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.
As a Pars fan who is a long time reader and occasional contributor, I thought I’d supply an easier ready reckoner to explain the past and current situation at DAFC vs TRFC.
DAFC
1. The club survived.
2. An entirely new board is in place.
3. The new board is ashamed of the actions of the previous board.
4. The new board is trying to disassociate itself from past behaviour to build a better future.
5. As a result of 1-4 the new board (understandably) prefers to keep a low profile.
TRFC
1. The club died.
2. Many of the board were part of the regime that lead to the demise of the club.
3. The new board is acting in exactly the same way as the previous board.
4. The new board actively claims the past behaviour as a way of building their future.
5. As a result of 1-4 the new board (predictably) is never out of the media.
I will leave it to the collective intelligence of TSFM to speculate as to the differences in approach. I believe that fan ownership of DAFC is one of the reasons for the differences.
So there now looks like there is movement in clearing out the cabal that is the SFA .I know some are sceptical of the timeframe but I.m sure pulling these deeply embedded dinosaurs ,wailing and screaming from the cosy wee positions will not be done overnight .
Like everything else in this corrupt saga ,I do not envisage a lot of the truth to be made public ,so it will be a backroom deal with those all too familiar ,wee brown envelopes and everyone agreeing to total silence .
If it comes to pass then you can bet your house on ,some serious malpractice having gone on ,as IMO there is no way on Gods earth that these peepil would walk otherwise .
Also be prepared for the New set up ,new start ,let’s all move forward mantra from the new faces .
If so then IMO that would be a very bad start for the new set up ,as they will be rightly judged as weak and unwilling to face hard decisions for the overall good and honesty of our game .
Cygnus X2February 21, 2018 at 06:00
As a Pars fan who is a long time reader and occasional contributor, I thought I’d supply an easier ready reckoner to explain the past and current situation at DAFC vs TRFC.DAFC1. The club survived.2. An entirely new board is in place.3. The new board is ashamed of the actions of the previous board.4. The new board is trying to disassociate itself from past behaviour to build a better future.5. As a result of 1-4 the new board (understandably) prefers to keep a low profile.TRFC1. The club died.2. Many of the board were part of the regime that lead to the demise of the club.3. The new board is acting in exactly the same way as the previous board.4. The new board actively claims the past behaviour as a way of building their future.5. As a result of 1-4 the new board (predictably) is never out of the media.I will leave it to the collective intelligence of TSFM to speculate as to the differences in approach. I believe that fan ownership of DAFC is one of the reasons for the differences.
___________________________
Very well put, Cygnus, but might I suggest that even with fan ownership at Ibrox, the differences would either remain the same, or increase.
Question with regard to the Compliance Officer’s investigation of the granting of the Euro Licence to Rangers.
Could anyone here set out the full procedure that would be followed by the compliance officer?
Apologies if this information has already been posted.
joes11February 21, 2018 at 10:04
…”Could anyone here set out the full procedure that would be followed by the compliance officer? ”
_________________
This is what the Protocol has to say: https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/1823/judicial-panel-protocol-2017-18.pdf
“5.3 The Compliance Officer may represent the Scottish FA as a Party in proceedings arising in respect of his functions.5.4 The Compliance Officer may carry out such activities as are necessary for the exercise of his function.5.5 All participants in Association Football in Scotland submitting to the Articles and Disciplinary Rules shall co-operate with any investigation by the Compliance Officer in respect of the Disciplinary Rules and/or the Protocol and shall provide such reasonable information to the Compliance Officer as the Compliance Officer may request.5.5.1 Any Party shall respond to any request or correspondence from the Compliance Officer to enable the Compliance Officer to exercise his functions, including in the reference of a Complaint to the Judicial Panel. 5.5.2 Any failure by a Party to respond to requests or correspondence received from the Compliance Officer may result in a sanction by a Tribunal, as provided in the Disciplinary Rules and the Articles.5.6 Where the Compliance Officer raises a Notice of Complaint he shall state within that Notice of Complaint: 5.6.1 The date upon which the Principal Hearing will be heard. 5.6.2 The place where the Principal Hearing will be heard.5.7 Subject to the terms of Paragraph 9.6, below, the Compliance Officer may seek permission from the Tribunal to delete from and/or amend any words or phrases from the terms of the Notice of Complaint at any time prior to the Tribunal issuing its Determination at the Principal Hearing.”
Quite how Mr McGlennan goes about his business is clearly up to him:he seems to be free to bugger about and not get on with things, with no one chasing him up!
How nice not to be questioned about one’s efficiency and diligence! Happy man.
The compliance officer’s task should have been a relatively simple matter of obtaining copies of three lots of correspondence.
* Between RFC and HMRC from November 2010 onwards
* Between RFC and TRFC from March 2011 onwards (the SFA should already have a copy)
* Between the SFA and UEFA from April 2011 onwards (the SFA should already have a copy)
If either Rangers (Oldco or Newco) refuses to co-operate with the inquiry, then they should be sanctioned accordingly.
It should not be necessary to involve Celtic, the Res 12 guys and their communications with the SFA and UEFA.
A Last-Ditch Pitch By The SFA
https://johnjamessite.com/
The SFA hosted an event on Tuesday evening at The Ailsa Craig Suite in the Five Star Trump Turnberry Hotel. A ‘Luxury Collection‘ resort hotel. After copious amounts of claret there was no need to make one’s way back to Glasgow or in Pathetic Petrie’s case Edinburgh as the best suites in the hotel had been booked by the blazers. If one had the foresight to leave one’s SFA-issue brown brogues outside one’s suite for buffing, they would be returned before breakfast with the required SFA Turd-Polished sheen.
The Ailsa Craig Suite is described as a fresh, airy room with large picture windows overlooking the Championship golf courses and beyond. It is apparently an ideal space for private dinners or lunches for up to 80 people. The private dining rooms of Hotel Du Vin evidently did not have the capacity to accommodate the movers (On) and shakers of Scottish football.
