This headline is a quote by George Washington, but it is also friendly advice to Keith Jackson of the Daily Record in response to his ‘exclusive’ today on the reasons Derek McInnes turned down Rangers.
May I begin by drawing people’s attention to two statements by the same organisation on what was essentially the same subject matter:
Aberdeen FC Statement 14th June 2017:
https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/06/14/club-statement-management-team/
“The club can confirm that early this afternoon Sunderland FC agreed to meet all the contractual obligations for both Derek McInnes and Tony Docherty and they have, reluctantly, been granted permission to speak with both of them about the vacant managerial position at Sunderland.
Aberdeen FC will be making no further comment at this moment in time.”
Aberdeen FC Statement 5th December 2017
https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/12/05/club-statement-18/
“Aberdeen Football Club has announced this evening that Rangers have contacted the Club asking for permission to speak to Derek McInnes and that permission has been refused.”
It is clear from the first statement there are contractual obligations that, when met, mean the club must allow their manager the option of dialogue with interested parties, however reluctant the club may be.
Although money is not mentioned, contractual obligations can only relate to the commitments on either side to terminate the agreement and these are usually financial. In the case of an interested suitor, it would be expected of them to pay this on behalf of the employee.
There is no mention of contractual obligations in the club statement on 5th December, from which one can only infer that Rangers either refused, or were in no position to meet, the financial commitments required. Aberdeen FC therefore exercised their right to refuse permission to speak to McInnes, a position they are perfectly entitled to maintain until such time as Rangers agree to meet all contractual obligations, just as Sunderland did.
The story for the press to pursue is obvious yet Keith Jackson wants to have us believe that the McInnes decision -and ultimately it was his decision – has nothing to do with money. Jackson even suggested that an offer of £1m up-front was on the table in a piece that was published on Wednesday:
In it, Jackson states;
“Dons chairman Stewart Milne made his hardball position clear last night after booting out an official approach from the Ibrox club – and turning down a cheque for £1 million in compensation.”
I’m not entirely sure what Mr Jackson means by an ‘official’ approach, I would have thought ‘formal’ to be more apposite but it’s a moot point in the grand scheme of things. Fact is, Jackson didn’t think long and hard enough about this statement because it contains not one, or two, but three glaring inaccuracies.
- Mr Milne did not ‘boot out’ any approach – official, formal or otherwise. If Rangers had met the necessary contractual obligations then Aberdeen FC could not have refused McInnes the opportunity to speak to Rangers – that would have been a breach of contract on the club’s part and McInnes could sue.
- Mr Milne is not ’playing hardball’. Playing hardball is about getting what you want. Mr Milne already has what he wants. He doesn’t need to play hardball – it is Rangers who, if they cannot afford the compensation or wish to alter the terms of the compensation, would need to attempt to play hardball. Jackson has this the wrong way around – a common failing when trying to justify a lie and pursue a biased narrative.
- I don’t dispute that Rangers offered to pay £1 million in compensation, but I do not believe for one millisecond that it would be paid in a single instalment either by cheque, cash or bank transfer because the audited accounts published last month prove that such a commitment would not be possible. A shortfall of £4m was required in soft loans to see out the current season, with monies required immediately, and a further £3.2m after June 18. Furthermore, these figures did not consider the additional cost of a change of management at the club/holding company/engine room subsidiary/call it what you will.
It’s rather telling that Mr Jackson makes no mention of this £1m cheque in his ‘exclusive’ today. Instead, he offers another inaccuracy. He says’;
“When Milne made it clear he was unwilling to grant the move his blessing – and that McInnes would have to rip up his contract to pursue a return to Ibrox – the ex-Rangers player was boxed into a corner.”
Mr Milne is in no position to grant a move, whether with his blessing or otherwise. There is a binding contract in place and only if contractual obligations are met then – as is glaringly obvious from the Aberdeen Club Statement of 14th June – Mr Milne would have to, albeit reluctantly, allow the manager to speak to the other club, just as he did in the case of Sunderland. He cannot box his manager into a corner. There is no decision for Mr Milne to make if the requisite compensation is agreed to be paid in full to terminate the manager’s contract with Aberdeen FC.
More plausibly, Rangers could box McInnes into a corner. The job is his if he wants it, but he will have to resign his position to take it because Rangers won’t meet the contractual obligations. Once again Jackson has it the wrong way around because he is lying and pursuing a biased narrative.
Any reasonably minded follower of Scottish football knows why McInnes is not going to Rangers. It’s all about the money – or the lack of it – and no amount of lying or high-level fantasy by award winning journalists will alter that prosaic fact.
In fear of contradicting myself from my earlier post on agreeing to disagree, I would say yes the titles should be attributed to the current team playing out of Ibrox. The same way Fiorentina’s were.
