not getting access to that promised funding at this time? Is it preferable to pay a high rate of interest to Close Bros. rather than ‘mates’ rates’ from DCK/NOAL/T3Bs?
“We need to get to the position we’re a self sustaining football club. That has always been the target. We can’t keep going back to the well.”
You just have.
“It’s general working capital, because finances are stronger in the summer when season ticket and SPFL money comes in.”
Consider that. It’s money to keep the lights on.
So many questions…
JINGSO.JIMSIEFEBRUARY 8, 2018 at 11:44
“It’s general working capital, because finances are stronger in the summer when season ticket and SPFL money comes in.”
————–
It looks as if most of that ST money will be gone to pay off loans and the first tranche of transfer fees.
So what keeps the light on next season? more loans?
what if the fans don’t keep up the 40,000 ST?
What if no european football?
What if no big player sale’s
What if no run in the cups?
They are Teetering on a Knife-Edge, in the hope everything falls into place
AllyjamboFebruary 8, 2018 at 11:26
Re my previous post. When I said the 3bears had cause for concern over this secured lending facility, I should, of course, have said all of the current lenders (and creditors) will have cause for concern!
———————————————
Hi Guys.
Not been on for a while.Tried a couple of times but couldn’t sign on.All seems well now.
Just a thought.
Accounts to 28 June 2017 £16.90M(bet the bears love this!). NOAL (DCK) £ 4.0M Close Brothers <£ 3.0M Total circa £23.9M
I may be wrong but has Phil not reported that the promised £4m from NOAL was not received?.
Even if it was,there are debts we can’t quantify outstanding,WiFi,Orlit etc.
Just musing that £3m borrowed from a commercial lender,plus other outstanding creditors,not RRM,puts quite a dent in the 25% figure which could,in theory block a CVA.Not quite at that yet but if Kings £4m was not paid then Close plus unknown creditors can’t be far away from holding that power.
Hypothetical at the moment but maybe something to keep an eye on.
You have to ask yourself, Why the need of an overdraft that will be secured against Edmiston House and the Albion car park?
What will be the value of the club 1872 shares should this venture go wrong. Why would you keep giving £18.72 a month to have a voice when clearly you do not.
£8million or a £3million loan deal against assets and you say nothing , pull the other one.
The securitisation of some of the tangible assets to non shareholders (if that is what has really happened) is a potential game changer.
(I can’t understand why wealthy shareholders or rich RRM did not get and sign up to this copper-bottomed and risk-free option)
If the business defaults then faceless bankers will be in possession of some of the family silver and it will simply be sold on to the best bidder.
I’d like to know made the decision to get into bed with Close and why.
Close are not Football men let alone Real Rangers Men.And this is a board decision not a CEO move.
I’d guess that whoever signed it off it came from desperation and a kind of very stark Hobson’s Choice being almost certainly this troubled club’s only option to keep the lights on and pay the wages due till season books come back in 4 long months.
In that light I can just about understand the “soft loaners” maybe just accepting it as the only way to give them any chance of seeing their “investments” ever regaining any value.
We hear from the media that these are soft loans but that’s nonsense.
I’m totally unable to differentiate soft and hard pound notes and think all loans are eventually hard.
I just can’t see any of this as a positive move despite all the spin we are being fed in the media.
We are watching a business model that has a track record of burning cash and is trapped in a rut of fans expectations of being a world power.
If it continues to burn cash the outcome will be an initial loss of assets to Close and then further losses of whoever else comes in to keep the lights on for a while in exchange for real tangible stuff.
I’m minded to remember the Marx Brothers film Go West when the train itself was turned into firewood to keep up!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlVoZgM4fgI
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13274633.Fans____anger_at_Ibrox_loan_deal/
FURIOUS Rangers fans today demanded financial transparency about the future of the Ibrox club. Supporters supremo Drew Roberton said fans are “extremely concerned” after it was revealed a £1.5million loan has been secured against Edmiston House, a three-storey building behind the Copland Road stand, and Albion car park. Rangers today confirmed a deal to borrow the cash from football board chairman Sandy Easdale and investment group Laxey Partners. Easdale has stepped in to offer up a £500,000 sum on a no-fee and no-interest basis, while Laxey Partners will lend the club £1million. Both loans are repayable by September 1.