I understand that a sumptuous five course dinner, with a delectable amuse-bouche palate refresher, was on offer. There would be little change out of £200 per head. Having stayed overnight it would be remiss of the SFA not to take in eighteen holes and book oneself out for the day. Sinecures allow that kind of latitude.
According to Hugh McDonald in The Daily Mail club chairmen perused a document which proposed a radical revamp of the SFA prior to the beginning of season 2020/21.
As I write my mole informs me that some of the SFA are still at the bar availing themselves of a 25 years old Macallan that was stored in a Sherry cask for added sweetness. Unsurprisingly some at 3 a.m. are in a ‘tired and emotional’ state. However the bar will remain open for as long as the SFA deem it appropriate. The barman might have to await the first golf flight of the morning prior to divesting himself of his cummerbund and bow-tie.
The remainder of JJ’s blog is a rehash of Hugh MacDonald’s recent articles in the Daily Mail Online some of which he may not have fully understood and a restatement of why he thinks Scottish football governance should be solely the preserve of one body being either the SPFL or a new body.
I very much doubt that UEFA would recognise any body other than the currently constituted SFA.
EASYJAMBO
Whilst I entirely agree that
“It should not be necessary to involve Celtic, the Res 12 guys and their communications with the SFA and UEFA.”
I would hope that Celtic FC insist on submitting “their communications with the SFA and UEFA.” on behalf of their Res 12 shareholders just in case the SFA Board cannot resist the temptation to withhold any documents from their Compliance Officer.
I read John James latest (as well as his credibility-shredding-conspiracy-nut-tinfoil-hat previous post) – I can’t remember who said it on here, but it captures my thoughts better than I could put them:
The SPFL’s responsibility is maximise income at the expense of everything else, the SFA’s is to ensure adherence to sporting rules. Clearly, these two goals are often contradictory, and we need the two organisations to exist to strike a balance. At least, that’s the way it would be in an ideal world…
I, for one, would not be happy with one organisation running the entire thing. I appreciate that’s what happens in England, with the Premiership being under the remit of the FA, but they’ve proved themselves adept at balancing both – there is no untouchable club in England, where rules are bent to breaking point, simply because it’s financially expedient to do so.
We need the SFA to act as a counterpoint to the financial concerns of the SPFL. They’ve proved in the past that they’re incapable of doing that, hence the need for a new broom at the SFA, but whilst there’s 2 organisation, then there is still the hope that the right thing will manifest itself.
The idea of everything to do with Scottish football consolidated under Neal Doncaster should make every right thinking fan shudder.
A new Floating Charge has been registered at Companies house in favour of Close Leasing.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges/mLBWBxLf49wYxVpcq5n1pX_hCbE
Looks like the Catering equipment, the PA system and the Wiffi system are covered as the additional assets.
Most of these were probably funded by the last lease deal they had with Close, pre administration/liquidation
As a footnote to the security …….
The signatory on behalf of Close Leasing is “Benedict O’Mahoney”. I’m sure that will go down well with the Bears.
“Benedict O’Mahoney”, eh?
Surely a strong candidate for the accolade of “Unseen Fenian Hand”?
The invoices attached to the security document provide an interesting insight, e.g. 802 Works’ provision of the stadium Wifi system.
Three invoices issued in Jun 2013, Sep 2013 and Jun 2014, all at £300k each plus VAT, then a credit note given in return in Dec 2014 for £225k plus VAT.
There is an interesting hand written note on the initial £300k invoice addressed to Brian Stockbridge. It reads:
“once stability achieved we need to look to finance this project”
Surely the Newco wasn’t buying goods and services without having the means to pay in place.
Who would’ve thunk it?
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
FEBRUARY 21, 2018 at 11:01
…
I very much doubt that UEFA would recognise any body other than the currently constituted SFA.
===================
Agreed.
And as UEFA – and FIFA, I know – should be well aware of the fans’ criticisms of both the SFA and SPFL currently, then there isn’t exactly a strong case to combine 2 dodgy bodies into 1 all-powerful, even dodgier body for Scottish football, [cost savings aside.]
And to further undermine a single body suggestion: it would likely retain most of the same, key characters who have contributed to the fans’ discontent and disillusionment with Scottish football.
=
The suggestion from an unnamed club chairman that, [in the current set-up anyway, IMO] ;
“The SFA can regain some control by the appointment of a very strong, outstanding chief executive…”
sounds good, but is patently absurd.
A potential, ‘outstanding chief executive’ would not venture anyway near the Hampden bunker, as that person would have completed their due diligence well in advance of any talks…and their professional judgement would clearly yell at them to run away in the opposite direction!
A CEO of the calibre of Gordon “I know nothing about anything” Smith is probably more likely / attainable – under the current SFA structure.
Thursday 22nd February
LORD DOHERTY
STARRED MOTION
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under para75 – Shepherd & Wedderburn – Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP
… and Friday 23rd February
LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk
Friday 23rd February
By Order
between 9.00am and 9.30am
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under para 75 – Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP – Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP
This is the BDO v D&P case.
So are we to conclude that the land for the Albion Car Park and land/building of Edmiston House combined aren’t worth the reported £3m value of the loan deal and the rest of the balance has had to been made up from scraping together potential high value items of infrastructure within the stadium?
As we know the Big Hoouse itself and the RTC at Auchenhowie are now sacrosanct.
All seems a wee bit desperate when, literally, the kitchen sinks are being used as security, doesn’t it?
Reminds me of that show on TV ‘The Sheriffs are Coming’
Thanks for producing the latest charge over TRFC’s assets, EJ.
Interesting that the catering outlets hold the highest (estimated) value (£1.567m), even more than the Albion Car Park (£1.5m) and Edmiston House (£0.8m), so it would appear that, should TRFC default, then parts of Ibrox will begin to disappear on any amount over £2.3m, but I’d imagine they’d go first as they will be far easier to realise cash from (and will be auctioned of at much less than their estimated value, I’d expect).