And the whole ‘my gran died and I live in her house’ type of argument does nothing to change the old club new club debate. It’s not one person pretending to be another. It’s a football club which I don’t define as a ‘thing’. And in my point of view there has been no difference
That at doesn’t mean I’m right. It doesn’t mean you are right. It’s just an opinion. And if I wanted to be like Ernest I could try and list every single reason or quote I could come across to justify by my argument, and you would respond to every single reason and argument to justify yours but what would that achieve? Apathy from another 3 pages of repetitive points scoring?
Re: the current / latest firefighting efforts down Govan way…
You would think that it could be a sensible idea fro the Blue Room to reassess this season, and perhaps to communicate that this is now a ‘transitional’ season: i.e. effectively write off this season?
Bears won’t be happy without a new manager or new signings next month.
But, this season’s ST money has already been banked / spent, so focus could be on building optimism…for when next season’s ST renewals are due.
So, keep Murty in place to the end of this season, [and assuming he will agree].
Mibbees with Kenny Miller as an assistant ?
No new signings next month, only departures.
A big announcement that a new policy to give increased game time to the youth players – and this will be a basic requirement for the team for rest of the season.
If TRFC loses games – but with several youth players involved – the bears might be more forgiving / patient…and it is helping to develop these players for next season onwards.
Alternatively, fingers crossed that TRFC goes bust for Christmas!
Absolutely!
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKDECEMBER 14, 2017 at 15:18
Correct. Other clubs could only use the ebts RFC used if players signing were prepared to accept a payment via a trust, on trust. Thus an indemnity which was in effect a contract between RFC and the player that if using the trust route were to backfire RFC would meet the costs (tax owed) and not the player, was needed.
Thus the indemnity was part of a players contract and had RFC wanted to test the strength of their belief that they were using ebts lawfully, all they had to do was tell the SFA from the first point they used them and then in 2005 when they lied to HMRC about the existence of 2 side letters whilst sitting on another 29.
Without such indemnity a player would not sign (or in some cases RFC would not sign players who were not prepared to be paid via an indemnified trust) and since SDM admitted that ebts gave RFC an advantage in a competetitive wage market and since it is generally accepted clubs who pay higher wages than rivals have an advantage over them that translates into an advantage on the field of play where sport takes place, then RFC did have a sporting advantage using a method NOT open to other clubs thus it was unfair and dishonestly so.
As you say it wasn’t that ebts per se were unlawful, it was the way RFC used them that was and had there not been such a rush to sanction RFC on breaking registration rules and everyone had waited for the BTC to run its course, the false narrative of no dishonesty created by LNS simply would not exist.
Of course Rangers supporters will cling to LNS (an exercise the SFA refuses to revisit or was it the SPFL and if the SFA why don’t the SPFL revisit because they as SPL set up the Commission) and I can understand that, but in setting out the above I hope those Rangers fans who cling to the false narrative will at least appreciate the anger of folk who did not come up the Clyde on a water biscuit.
I’d like to add I’m not a naive follower. I know my club have huge huge problems that the MSM are terrified to report. I know my club is run by genuine businessmen with no real financial clout and governed by a crook and a charlatan. I know we have massive financial problems and are trying to live outwith our means. I don’t believe a word I read in the media. Just so you know not every Rangers fan who believes it’s the same club is a brainwashed Keith Jackson follower.
DarkbeforedawnDecember 14, 2017 at 14:30
With regards Ernest, surely the problem is because both sides have polar opposite views and no one is willing to meet in the middle? Why not agree to disagree and move on instead of trying to each force your viewpoint as if gospel? Regards the single biggest debates on here with him seem to be NC/OC and whether Rangers gained a financial advantage. On the first, most on this site would class Rangers as a new club while a few such as Ernest and myself would class it as the same. I can’t see it from your viewpoint as I’ve said many times before I still go and watch a team in blue called Rangers every week, and the adverts, news, water cooler chat and a lot of the cast have not changed one bit. So for us it’s no different regardless of the legal ins and outs, a football club is more than a registered number. But I wouldn’t waste time arguing with you as I know you would disagree. On the second point I agree we had an advantage by using the scheme BUT at that time anyone else could have used it although they too would have been hit when the tightening of tax avoidance loopholes came into play. Was it morally wrong? Yes. Should they be stripped titles? No. Morals don’t really have much place in football (look at Qatar, look at FIFA, look at all the teams in England buying outwith their means). Again that’s my opinion on the matter and I won’t berate anyone for disagreeing with me. If everyone would stop trying to disagree with Ernest and agree to disagree there wouldn’t be this same repetitive drivel every single day. Just my tuppence worth
_______________________
How convenient it is that, when suggesting that ‘anyone else could have used it’ (and by anyone else, I assume you mean any other club), you do not tackle the awkward (for you) matter of deliberately mis-registering the EBT soaked players, a ploy absolutely necessary to conceal the true nature of the payments. These actions were not just linked, they were locked together as part of the conspiracy.
Each of the two factors – sorry three when you include deliberately hiding, then denying, the existence of side letters – are not just morally wrong, they are deceptions of the basest order and require the morals of cheats and criminals (cheats against football, and criminals in their lies and deceit towards HMRC). The idea that everyone else could, or would, cheat Scottish football and deceive HMRC – and so Rangers are somehow exonerated – is as repugnant as it is ludicrous.