Easdales : fury
Close Brothers: master stroke
Finloch
February 8, 2018 at 13:30
————————————————-
Autosarcophagy.
Phils latest wrt the Rangers “Overdraft”.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/08/long-term-problems-and-short-memories/
torrejohnbhoyFebruary 8, 2018 at 12:47
As a secured creditor, Close Brothers would not have a vote in a CVA. On the other hand, their secured status would create a big hole in the value of TRFC for any potential saviour!
Finloch @ 13.30 8 Feb
There is a poster on KDS who has done business with Close & based on his previous experiences with them they (Close) will be looking at securitisation (which we now know) on assets plus personal guarantees from Directors & interest +/- 10% on monies borrowed up to £3m . Whatever the circumstances (which are that King hasn’t coughed up) they are now borrowing emergency money , at considerable expense to keep the show on the road . Close will be well aware of the TOP decision , hence their “belt & braces” approach to cover monies lent .
Rather than indicating new , financial security as per Robertson’s statement , I think the opposite conclusion to their financial situ is the case – not that anyone in the SMSM will query otherwise .
Close Brothers consistently makes profits of around £250m a year. They’re not mugs. They’re also not really a retail business so I’d disregard their Trust Pilot scores (Except William Orange’s one posted this morning haha), instead they are well known and well trusted in The City, if a bit old school…
Which brings me to the cold shoulder thang too – King is repeatedly quoted in the press as “the Rangers Chairman” (sic) and his is the guiding hand behind the club, no-one doubts or disputes that. So why would Close Bros enter into this arrangement now? Old school City, they must know how the cold shoulder works, that if they don’t adhere to it, their (more lucrative) clients might and so on. Wait a short while and this is all resolved, so why act now?
I can only assume the “facility” they have been offered is required immediately, is at punitive rates, that the credit is required and will be taken up in short order but will be repaid within the following quarter – which is when season books go on sale. Does anyone know how long the cold shoulder takes to enact? If Close said they were unwinding their positions would they be given a period of grace?
Like soooooooooooooooo many things related to this story, it’s not the headline is the body copy that intrigues…
That all said, many have pointed out the lack of NewGers’ credit facility, they have countered saying they are debt free, so yah boo sucks. Neither of these things are true anymore. What is definitely IS true is that debt carries cost. And it must be reported in financial reports as exactly that. Am thinking NewGers auditors will need a few months limbering up before attempting to pass the next financial results with a straight face…
Edit – my post of 14.07 – I’ve just read Phil’s latest which I have more or less duplicated !
Billy Boyce
February 8, 2018 at 13:54
——————————————–
Cognitive Dissonance
Haha ditto NaeGreetin, ach well at least we’re asking the right questions, the same ones Phil is! LOL.
And while on that subject good article/example
https://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/when-cognitive-dissonance-blinds-objectivity
One for JC
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald/20180208/281827169220624
I suspect that the writer has got the two BDO/RFC (2012) cases mixed up. One involves Henderson & Jones on behalf of TRFCG(Wavetower) seeking cash from BDO/RFC (2012), and the other is BDO/ RFC (2012), taking action against the administrators (D&P).
Yesterday’s case involved the latter, although there was a petition granted in the former case a day earlier.
Jingso.JimsieFebruary 8, 2018 at 11:44
Gary Ralston in the DR quoting Stewart Robertson:“As trite as it sounds, the money is almost incidental. it’s about someone having belief in the club and the way it is being run as we move forward and normalise operations.”
If the money isn’t that important, why are you asking for it? Is it for a backstop? Has something occurred to other promised funds?“Dave and the other investors remain firmly behind the club. The contingency is still there if we need money for a particular project or to head into the transfer market in the summer.”