The overall estimated value of the assets under charge is £5.53m (to Close Brother’s benefit, not TRFC’s), but the important thing, from a bear’s point of view, is that parts of Ibrox, albeit not part of the stadium, itself, are now being used as security. What next? The goalposts?
The upshot is, the security requirements for TRFC’s latest borrowing needs are much more onerous than they first appeared. Frighteningly so, I’d suggest.
It would also appear that the wifi payment issue with the suppliers, 802 Works, have been resolved.
[oops – timed out above.]
For any credibility, and to acknowledge the paying fans;
The SFA should engage an independent, third party to conduct a review and come up with suggestions on how to;
– improve the quality of football governance
– engage meaningfully with their customers
– guide the game to ‘move on’ to an open, honest and a more successful and prosperous future, [and which would inevitably need to address dishonest, past behaviours to avoid recurrence].
Then ALL stakeholders – including fans – would be involved with reviewing and discussing the published report. No secrets, and all options are on the table.
To state the bleedin’ obvious.
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 21, 2018 at 15:40
I was wondering about the wifi.
I suppose it all comes down to the nature of the contract as to whether or not the equipment now belongs to Ibrox or if 802 still have dabs on it.
The dispute over its suitability (IIRC the argument was that it could only provide service for 10k at anyone time and T’Rangers thought it should cater for 50k) could still be ongoing despite the equipment now being part of the loan assets.
Maybe our court season ticket holders have an inside track to whether or not the action is still live.
It would appear from the invoices attached to the Floating Charge document that the valuations are not recent estimates, but are, in fact, the purchase price when purchased new, so it is almost certain that the realisable value is likely to be much reduced, certainly in the case of the catering equipment, PA system and wifi equipment. With Edmiston House in a dilapidated state it is doubtful that it will have increased (much) in value, and a carpark would only appreciate (much) if development of it was viable.
I’d like to see the SMSM/Level5 try to put a positive spin on this
though I suspect they will just ignore it, as though these details are not now in the public domain.
wottpiFebruary 21, 2018 at 16:10
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 21, 2018 at 15:40I was wondering about the wifi.I suppose it all comes down to the nature of the contract as to whether or not the equipment now belongs to Ibrox or if 802 still have dabs on it.The dispute over its suitability (IIRC the argument was that it could only provide service for 10k at anyone time and T’Rangers thought it should cater for 50k) could still be ongoing despite the equipment now being part of the loan assets.Maybe our court season ticket holders have an inside track to whether or not the action is still live.
__________________
If TRFC haven’t paid for it, then I doubt they could claim ownership of it, and so then couldn’t grant a charge over it, regardless of their reasons for not paying for it. It’s not as though they have paid for it but are unhappy with it and are looking for a refund from the suppliers. It may be that they have won the case and paid a reduced amount to the suppliers, or have lost the case and settled the full amount
The last hearing between 802 Works and TRFC was in Jan 2016 at Glasgow Sheriff Court. The full arguments were not expected to be heard until the summer of 2017. I haven’t heard of anything since, so it may be that the case has been settled out of court.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35325638
easyJamboFebruary 21, 2018 at 15:28
‘..Thursday 22nd FebruaryLORD DOHERTY STARRED MOTION P115/17 Note: ‘
Friday 23rd FebruaryLORD DOHERTY – C Munn, ClerkFriday 23rd FebruaryBy Orderbetween 9.00am and 9.30amP115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc
_______________
Is this an accidental double entry in the Rolls, do you think?
I’d better go in tomorrow for 9.30 just to make sure!
Nothing has yet appeared in the Rolls to confirm the date (28th) of King’s appeal against Lord Bannatyne’s decision, as far as I can see. Probably won’t until tomorrow afternoon or early next week .
If by some chance King has withdrawn, we would only get to hear of it, I suppose, from him himself or his spokesperson?
The discussion of 802 brings to mind wottpi’s post
“wottpiDecember 11, 2017 at 13:30‘&;hellip
I note over on Phil Mac’ twitter feed there is reference to Orlit Enterprises being in court on Wednesday v Rangers Football Club Ltd.’”
and my post
“John ClarkDecember 11, 2017 at 14:36” in relation to that.
Haven’t seen a Dickie bird about that matter since, and I’ve had a look at the Sheriff Court Rolls (Glasgow) without seeing any mention of further business.
Anyone?
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/21/the-phantom-of-the-overdraft/
Does anybody think the FA would let us copy some of their rules ?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43146018
I’m reading on social media that Morelos is not now for sale.
I’m assuming that means the £12m bid has been rejected.
Apparently the club will be looking for at least £15m in the summer.
It’s difficult to see how he will get to that value in the SPFL with no European football, but what do I know about football finance.
CLUSTER ONEFEBRUARY 8, 2018 at 21:10311 Rate ThisLoan Facility We are pleased to advise that Rangers has taken another significant step in restoring its business to normal operating parameters. It will shortly complete a working capital facility with Close Brothers. The facility will be secured by fixed security over Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park, amongst other assets. Ibrox Stadium and Auchenhowie will not be part of the security package. The loan will assist with general working capital requirements and upgrading works being carried out at Ibrox and in other areas where there is a desire to enhance facilities for staff and supporters.—————— The facility will be secured by fixed security over Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park, amongst other assets.It is not only secured against Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park.But other assets also.is that what they are saying?
———————
So there where other assets after all.
But in any of the news articles at the time the other assets don’t get a mention.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/15945567.Positive_financial_steps_show_a_sense_of_normality_is_returning_to_Rangers__says_Stewart_Robertson/
——————-
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/2189539/rangers-banking-facility-dave-king/amp/
HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 21, 2018 at 19:36
3
0 Rate This
I’m reading on social media that Morelos is not now for sale.
————–
So he was for sale.
But not for £11 mill.Now he is not for sale at all, but will be up for sale in the summer.