DARKBEFOREDAWN, again a very sensible post and a good read. I don’t think looking abroad for examples is particularly informative. Different countries will have their own set of rules and it’s probably not a one size fits all situation.
Why not keep it in Scotland and use Airdrionians as an example? They may have got their name back but they were founded in 2002 as Airdrie Utd after the original club went into liquidation.
Easy Jambo
Does Hearts business plan depend on playing in the EL Group stages in 2 of the next 5 years?
Does Aberdeen’s?
Hibs?
If not why are TRFC allowed to plan on that basis with no challenge from club Directors?
Am I the only one too see the moral hazard this re introduces to Scottish football?
What happens if TRFC don’t qualify or progress? Another insolvency as a result of pursuing a similar policy for CL income to keep that bubble from bursting?
What about the income rivals lose because they don’t gamble on paying higher wages dependent on football sucess and end up below a TRFC who don’t even qualify?
Some form of domestic FFP with clear rules on what is allowable to be treated as income and what isnt, and limiting wage budgets to it are a must to protect all clubs from the risks inherent in the policy adopted by TRFC.
This should become stark if TRFC have to unload high wage earners in January as Phil Mac suggests. How many points did challengers drop playing a team containing players TRFC could not afford?
TRFC still would have an advantage over every club, bar Celtic of course who have bigger crowds crowds and the higher acceptable income sources they are able to negotiate.
AuldheidDecember 14, 2017 at 16:55
I think Hearts, and everyone else’s, business plan depends on a level playing field, and I suppose it’s their own fault if they don’t insist on getting one. Why that should be (that they don’t insist on that level playing field) is beyond me.
Issue 1. No club (Club?) has financial problems. That’s a stupid company thing remember.
Issue 2. You (the company that owns the….well you know the rest) don’t have financial problems. No such thing can truly exist any longer in the parallel universe where liquidation is but a temporary holding company fillip.
Some other mug comes in and funds the difference, but only on the basis that they have to get to the group stages……
Apologies anyone and DBD in particular if you read my Issue 3 where I queried your assertion that they (this club company thingy) were trying to live within their means. I see now (and have hopefully edited out) that you said they were trying to live OUTWITH their means. Not just doing it but actually physically trying to do it. No argument from me there!
Apologies all. As you were!
AuldheidDecember 14, 2017 at 16:55
I think Hearts, and everyone else’s, business plan depends on a level playing field, and I suppose it’s their own fault if they don’t insist on getting one. Why that should be (that they don’t insist on that level playing field) is beyond me.
And me.
I naively had thought that Mrs Budge would rattle some cages when she arrived on the scene.
No chance. Despite mentioning FFP in the accounts she sat back and watched the zombie club take a Europa League place off the back of a playing squad that they clearly couldn’t afford.
St Johnstone too rolled over and died.
Smugas, surely that once again is a reason why petty point scoring is pointless? Ernest gets slaughtered for supposedly trolling, but is he or is it because when he responds people like yourself try and argue by making points like yours? I made what I believe to be a perfectly fair and honest representation of the type of fan I am, yet the best you could come up with was sarcastic digs? I’m not sure what you were looking for in terms of a response, as if I were to argue your points I’d be no worse than a troll in everyone’s eyes so I won’t even rise to it. For the most part this site is an open forum for all view points and people like JC are very fair in their inclusion of every viewpoint. Yet a large majority like yourself would rather hound out anyone who doesn’t support your view.
No worries Smugas, apology accepted and no offence taken. And I appreciate your response there.
Its not sarcasm. You cannot argue on one hand that a club can miraculously escape liquidation and then turn around and plead that the (same) club has massive financial problems.
A good read.
http://celticunderground.net/the-lasting-damage-to-the-integrity-of-scottish-football/
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 13, 2017 at 18:53
£3,373,170 ……………………. if you believe D&P’s figures.
——-Thanks for reply.Sorry i took so long to get back to you.
At this point in time then i guess they don’t even have as much in the bank, as they are a loss making business with no credit line from a bank
The only people wanting to move on from the liquidation and the effect is the ones who have more to lose.
This was and now is a company. The old company that died took with it its incorporated structure which was Rangers thats how the creditors lose in business liquidations they share the booty. like when Scrooge witnesses his own liqiudation in the ghost of things to come.
To re-emerge and pretend to be as the same would mean the whole shooting match the incoprporated would come with it, rise as one and like Marleys chains you have to carry these around as reminders and creditors would be following you around haunting you.
When you change you will see that life goes on freer from the burdens and brand new without the lies and free to tell the RRM to go take a Feck to themselves.
Live the lie and you live the reminding, you help forge the chains and, bond the forgery that the club is the same and TUPE and all those things were not connected, they were seperate.
The Myth livers get what they deserve.
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 12, 2017 at 22:15
9
0 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 12, 2017 at 20:35============================
The Berlin Wall is down … aye right.