This contingency; is that DCK/NOAL’s £6/7m? Are you not getting access to that promised funding at this time? Is it preferable to pay a high rate of interest to Close Bros. rather than ‘mates’ rates’ from DCK/NOAL/T3Bs? “We need to get to the position we’re a self sustaining football club. That has always been the target. We can’t keep going back to the well.”
You just have.“It’s general working capital, because finances are stronger in the summer when season ticket and SPFL money comes in.”
Consider that. It’s money to keep the lights on.So many questions…
_______________
He says ‘it’s general working capital’ as though it’s no biggy for any business to be deep in debt and still require more borrowing to meet it’s day to day expenses. He appears to think that adding the word ‘general’ makes it sound so much better, but all working capital is for ‘general’, or everyday, expenses, and the more everyday expenses you have to borrow to be able to meet, the worse shape you are in financially! Of course, there are often one off payments required attributable to working capital, and these are less onerous, usually, because of their non-recurring nature, but this is, by their own admittance, for the everyday, budgeted for, expenses, such as wages, transport, face painters and ‘keeping the lights on’.
It would be completely different if they were borrowing to build a bigger stand, or create something else to bring in extra revenue, but it’s not. It’s to pay for the things they should be paying for from the ‘general’ revenue that a sound business would be bringing in! They have also added interest payments to the level of working capital they now require, and I bet there are arrangement fees and other charges to add in too (probably already drawn down from the facility to ensure interest is instantly accruing).
Working capital is money the business will not see any return on, when it is spent, it is gone. They now have borrowings to the tune of, around, £20m, might be a wee bit less, could be a lot more, virtually all of which has been used to meet this ‘general working capital’.
I wonder if it was a rather large PR ‘expert’ who thought to add the word ‘general’ to Robertson’s statement!
AllyjamboFebruary 8, 2018 at 14:05
torrejohnbhoyFebruary 8, 2018 at 12:47
As a secured creditor, Close Brothers would not have a vote in a CVA. On the other hand, their secured status would create a big hole in the value of TRFC for any potential saviour!
—————————-
Cheers,
Never knew that,Either way,especially if Phils latest is correct,Cash shortage must be critical.Using next seasons ST money to repay Close makes the short term outlook even worse.
Just a thought.We’re assuming PAYE/NI/VAT payments are up to date.When would the next tranch of these be due.I’d think these are payments they’d mortgage the business to make.
torrejohnbhoyFebruary 8, 2018 at 14:53
Just a thought.We’re assuming PAYE/NI/VAT payments are up to date.When would the next tranch of these be due.I’d think these are payments they’d mortgage the business to make.
————————————————————————-
Not sure about VAT but (assuming they pay monthly) the tax and NI for January will be due by about 20/21 of February. But we don’t know if they have paid Decembers (due 20/21 January) do we?
On a wage bill their size these amounts will be considerable.
TORREJOHNBHOY
FEBRUARY 8, 2018 at 14:53
…
Just a thought.We’re assuming PAYE/NI/VAT payments are up to date.When would the next tranch of these be due.I’d think these are payments they’d mortgage the business to make…
============================
I thought those payments were optional for any Ibrox club/company ?
Mibbees we shouldn’t read too much into this external financing development.
I’m sure there must be a billionaire, RRM, sugar daddy waiting in the wings…?
https://twitter.com/mrewanmurray/status/961618333069205510
Another SFA exit… Chief operating officer Andrew McKinlay is new chief executive of Scottish Golf.=====================First we had Regan and now the chap who told Celtic in March 2016 (on external advice) that after looking at information presented and questions asked byRes12 lawyer there was no need for the SFA to investigate the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011.
Probably unconnected or is Hampden sinking?
“…The Freemasons have placed full-page advertisements in several national newspapers calling for an end to the “discrimination” against their members.
The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) said it welcomes individuals from all walks of life but that members are “undeservedly stigmatised”.
It said it had written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission…”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42986319
StevieBCFebruary 8, 2018 at 15:51
___________________________________________
It would be funny if there was a ” United Grand Lodge of Yorkshire”