Poor guy must not know if he is coming or going
CLUSTER ONEFEBRUARY 19, 2018 at 18:09
25
1 Rate This
Rangers directors enjoy salary hike despite club posting rising losses.http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16031184.Rangers_directors_enjoy_salary_hike_despite_club_posting_rising_losses/———————-Have we seen this scene before?RANGERS chief executive Graham Wallace is in line for a bonus worth 100 per cent of his £315,000 pay packet.https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/graham-wallace-s-rangers-bonus-package-revealed-1-3397738
—————-
Graham Wallace only lasted another 5 months at ibrox once his bonus was revealed
As others have said Close/TRFC have now put in place a Floating Charge (see definition below) on some of TRFC’s assets. These ‘ Charged Assets’ include :
– stadium catering equipment – the stadium PA system – stadium bowl screens – stadium wifi system – Edmiston House – Albion car park (‘subjects on the west side of Broomloan Road, Glasgow’)
Did TRFC ever settle with the wifi company?
The values given in Schedule 1 (P.28) are as follows :
– stadium catering equipment : £1,567,000 – the stadium PA system : £556,000 – stadium bowl screens : £432,000 – stadium wifi system : £675,000 – Edmiston House : £800,000 – Albion car park (‘subjects on the west side of Broomloan Road, Glasgow’) : £1,500,000
NB the Default Rate is given as 4% over the Lender’s Cost of Funds as defined in the Facility Agreement.
All of these values are backed up by invoices. One beauty is from Summit “SAM” and addressed to :
“Sevco Scotland Ltd t/asThe Rangers Football Club”
The letter then talks about Sevco buying the ‘business and assets’ of Rangers Oldco and clearly states that Sevco are a completely different entity :
“(SAM’s) principal interest is, in fact, in the rental agreement made with Rangers Oldco so does not bear on discussions between you (Sevco Scotland Ltd) and us (SAM).” NB I have inserted the entity names for clarity.
And, extremely interesting as this refers to Sevco having made an important statement to SAM…
“As you pointed out, there is no contractual nexus between the Rangers acquisition vehicle, Sevco Scotland Ltd (“Sevco”) and SAM, given that the rental agreement that relates to the Assets was made between SAM and Rangers Oldco, which is presently in administration and, we understand, likely to enter liquidation imminently.”
There is also an invoice from Charlotte Ventures (Edmiston House) Ltd for the sale of that property for £800K + VAT.
The wifi company invoices are appended too.
Regards
Jim
“FLOATING CHARGE
A floating charge can secure all of the assets of a company or LLP or can be limited to specific assets.
The borrower will also be free to dispose of and acquire assets until such time as the floating charge has crystallised. If the charge covers all assets, the assets charged by the floating charge therefore change throughout the duration of the security.
If contained within a Debenture, the floating charge should cover all of the borrower’s Scottish assets, whether or not separate fixed charges have also been granted over those assets.
Floating charge holders are paid out after fixed charge holders, preferential creditors and the prescribed part (a maximum sum of £600,000 which is ring-fenced for unsecured creditors).
Crystallises into a fixed charge on the occurrence of a limited number of insolvency events (unlike in England where this can occur by contract).”
https://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/securing-moveable-assets-scotland-0
CLUSTER ONEFEBRUARY
21, 2018 at 20:04
So he was for sale.But not for £11 mill.Now he is not for sale at all, but will be up for sale in the summer.Poor guy must not know if he is coming or going
====================================
I bet Dodgy Dave would also love to try and offer this highly valuable asset as security for yet another ‘overdraft’ ?
If they can just keeping limping along until the summer, then sell Morelos for GBP15M, GBP20M, or 30 magic beans: the Ibrox club’s financial woes will simply disappear as quickly as a wifi signal…
I remember reading somewhere that when an oil exploration company put out its annual report you could tell how much environmental damage they’d done by how many penguins they put on the cover. The more penguins the greater the damage.
Think I may have noticed a similar thing in the SMSM, in the sense that the worse the financial news about Rangers is the bigger the smiles in the pics accompanying it. Stewart Robertson’s face in the pics next to the reports of the”overdraft secured”pieces made him look like he’d won the lottery.
Try it as a guide.
MISTERLIGHTBULBJOKEFEBRUARY 21, 2018 at 20:48
Think I may have noticed a similar thing in the SMSM, in the sense that the worse the financial news about Rangers is the bigger the smiles in the pics accompanying it. Stewart Robertson’s face in the pics next to the reports of the”overdraft secured”pieces made him look like he’d won the lottery.Try it as a guide.
—————
I have noticed how the SMSM try and make the ibrox club relevant to what is going on at celtic park.
Today Europa league crunch ICE COLD.
murty tells young player to CHILL.
yes i did laugh,or am i just being cynical?
The Scotsman is reporting that the SFA has enquired about the possibility of buying Hampden from Queens Park.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/scottish-fa-approach-queen-s-park-in-shock-bid-to-buy-hampden-1-4694184
I believe that Regan was in favour of moving to Murrayfield, so with him gone, Hampden could well be the more favoured option.
The SFA doesn’t have any great reserves of cash so I’d guess that it would have to be a mortgage type deal.
Reports of a radical change to the structure of the governing bodies could also make it a difficult purchase to complete.
The discussion has moved so quickly that this is now off topic, but if the Compliance Officer has to report to the CEO, then is it possible that his report has been delayed until a new appointment is made, perhaps with the foresight that this was going to be necessary?
Auldheid?
Particularly good reading on here tonight. Thanks everyone – informative and entertaining. Some excellent one-liners. I see Phil also has a couple of cracking posts on his site – like buses, you wait for ages then two come at once.
I had a couple of questions about the new charges which were very well detailed on here and by Phil’s Rugger Chap.
The first has been mentioned already is the WiFi – do they actually own the WiFi? I know that my home WiFi and my work WiFi are owned by the companies supplying the service- I thought that this was pretty standard.
The other question is why have Close not taken the Stadium as security? Is it because it is not owned by the club/company (delete as appropriate). Or is it because the stadium would be more of an encumbrance than an asset?
ACS, the very same thought struck me re the stadium. John Brown’s ‘Rivers of pash’ speech had him repeatedly asking to see the deeds. He was immediately asked to attend a meeting with Charles Green and from that moment the only words which have emanated from Brown’s mouth have been, “How ye doin’, mate, how ye doin?”