—————–
I hope so, as i seen Roger waters perform the wall when it came down
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 14, 2017 at 10:25
———-
Thanks for the update. I tried the link but could not find it, so thanks for posting what it said
BUT at that time anyone else could have used it although they too would have been hit when the tightening of tax avoidance loopholes came into play.
———————————————————————————–
Rubbish, when Juninho went to Celtic he had an EBT from Middlesborough, Celtic approached HMRC and asked about them (they were unkknown to Celtic at the time) to be told that HMRC regarded them as illegal and tax evasion, as such Celtic paid the tax due.
A couple of tweets for those not on twitter.
David McArdle@davemcardle Just heard Lord Hodge speak on the Rangers tax case. Lots of v experienced tax lawyers literally open-mouthed; me at the back, chuckling.
He was careful not to go beyond the judgment, but a lot of folk were surprised at the lengths Rangers and the wider Murray Group had gone to.
TheGamesABogeyDecember 14, 2017 at 20:06
BUT at that time anyone else could have used it although they too would have been hit when the tightening of tax avoidance loopholes came into play.———————————————————————————–Rubbish, when Juninho went to Celtic he had an EBT from Middlesborough, Celtic approached HMRC and asked about them (they were unkknown to Celtic at the time) to be told that HMRC regarded them as illegal and tax evasion, as such Celtic paid the tax due.
______________________________________-
That is something I was thinking about when I wrote on the same point earlier, it kind of makes the point. Whether it be honesty, or just fear of the consequences, not many people are prepared to take the risk that Rangers, and the Murray Group, took. I suspect that Murray felt protected by the Establishment, a protection far greater, even, than his Masonic membership gave him (though the two together would have made him feel positively untouchable). I think he misjudged the honesty of the, as he might view them, little men of HMRC, who just go into work each day looking to do their job to the best of their ability, with a determination to catch the dignified multi-millionaire tax dodgers of this world.
Smugas I would argue that’s exactly the case. It’s called the same directors and the same mindset not learning the lessons of old. Whilst we may not agree on the continuation aspect, I think we both agree that Rangers are not run in a sustainable means and are trying to bring back past glory with a business model that is unsustainable.
Lest we forget.
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/lies-damned-lies-and-scottish-football-journalism/
“About rangerstaxcase I have information on Rangers’ tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.”
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2854899/Charities-claim-vast-majority-people-think-avoiding-tax-immoral-s-legal.html
I’m not sure that the Rangers support will be happy to learn that the directors of their football club were paid more this year that last.
Stewart Robertson (Total) £281,000, up from £233,000
Andrew Dickson (Total) £174,000, up from £158,000
So Mr Robertson got an additional £48,000 and Mr Dickson an additional £16,000.
One is forced to ask why. What is it they are doing to justify the payments they were already on, never mind getting a decent whack more. What is it either one of them does.
BFB, I’m not sure what sequence you were using so I’ll go the other way and say Matt, Wullie, Pat. That is the genetic source of the characteristic after all.
Total guess on my part as I don’t know the answer. Guessing Juninho arrived with an established sub trust and asked CFC to top it up thus avoiding tax on the payment. Celtic took one look and thought ‘Naw.’
Warm?
Not wishing to be involved in this , it was Juninho’s EBT. He was the employee who benefitted from the Trust .
DBD
we’re never going to agree as to whether ‘Rangers ARE doing anything.’ I’m not too bothered about the lazy media shorthand – 11 men in blue etc etc but in this specific context no, can’t agree with you there.
Funnily enough though I’ll cut you more slack than some re sustainability. Your model is sustainable as long as some mug wants to fund it. The problem with your search for an investor though is that he now understands the investment vehicle (the company), the Club and the asset are three apparently distinct things. You could add the fans emotional involvement as a fourth. He wouldn’t be entirely sure what he was investing in. Of course this isn’t a problem as long as you’re winning. Whilst EBs ‘growth’ is occurring. Just so long as you’re winning…
A visionary, with common sense.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/adam-shakes-ibrox-pillars-with-warning-of-bankruptcy-1-595808
As Zebedee of ‘The Magic Roundabout’ used to say, “Time for bed”: a visit to the place of abode where there perchance may,allegedly, have been b a magic circle requires a relatively early jump!
one cannot expect the biggest club in Scotland to just sit back and accept mediocrity,
—————–
The biggest club in scotland (Celtic) don’t accept mediocrity.That is why they brought in BR and gave him money to spend
SMUGASDECEMBER 14, 2017 at 23:55. SPL reveal Celtic didn’t appear in EBT dock because Juninho received cash after he left club
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-avoid-ebt-probe-because-1323456.
Here is a message for everyone who is not a Rangers fan. Find something else to do on a Saturday because there is nothing left your team can achieve in football. The reason being that no team, anywhere in the history of football, has ever won four games in a row except Glasgow Rangers. You are simply wasting your time and hard earned money chasing rainbows!
© The Scottish Media 2017
The inquiry set up by the SPL into the EBT schemes used by Rangers between 2001 and 2010 is headed by Lord Nimmo Smith.
He has set a hearing date of November 13 with an outcome expected by November 21.
If found guilty of breaching SPL rules the Ibrox club could be stripped of league titles.
New Rangers owner Charles Green has refused to take any part in the inquiry and called it a “Mickey Mouse event”.
—————
And yet all the ibrox supporters the smsm the spl and SFA take the LNS enquiry as gospel.
They believed charles Green when he said he bought the history but they don’t believe charles Green when he said the LNS enquiry was a mickey mouse event….how strange.
A bit of selective memory from all. choose to listen to the parts that suit the narrative and disregard the parts that don’t.
How long before the ibrox fans focus on wins only and disregard a defeat ? if CG was still there and stated we never got beat 3-0 we won the game.the ibrox fans are so gullible they would swallow it, and why wouldn’t they.enter jim traynor….the club was not liquidated that is a lie.
now jim does not have the charisma of CG to fool the ibrox fans but he does get paid a lot to try
Cluster One.
OK. So if I’m reading that right (and it is the DR!) the thought process seemed to be that Juninho’s sub trust got some kind of discretionary release payment on leaving Celtic. Celtic didn’t fancy the tax treatment, albeit at some later date (I’m guessing they asked for advice) and subsequently paid the tax or at least some tax, it doesn’t say which. The inference is that if the payment was discretionary a side letter wasn’t required. Does it pass the sniff test? Clearly not as their cold feet and eventual tax payment showed. Did it involve contractual performance based payments, a side letter and the subsequent downright lying to HMRC as to its very existence? Apparently Not. The only issue I suppose would be whether the release monies should have been declared to the SFA within the contract declaration which is why I think they draw the distinction that the fact he had already left superceded that requirement (that and the taxes potentially outstanding being paid). Fair summary?
I do have one thing in the back of my mind. Were the big tax case cases that RFC pleaded guilty to (were there 5?) not focused around termination and release clauses? Neil McCann possibly?
“As Sir David Murray and a gaggle of his former directors will tell you, there is nothing illegal in EBTs, it’s the undeclared second contracts the football authorities have a problem with. Juninho’s EBT was not subject to any contract or side letter whatsoever. Moreover, our then chairman, Brian Quinn, regarded EBTs with suspicion and instructed the club to declare Juninho’s to the Revenue. Celtic even paid tax on money paid to the EBT.”
Paul67
CQN 6 Aug. 2012
SmugasDecember 15, 2017 at 10:22
I have no idea whether or not Celtic made any contribution into Juninho’s EBT before ending it, but it was an EBT that Middlesbrough FC set up and not Celtic. In fact, it appears Celtic knew nothing about it at the time of signing him, but on learning of it, clearly decided that it might cause them problems to continue with it without clarification of it’s legitimacy from HMRC. They got that clarification and settled with HMRC to the latter’s satisfaction. Only desperate fools (all the bears who mention it) would try to make out that Celtic did anything underhand, or that their actions were in any way similar to those of Rangers.
It was, after all, Celtic who let HMRC, the SFA and the rest of the world know about the existence of Juninho’s EBT and cleared it up! They hid nothing! On the other hand, had Rangers signed him…
On Celtic’s handling of the Juninho EBT. Surely that is an example of how Celtic, at least, would have viewed the use of EBTs that LNS somehow managed to find as being available to all other clubs (and so RFC hadn’t gained an unfair advantage by their use). Had the SPL been serious in their ‘prosecution’ of the case, they would surely have brought Celtic’s actions up at the tribunal as an example of just how the SFA would expect all clubs to deal with such an untested method of payment – seek advice from the ultimate authority on the matter.
Every time someone brings up the Juninho EBT, they are unintentionally showing just how wrong Rangers’ use of EBTs, and how wilful their deception, was!
I’ve been pondering for a few days whether or not to respond to JJ’s recent child-like temper tantrum, respectful as I am of the SFM mods likely wish to avoid an inter-blog, tit-for-tat, slag fest.
However, I’ve concluded that unless a spoilt child is corrected, he or she will continue to display the same behaviour ad infinitum. Homunculus is eloquent and erudite enough to defend himself against JJ’s tirade, so I’ll leave him to do so if he wishes.
When JJ accused me of “hanging on my every word looking for a flaw to spew up bile” he was referring to two separate occasions on which I pointed out a minor spelling error on his part. What he conveniently forgot to mention was that the spelling errors made by JJ that I highlighted were made in articles where he ridiculed two individuals for their spelling errors. I wouldn’t have mentioned JJ’s spelling mistakes had he not made the schoolboy error of slagging someone else’s spelling whilst simultaneously making the same mistake himself!
I guess he doesn’t do irony. I guess he does do double standards. I guess he does do rank hypocrisy. I guess he does do ad hominem attacks – just read the article above.
If my reporting him to the spelling police constitutes ‘spewing bile’, then by applying the same skewed scale and logic we can probably extrapolate that his alleged heroic banishment to foreign lands equates to him living in a bedsit in Govanhill, munching Pot Noodles along with his only friend, his pet poodle, Mensch.
ps, any spelling mistakes above are entirely intentional in the interests of irony.