Phil McG reported that a hefty sum was disappearing into an offshore account monthly, presumablyfor rent. I just assumed that there is no way these RRM’s would have flogged the stadium. Surely not?
But given the downright lies – let’s call it what it is, it is NOT spin – which have been told, nothing would surprise me. This latest information regarding the loan ‘add ons’ reveal Chris Robertson to be nothing better than a brazened liar. Turned down £10 million for Morelos then ran off to wonga Ibrox up to its deteriorating roofs. They’ve screwed charities, shamed showpiece finals, pissed off Uefa, made an utter laughing stock of the media, taken players from other clubs on the never, never, unsettled other managers and players, and on and on.
Im sure we will read all about this latest debacle in tomorrow’s Press.
I noted the smirks at the name of the gentleman who signed the latest contract on behalf of Close Brothers, Benedict O’Mahoney. Wait til they find out that one of the Close Brother Board members is a Mr Simon Hayter.)
If there’s a positive from the latest Close story at least the season tickets aren’t mentioned. Not even an average bear’s memory is that short, never mind selective.
re the stadium. Doubt there’s anything sinister. All they’ve done is HPd the infrastructural elements within it.
the wifi is an interesting one. The only reason I can think of (apart from the above in a sale and leaseback of the equipment) would be because they’ve settled the orlit debt and taken ownership. But then that means a significant chunk of the 3m hasn’t gone into the general overheads pot. That might explain Phil’s missing £1m
HelpumootFebruary 22, 2018 at 01:41
‘… John Brown’s ‘Rivers of pash’ speech had him repeatedly asking to see the deeds..
___________
As I understand things, and I may be wrong,Helpumoot, a quick dive into
https://landregistry-deeds.co.uk/proof-ownership/
and a readiness to spend £19.95 will let you buy online the details of the
Title Register & Title Plan of any property in Scotland
( I do not work on Commission for the Land registrar, but if thousands of you do this, I’ll maybe try and seek some percentage of the total fees paid!!)
But, if the information on who owns what property is so readily available, I can hardly see even the people at Ibrox lying about actual ownership as recorded in the Registry.
I’m not sure I’d be ready to spend £20 . I’m pretty sure that’s already been done, and if the Stadium did not seem to be owned by TRFC Ltd, we would have heard about it.
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 21, 2018 at 22:55
It would be interesting to know what sort of figures are being talked about.
With suitable planning permission it might be fairly valuable to a house builder but as a football stadium which is basically an old terracing with seats screwed on?
As I half-surmised, today’s hearing was nothing to do with RFC (IL).
At about 9.25, a bunch of younger men and women traipsed in to the Court-room, un-bewigged and un-begowned.
When Lord Doherty sat down, one of the young women began to speak without preliminaries as if she had been speaking just before a short break.
I heard the word ‘Administrators’ and liquidators and 1st respondent and 2nd respondent, but , in the event, after about ten minutes, I twigged that this was an entirely different case.
I sat to the end, just to be sure that ‘my’ case was not coming up immediately after.
When Lord Doherty left the bench at about10.05, I asked the clerk whether there had been a double entry on the Rolls. He apologised, and said that there had been.
The Rangers 2012 plc case is tomorrow!
Another early rise.
JC, so relieved that the stadium is in safe hands ?
On a related matter, surely the season ticket money for next season must be already spent? Bonuses for the Board, payment to clubs for players they’ve just bought, buying outright the players they have on loan, getting the kitchen sink back from Close Brothers. And these are only the known knowns…
Similar to SDM trying to make the balance sheet look good by over valuing the stadium and other assets of the oldco, the Morelos stories have been put out to give the impression there is an asset within the Ibrox club that can be cashed in if need be. Therefore nothing to worry about, please get ready to part with your season ticket money.
Of course any scrutinty of the matters by Close Brothers or anyone else with half a brain knows its a pile of doo-doo.
T’Rangers have no track record of buying cheap , developing players and selling on for substantial profits. If they manage to keep the lights on then it might happen one day but its looks fairly unlikely at present.
Similarly I don’t believe all the fantasy figures quoted for Dembele but IMHO he is far better prospect for a big money deal in the range of £10m than Morelos and Celtic have a track record is successfully developing and moving players on.
Just for some background five (value £45.5m) of the top ten fees received (£75.5m) by Celtic for transfers out have been since T’Rangers came into existence. That £45.5m does not include and additional sell on bonus money for the likes of Wanyama and Van Dijk).
For a club playing out of Ibrox then their top ten all time transfers out amount to £66.8m and you have to go back to 2012 for the sale of Jelavic at £5.5m to Everton for the most recent ‘big money’ deal. (And as we know that particular asset sale didn’t help the oldco from going to the wall).
Even before that you had to look back a further four years to 2008 for Hutton (£9m) and Cuellar (£7.8m) for any decent money changing hands.
paddy malarkey February 21, 2018 at 19:32
I think that these are the links that you’re looking for
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/policies/financial-regulation
See the further links at the end of the article for further details, especially #9 of 9.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
NB that the English Football League FFP regulations that applied in the article you posted about Leicester City Fc were different from those in force from the 2016/17 season.
paddy malarkey February 21, 2018 at 19:32
Furthermore, following the SPL takeover of the SFL, the latter of which ceased to exist, the situation in England is different to that in Scotland because the EFL and the EPL are still separate legal entities.Even so there is no reason why the SPFL could not have differing loss limits for each division under their own ‘Profit and Sustainability’ rules.
It remains a mystery to me why the member clubs of the SPFL would not want the SPFL to adopt similar ‘Profit and Sustainability’ rules to ensure that they and their competitors are on a level playing field in this regard.
BP & Tris
Oops! What happened there?
No option to edit my previous comment to better format it.