HighlanderDecember 15, 2017 at 12:09
——
Come on, Highlander. Are you trying to tell us that JJ and The Mensch are *different people*? 🙂
I don’t know abut anyone else, but I think that that vile, dirty-mouthed extract from JJ betokens a mind that is seriously warped and possibly in need of counselling.
Not a chap I would willingly meet or be in the company of, God help him in his affliction.
John Clark
December 15, 2017 at 12:57
“I don’t know about anyone else—“
——————————-
I think you have just lost your invitation.
“If the RTC blogger would care to contact me, and work in unison with me, I will initiate crowdfunded legal redress. Should we both continue to be mindful of our anonymity we will require a third party to front our consortium. I would invite John Clark who contributes to the SFM.
So why not go it on my own? I can barely raise enough money to pay the rent and I have not had a holiday since starting this site and being forced into exile. A kind reader has offered me a coach flight and free accommodation with his family in Buenos Aires, but I would not turn up without the means to buy him a bottle of red wine in gratitude.
If RTC and JC joined forces with me I have no doubt that we could rip the guts out of this whitewash. I am loath to praise the SFM as they harbour two small-minded guttersnipes who hang on my every word looking for a dipthong out of place. However in the best interests of my readers I have borrowed their latest editorial piece which has many parallels to the article I published on Saturday”
John ClarkDecember 15, 2017 at 12:57
I don’t know abut anyone else, but I think that that vile, dirty-mouthed extract from JJ betokens a mind that is seriously warped and possibly in need of counselling. Not a chap I would willingly meet or be in the company of, God help him in his affliction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s certainly a conundrum.
He has something to add to the ongoing farce at Ibrox in terms of insight and inside info and writes well about it most of the time. But his obsession with conspiracies, the use of overtly sexualised language and homophobia is a sure fire way of undermining his own credibility. It all seems very self destructive behaviour. I wonder if he understands how it comes across to normal people?
Celtic have certainly stirred a hornet’s nest with their letter to season ticket holders.
Season tickets can only be used by the named person on said ticket. No lending to family or friends when ticket holder can’t make games.
That has been part and parcel of season ticket use since they became popular. I don’t know how vigorously this will be policed. There are some stories going around that it’s part of security measures, to be able to identify seat occupants in case of trouble. Like the ‘fan’ who invaded the pitch at the PSG game recently. Apparently he had a borrowed ticket.
I think I would rather let the police and the stewards worry about trouble makers than have huge amounts of empty seats at games. Usual over reaction to the few who make trouble for the many innocent fans.
JIMBODECEMBER 15, 2017 at 14:45
Might be pertinent to the game v TRFC at the turn of the year ? I imagine that not all of the visiting fans are holders of season tickets . There was (at least) one guy at Firhill who had a football ban and was heard to boast about it later .
Might be of interest to BP:
Nacho Novo,
The 38-year-old opened the NN10 Ibrox-themed pub earlier this month and already it has faced criticism (Price of drinks).
Ahead of the festive season the ex-footie ace is looking for musical talent to play at the boozer.
(Get the money up front!)
JIMBODECEMBER 15, 2017 at 14:45
Just dawned on me that I’m just as culpable – I let others use my ST when I can’t .
The Scotsman ‘Rumours’ quoting The Scottish Sun, [my highlighting] :
“…Rangers could make a £1.2 million bid for Brighton winger Jamie Murphy next month…”
============
And so it begins.
Rangers could make a £X million / billion bid for SPL / EPL / La Liga player ‘Billy Bob’ next month.
[Edit daily – as per Level42 instructions.]
StevieBCDecember 15, 2017 at 15:41
It’s a bit like saying, ‘tomorrow, the SMSM could report honestly and fairly’.
JJ is disgusting and offensive. His comment makes me feel sick.
Was wondering if everyone was to state to football clubs in advance that they cannot make the game travelling over from say Ireland or travelling down from the highlands for the freezing foggy November game v Inverness due to the wind rocking boats off the cliffs in the English chanel and snow in the mountains and to keep withing the laws and spirit, i will not give my relative the ticket but maybe you could send me the price of the game as a refund since i would prefer not to risk my life travelling this Tuesday, i am sure in the fairness of sport you would agree this would be fair.
Jimbo
I’m on it 🙂
Nacho coming along to hear us in your local music venue next Saturday. Bring a friend
SMUGASDECEMBER 15, 2017 at 10:22
10
0 Rate This
Cluster One.
OK. So if I’m reading that right (and it is the DR!)
—————–
How it was reported back in the day. I know i’m a bit late posting the picture but for any young SFM_ers who may have been to young at the time.
Folks,
No more podcasts I’m afraid until after Christmas. We still haven’t been able to attract the sponsorship to help us pay for the new telephone balance unit and the quality of the recorded phone chats is poor, despite being more difficult to obtain in the absence of the equipment.