The latest blogs by Phil
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/21/rugger-guy-looks-at-the-new-close-brothers-document/
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/22/a-great-movie-about-real-journalism/
armchairsupporterFebruary 21, 2018 at 23:44
I had a couple of questions about the new charges which were very well detailed on here and by Phil’s Rugger Chap. The first has been mentioned already is the WiFi – do they actually own the WiFi? I know that my home WiFi and my work WiFi are owned by the companies supplying the service- I thought that this was pretty standard.The other question is why have Close not taken the Stadium as security? Is it because it is not owned by the club/company (delete as appropriate). Or is it because the stadium would be more of an encumbrance than an asset?
____________________________________—
If TRFC have settled their court case with Works 802, then they do own the wifi. It might have been better for them to have leased it, but then, it might no longer be installed at Ibrox if they had, and the bears wouldn’t be happy about that (better a poor service than none at all for the world’s most successful club).
Close haven’t taken the stadium as security as it wasn’t offered, the bears would never stand for that, and have made it clear to successive boards that that would be their end if they ever did. Besides, would you offer up your home as security (assuming it was mortgage free) if you only needed to borrow enough that could be secured against something like, say, your car?
There is nothing sinister in TRFC not using Ibrox as security, in fact, if they had, then it would be an even greater sign that the end is nigh, for that really would be the loan of last resort.
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 12:22
Agreed. Given all the past utterances there is no way the current board(s) could use the main assets of the stadium and the RTC as security without either there being huge trouble at mill or a major backlash from fans.
However over on the Celtic.blog site a good point is being made re what a loss of particular assets may mean.
From my point of view.
While not up for grabs, you can train on the local park if you lose a training centre.
You can get away without having wifi and big screens.
It is believed that the club deck use may be linked to planning conditions that the Albion Car park must be in use as well. So if necessary you could close down that section of the ground if such a condition was enforced. (Unhappy punters but the team continues to play matches)
Depending what the football authorities say about the minimum standards, you might be able to operate without catering. The majority of fans could last 90 mins without a pie and bovril but that then dilutes your ‘corporate hospitality’ income if you cannot feed the prawn sandwich brigade.
However a match in a 50kplus stadium will surely not be allowed to progress without the PA system being available and in working order on the grounds of health & safety.
Out of the assets detailed so far the PA system is the one Close Brothers could effectively scupper the ship if payment deadlines are not met.
I doubt any of the above will happen as the Close Brothers will get their money paid ASAP once the season ticket money rolls in and the can will be kicked down the road a bit.
However it is getting to the point of desperation when third parties could potentially be in control of key systems required for match days.
Of course other clubs may well have leasing arrangements and the like for such equipment and thus the consequences for non payment of the rental sums may also result in problems but this is a loan deal we are talking about here from the supposed 2nd biggest team in the country.
Confirmation of the need for a PA system in order to use the stadium is contained in the attached documents.
Re: the latest ‘development’ that the SFA now ‘wants to buy Hampden for GBP 2M’.
[Yet the annual rent is currently GBP800K – and due to rise in a couple of years?]
I just scanned a couple of articles, and it did seem oddly familiar;
– a company states in the SMSM, via an unnamed source, that it wants something
– but it is made clear they will only pay ‘up to X amount’
– ‘unnamed’ sources on BOTH sides provide further, helpful quotes
– the company states that the deal is ‘virtually done’
– the company then complains that the other side is being unreasonable / greedy
– the company uses the SMSM to heap pressure on the other side to play ball
– the company gets what it wants, or not.
– Neither side comes out of the episode with an enhanced reputation.
Hmm…and from the governing body of ‘our’ national game, no less.
wottpiFebruary 22, 2018 at 13:20
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 12:22Agreed. Given all the past utterances there is no way the current board(s) could use the main assets of the stadium and the RTC as security without either there being huge trouble at mill or a major backlash from fans.However over on the Celtic.blog site a good point is being made re what a loss of particular assets may mean.From my point of view.While not up for grabs, you can train on the local park if you lose a training centre.You can get away without having wifi and big screens.It is believed that the club deck use may be linked to planning conditions that the Albion Car park must be in use as well. So if necessary you could close down that section of the ground if such a condition was enforced. (Unhappy punters but the team continues to play matches)Depending what the football authorities say about the minimum standards, you might be able to operate without catering. The majority of fans could last 90 mins without a pie and bovril but that then dilutes your ‘corporate hospitality’ income if you cannot feed the prawn sandwich brigade.However a match in a 50kplus stadium will surely not be allowed to progress without the PA system being available and in working order on the grounds of health & safety.Out of the assets detailed so far the PA system is the one Close Brothers could effectively scupper the ship if payment deadlines are not met.I doubt any of the above will happen as the Close Brothers will get their money paid ASAP once the season ticket money rolls in and the can will be kicked down the road a bit.However it is getting to the point of desperation when third parties could potentially be in control of key systems required for match days.Of course other clubs may well have leasing arrangements and the like for such equipment and thus the consequences for non payment of the rental sums may also result in problems but this is a loan deal we are talking about here from the supposed 2nd biggest team in the country.
__________________________
I think there is an assumption amongst many bampots that a default on this lending will mean the use of the assets will disappear for TRFC. This may well end up being the case, but Close Brothers, as far as I know, are not in the property, catering, wifi or PA business, they deal in finance, and take security as a way of ensuring repayment of their money. While taking possession of heritable assets, and holding them unused, might be a worthwhile exercise, catering, wifi and PA equipment are worthless without a user, and the resale value of each must be negligible, so I expect the most likely scenario, in the event of default, would be for TRFC to either, lease back the equipment they most need, or continue using them, but paying the default rate of interest until such time as they can clear the debt. I’m presuming, of course, the continuance of the club without an insolvency event.
I doubt Edmiston House would be any great loss to TRFC, and certainly wouldn’t mean loss of revenue, while the Albion carpark might mean loss of match day income from car parking fees, but I doubt Close would refuse it’s use as a potential muster point for a fire at Ibrox. It would not be in their best interests to reduce the club’s ability to either clear the loan or continue making interest payments.