I have spoken to Tris and he may make an appeal for a few extra quid in the January fund raising exercise. Being selfish because I love doing the interviews, but I really want to get that functionality back – especially since the podcasts themselves are very popular and get high numbers.
Again if anyone knows of a business who might be interested in sponsoring any or all of 30 episodes of TWM over a year, please get in touch.
On the JJ thing, it is absolutely not our policy to get involved in spats with other sites, and we haven’t and won’t respond to any invective.
Moderation-wise, there’s no objection to fair comment by our members as long as they comply with our usual standards 🙂
For JC to put in his diary 4 days next May
Can I also say that however we disagree as a collective with Dark Before Dawn, he has conducted himself in a very SFM-like manner. It’s good to get another viewpoint which is not intended merely to wind up the blog.
Also good to hear again from incredibleadamspark. His views and allegiances taken together are a reminder to us as fans that there is more that unites us than divides us.
Cluster OneDecember 15, 2017 at 18:57
‘…For JC to put in his diary 4 days next May..’
______________
Extremely grateful to you for that information, C1.
I went in this morning to hear the latest in the BDO v D&P case,only to find that it had begun at 9.00 a.m when I thought it would begin at the normal time of 10.00 a.m. It was over and done with before 9.45, I think.
Happily, there was also the RFC Group Ltd v the Liquidators , which was on before Lord Doherty at 10.00 a.m, so I sat in on that.
This is the case in which Henderson and Jones , who bought Craig Whyte’s claim, and who are shareholders in The Rangers FC Group, are trying to claim £2M from the liquidation pot.
In today’s business, BDO ( represented by Mr Dunlop, QC, were arguing that The Rangers FC Group ( represented Mr McGregor QC) should be required to find caution [pronounced ‘cation’ as in ‘station’] in the sum of £100,000 before they were allowed to proceed with any claim because there was a likelihood that if they lost their action they would be unable to pay costs and expenses.
There was (to me) a complicated, unintelligible argument about whether the ‘noter’ ( the RFC Group) could be a ‘pursuer’ when it was BDO who had initiated the action in the first place, by knocking back the claim. That decision was based on the fact that the Ticketus deal was used to discharge the entire liability…..and the fact that “we have a company which is massively insolvent which has basically sold its claim to litigation funding…….where they would have complete immunity in the event of failure, and there is a very clear argument that the money that was sought was obtained by criminal fraud (even if that had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt)… on the balance of probabilities…..[ I confess that all three of us (the daily record chap, a freelance chap, and I) got lost in the string of other case references, but I think that was the gist of Mr Dunlop’s arguments]
On the question of quantum, Mr Dunlop continued, it is evident that we are going to have an evidential hearing, at least an 8 day hearing.The sum of £100,000 is entirely appropriate. I move the motion.
Mr McGregor responded: the noter would not be able to to satisfy expenses.BUT at common law, any award of caution is an act of discretion by the court.In his submission, the reality of the situation must be regarded.There were three questions to be asked:
1. which party is truly the pursuer
2.is it in the interests of justice for the noter to be required to find caution?
3.and if it is, at what level?
He invited the court to reflect on the claim:
there was the facility with the Bank of Scotland with £15M owed
there is an assignation agreement between the Bank of Scotland and the noter
the company itself has acknowledged the outstanding indebtedness is £18M
there is a series of commercial documents that have not been ‘reduced’,
so the noter is entitled to pursue .
The £18M debt has been reduced to £2M : that was claimed and refused in 2014 by the Liquidator on grounds of fraud allegations.
But, my Lord, there was no criminal conviction.
The noters have lodged a note:does that make them the pursuer or originators?No, it was the Liquidators who initiated the action…( a couple of cases were referenced and cited at length on that point, with Lord Doherty making one or two interjections for clarity)
Mr McGregor continued, inviting the Court to look at the rejection of the claim on 14/09/17.The reason for that rejection was on a basis of ” you might have a claim, but I’ve got a bigger one”, to set-off against [{the liquidation pot??}]
The respondent [ the Liquidator] therefore is the pursuer, not the noter
In relation to the second question, it is not, in my submission, in the interests of justice for caution to be made.
Lord Doherty interjected ” On the basis of means? … You have to be very candid..”
My Lord, they argue on the basis of criminal fraud…..But Whyte was cleared!
On question 3, the issue of quantum, the Court should be mindful of the level of caution.It should not be fixed at £100,000 today, we need to see evidence..
Lord Doherty asked ” on what basis should it be fixed?”
Mr McGregor replied ” at a much lower level “.
Mr Dunlop in reply to Mr McGregor’s points on his first question, asked: Who asked the Court’s assistance? It is the noter.
There would be no attack if there was no note.
On the issue of quantum, he said there was no way this case can be determined:we are looking at an evidential hearing. What money was ever introduced by the Group?
Mr McGregor riposted in turn : there was a complete change of Directors. My learned friend ducks the fact that none of the documentation has been ‘reduced.’
Lord Doherty went off to consider the matter.
He returned after about 20 minutes or so, more or less.