I doubt very much that this security is going to be called upon any time soon, and I am sure the secured borrowing will be the first thing TRFC use the next lot of ST sales to clear, but it’s need shows how desperate things are becoming at Ibrox, and if they need to use, say, £3m of the ST money to clear this debt, plus more large amounts to meet commitments on the outstanding transfers, then their reliance on European progress (no pun intended) becomes ever greater if they are going to avoid a similar loan even earlier next season. Even with a decent Euro run, though, they may still require more loans (as was stated in the last set of accounts).
Of course, in the event of administration, the loss of these assets makes TRFC an even less tempting business for any potential saviour.
As to the attempts to make this facility look like a positive for the club, well, they’ve, for years, placed great store on the fact that their borrowings have all been ‘internal’ and interest free. Making out that ‘outside’ lending is now anything other than a bad turn of events just highlights their desperation – then add the fairly draconian level of security required…
StevieBCFebruary 22, 2018 at 15:36
Re: the latest ‘development’ that the SFA now ‘wants to buy Hampden for GBP 2M’.[Yet the annual rent is currently GBP800K – and due to rise in a couple of years?]I just scanned a couple of articles, and it did seem oddly familiar;– a company states in the SMSM, via an unnamed source, that it wants something– but it is made clear they will only pay ‘up to X amount’– ‘unnamed’ sources on BOTH sides provide further, helpful quotes– the company states that the deal is ‘virtually done’– the company then complains that the other side is being unreasonable / greedy– the company uses the SMSM to heap pressure on the other side to play ball– the company gets what it wants, or not.– Neither side comes out of the episode with an enhanced reputation.Hmm…and from the governing body of ‘our’ national game, no less.
___________________
Looks like the SFA have no sympathy for the country’s oldest club. Now, if only they were a brand new club, imagine how far the SFA would be bending over for them and be offering for the use of their stadium!
Hi Folks,
The OT forum, which is called the Ernie Bee Chatroom is available for any or all who want to indulge in some OT matters. There is now a link at te top of each page – even if you aren’t logged in, which points to “OT Forum”.
Don’t want to rush anything, but you can start your own topic under a forum. We will maybe add some different forums, say one for talking about your own team, one for music, and a kind of virtual pub where you can wander in and share some craic.
Meanwhile, the funding round is soing really well. Only a few days left and we have all of the housekeeping money plus a few quid extra towards BP’s telfunken thingy
T
I recently posted on here re the original loan to TRFC and what the ‘Others’ were re security for said loan. I was of the opinion that the Catering at Ibrox would be very much to the front of the queue when Close Brothers were looking for security. They have previous history with this security. In fact I don’t think that the Brothers Close have been far away ( see what I done there) at any time from the whole debacle. As yesterdays flurry of activity in and around Ibrox park indicates someone somewhere has made a decision to make the old girl more appealing to the kerbside viewer. Was that what the £3 million loan was in fact for? Alas. I believe all that is happening is that they are readying the corpse for its funeral.
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 12:22
Re the albion car park ,
I was under the impression that the ability to use the club deck depended on the car park .
ie no car park no club deck access .Think it was something to do with the council .
With the details of the CB loan now public , are we now reaching a similar point to ragers 1872 in 2011
Back then they so badly needed CL revenue that some now suspect that the SFA granted a license to ensure they got the CL place even though they failed the criteria .
What will it take from the SFA this time around if DK gets on the phone with some grim news .
I will be watching very carefully from now till the end of the season with anything regarding the SFA and sevco 2012 and it’s nothing to do with being a hater or obsessed ,it is all about being vigilant after the last debacle .
fan of footballFebruary 22, 2018 at 17:30
‘…it is all about being vigilant after the last debacle .
_____________________
Extremely vigilant, indeed: we know that Regan did not act alone in subverting our game by the dreadful 5-Way agreement!
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 17:43
Indeed and therein lies the biggest problem of all .If as we suspect the peepil administering our game did indeed act outwith the rules of the game to the benefit of one club to the detriment of others and have failed to put in place adequate systems to ensure a repeat then we really are in trouble .
would they dare to do it again the trouble is that we cannot with any degree of certainty that they would not .
fan of footballFebruary 22, 2018 at 17:08
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 12:22Re the albion car park ,I was under the impression that the ability to use the club deck depended on the car park .ie no car park no club deck access .Think it was something to do with the council .
____________________
There is no reason to believe it would not continue to be used as a carpark, just not one owned by TRFC. Not only that, I would imagine no planning permission would ever be given to use it as anything else as long as there are TRFC supporters and masons in Glasgow City Council!
fan of footballFebruary 22, 2018 at 17:30
With the details of the CB loan now public , are we now reaching a similar point to ragers 1872 in 2011 Back then they so badly needed CL revenue that some now suspect that the SFA granted a license to ensure they got the CL place even though they failed the criteria .What will it take from the SFA this time around if DK gets on the phone with some grim news .I will be watching very carefully from now till the end of the season with anything regarding the SFA and sevco 2012 and it’s nothing to do with being a hater or obsessed ,it is all about being vigilant after the last debacle .
__________________
I may gave missed it, but when did the details of the CB loan come into the public domain? I have seen the two documents detailing the Standard Security and the Floating Charge, but neither of these come into consideration until, and unless, TRFC default on the loan. Only the loan/overdraft agreement would detail the terms of the loan, and, as far as I know, we have not seen that, and without sight of it, we have no way of knowing if they are paying 10%pa or 30!
TRFC may well be paying some very penal rate of interest, though secured loans tend to attract a smaller rate than secured ones, but, as far as I am aware, we have nothing more than speculation to gauge that on.
It is clear that Close Brothers have ensured they do not lose the money due to them by taking more than a pound of flesh as security, but do not make the mistake of thinking the security documents in the public domain form the loan agreement, they most certainly do not.
What the documents, and, in particular, the Floating Charge show us, is that things are now so tight at the club that parts of Ibrox are having to be used as security, just to keep the lights on. Things are deteriorating and the big question for the bears is, what do they hock next to keep those lights on?
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 18:26
the big question for the bears is, what do they hock next to keep those lights on?
——————-
The world class breakfast.
ok i will get my coat
Cluster OneFebruary 22, 2018 at 18:55
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 18:26the big question for the bears is, what do they hock next to keep those lights on?——————-The world class breakfast.ok i will get my coat
______________
With no kitchen?
Your coat’s over there, by the way
…bring mine while you’re at it
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 20:30
…bring mine while you’re at it
————–
Big smile;-)
TRISIDIUMFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 16:27
Don’t want to rush anything, but you can start your own topic under a forum. We will maybe add some different forums, say one for talking about your own team, one for music, and a kind of virtual pub where you can wander in and share some craic.
————–
Can i have a forum on how to use it
Confirmation of next week’s two day hearing.
INNER HOUSE ROLLS
FIRST DIVISION
Wednesday 28th February
Summar Roll (2 days)
P341/17 Pet: The Panel for Takeovers and Mergers for Orders under section955 – Dentons – Lindsays
The Inner House is mostly an appeal court with cases heard by three judges. Let’s hope that the make up is similar to that which heard the EBT case, i.e. Lords Carloway, Menzies & Drummond-Young. At least they demonstrated a common sense approach to the application of the law, rather than getting embroiled in the nuances of alternative legal interpretations of individual words, that were evident in the earlier EBT hearings.
I wonder how the three bears must be feeling right now. The Close bros loan having jumped to the front of the queue for repayment ahead of any ‘soft’ loan. A house divided cannot stand.
FYI here’s the latest précis from the johnjamessite
Float like a Butterfly, sting like a Bitch
When Stewart Robertson presented the credit facility from Close Leasing Limited as an overdraft he was lying through his back teeth. Overnight this once respected football executive became The High Priest of Pishery. When he continued by stating that it represented a vote of confidence in his rogue board, and that close leasing had come to The Rangers bearing alms, one knew immediately that he was Greenock’s answer to Hans Christian Andersen. The last time I checked Greenock was not twinned with Odense.
The full extent of the pledges made to Close Leasing Ltd (which is a finance house of last resort, not a merchant bank) is now in the public domain. The rogue board have not just hocked the family silver. They have pledged the kitchen sink. Close Leasing have insisted on a floating charge of £1,567,000 on the Stadium Catering Outlets.
The PA System has been hocked for £556,000. The Stadium Bowl Screens for £432,000. The WiFi system has been pledged at £675,000. When one adds in The Albion Road Car Park at £1.5m and Edmiston House at £800,000, the total of assets pledged, at their cost value, is an eye-watering £5,530,000.
It was rather remiss of Mr. Robertson not to mention that in the event of default Ibrox Stadium might have to close down. The PA/Voice Alarm System would be owned by CLL and they could dispose of it as they saw fit. No PA system ergo no security certificate.
This deal smacks of desperation. There are many takeaways including the sale document for Edmiston House, which was owned by Sir Bribe & Lie’s Charlotte Ventures Ltd. Having picked up Edmiston House for a song (The Billy Boys anyone?) SB&L trousered £800,000.
What also piqued my interest was a letter to Brian Stockbridge of Sevco Scotland Limited t/as The Rangers Football Club. Colour me surprised but does this not hole HMS Continuation under the water line? It was a remittance from Summit Asset Finance apropos the PA System/Voice Alarm System.
The floating charges have laid out Lite’s dirty laundry for all to see. When Sir Bribe & Lie was in charge no-one knew that his Charlotte Ventures owned Carnegie Information Systems which invoiced the club for north of £1m year after year or Charlotte subsidiary Azure which invoiced £2.8m. Murray had a finger in every pie. If he could have monetised the air at Ibrox Sir Bribe & Lie would have done so.
To add insult to pawnbroker injury the agreement was signed for CLL by the estimable Benedict O’Mahony. I somehow doubt that the knuckledraggers will take the news that they are in hock to a ‘taig’ and clasp it to their bosom.
If only they had the £15m revolving credit facility from MIH as enjoyed by Rangers, this three brass balls artifice would not be necessary. If they had cashed in on Morelos at £12m all their troubles would have been over. However as we fast approach the end of the Chinese transfer window one notes that there has been a conspicuous absence of any interest in The Ibrox Greenhorn Ger (Tigger).
However Close Leasing mean business. They are charging TRFC 4% more than their standard onerous terms.
One wonders what King will pawn next. If his grandmother is poorly will he try to pledge Tigger Morelos? He might as well as he has pawned everything else.
gunnerbFebruary 22, 2018 at 21:40
“I wonder how the three bears must be feeling right now.”
________________________
The decision to borrow from Close Leasing presumably had to be a decision of the Board of TRFC Ltd, currently comprising only 3 people: Blair, Robertson and Dickson. (Dickson was the signatory to the loan contract)
Question:Does the Board of a holding company have legal power to tell the Board of its subsidiary what to do?
Or, did the soft-loan-lenders on the holding company’s board even know that the Board of TRFC Ltd had gone to see ‘uncle Close Leasing’ and had pawned the good suit?
If the matter was discussed by the RIFC plc Board, and any soft-loan-lenders were outvoted on the that Board, they might well not be happy.
If they agreed that TRFC Ltd should apply for the loan, they might well need certifying!
Or perhaps they saw that they were likely soon to lose their money if they did not borrow some cash, and reasoned that the Close Leasing loan might just prevent that.. And thought it worth the risk, to allow a secured creditor the advantage in the event of an Insolvency event, in the hope that the secured loan monies might help avoid an Insolvency event, and that they then might eventually get their loan money back.
(See this Company Law stuff- you’d need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to know how to wade through the murky muddy stuff of ‘business’)
And sad to say, although I have a photo of myself (not a selfie) standing beside the Liberty Bell in the first week of January ,that doesn’t make me a lawyer-of any kind!
The endgame.
Close Leasing Ltd. wins.
RIFC /TRFC loses : permanently.
Scottish football moves on, regardless.
Sounds like a result to me.