This is what he pronounced:
“1. I find that the noter is a pursuer
2.I find that there is credible testimony that the noter would not be able to pay if he were to be unsuccessful in the action
3. the noter will be ordered to find caution
4. the indication is that the proceedings are being funded by a 3rd party
5. it is not necessary that the noter’s case should be strong. I can’t say anything about the relative merits:there are sound arguments on both sides.
6. caution will be ordered
7. on quantum, there is likely to be a lengthy evidential hearing, we are at a relatively early stage, and it would be premature to make a full assessment. I order noter to find caution of £25,000 in the next six weeks, to cover expenses up to and including proofs”
Mr McGregor asked for permission to consult his learned friend for moment. This was granted, and after short whispered exchange,Mr McGregor told the Judge that there had been prior discussions during which £35,000had been mooted as caution but expenses of the motion were not included:simply an offer of caution.
Mr Dunlop observed that there had been an offer of caution , but no concession on expenses.
Lord Doherty said: I shall allow expenses-the Respondent to pay.
—
And that was that.
JOHN CLARKDECEMBER 15, 2017 at 20:54
3
0 Rate This
Cluster OneDecember 15, 2017 at 18:57‘…For JC to put in his diary 4 days next May..’______________Extremely grateful to you for that information, C1.
——————
Thanks JC.
—
I see The Scotsman saying Orlit won their case but no mentioned of amounts though
John Clark
December 15, 2017 at 20:54
should be required to find caution [pronounced ‘cation’ as in ‘station’
————————————————————————
Wow, that took me back to 1972 when I used to underwrite bonds of caution for the Insurance company I worked for at that time.
Was never involved with them since.
something that may have gone unnoticed.
————
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/people-with-significant-control-companies-house-register-goes-live
CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 10:36
=================================
There was also a notification for Barry Scott, on the same day, with John Gilligan being removed as a person with significant control. Gilligan was removed and King added on 15th November.
There was a lot posted on 11th December
CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 10:36
I know it is irrelevant to the point you’re making Cluster One, but it never ceases to amaze me that there isn’t a law of the land or football regulation that precludes the likes of Johnston, King etc having involvement in a football club which purports to be the same club as the one which died leaving a trail of debt amounting to considerably north of £150million.
I appreciate that laws, rules and regulations don’t apply to any version of Rangers, but it is beyond scandalous that these people are allowed influence and control of the new entity, given the part they played in the demise of the original club.
Cluster OneDecember 16, 2017 at 10:36
That would appear to be good news for the bears, for if it means Johnston has bought out King, then it means the rottenest of bad eggs is out of the basket (of assets), which just might open the door for some reputable (or less disreputable) investor(s)/lender(s) to get involved. It could, of course, just mean that Johnston will be fronting for the bad egg.
I cannot imagine, though, that divesting himself of his shares (or the majority of them) can get King off the CoT hook, especially if he has passed them to someone already on the board rather than make them available to all existing shareholders and the wider public. It might, perhaps, distance the club from the name ‘Dave King’!
I do hope (but have no confidence in it happening) that the FCA investigate this apparent movement of shares in a football club fraught with dodgy dealings and characters in it’s five year history.
ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 11:20
Cluster OneDecember 16, 2017 at 10:36
That would appear to be good news for the bears, for if it means Johnston has bought out King …
======================================
I don’t see why it would mean that AJ. The share condition is 25%, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that either King, Scott or Gilligan own(ed) or control(led) that much of the PLC.
I could be wrong, but I would imagine that it would be more to do with control of the company rather than control of it’s shares or voting rights.
Just guessing of course, if the PLC was still listed we would know. Mr King did promise transparency after all.
HighlanderDecember 16, 2017 at 11:18
CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 16, 2017 at 10:36I know it is irrelevant to the point you’re making Cluster One, but it never ceases to amaze me that there isn’t a law of the land or football regulation that precludes the likes of Johnston, King etc having involvement in a football club which purports to be the same club as the one which died leaving a trail of debt amounting to considerably north of £150million.I appreciate that laws, rules and regulations don’t apply to any version of Rangers, but it is beyond scandalous that these people are allowed influence and control of the new entity, given the part they played in the demise of the original club.
__________________________
While agreeing with you on the moral aspect of your post, we have to remember that the SFA have invented an imaginary distancing mechanism that allows charlatans, like King (and so Johnston and any other chosen peepul), to be on the board of a holding company, even when the sole purpose of that holding company is to run that football club. This despite having previously changed their rules to allow them to fine a club for the words of the major shareholder of the club’s holding company, who, like King, wasn’t on the board of the club, itself.
HIGHLANDER
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 11:18
=================================
Ah but they don’t, they have control over the PLC which owns 100% of the shares in the club.
Robertson and Dickson are the directors of the club.
You wouldn’t think it though, with the proclamations King makes and the way he is treated by the media. You would almost think he runs the club.
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 16, 2017 at 11:13
4
0 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 16, 2017 at 10:36=================================
There was also a notification for Barry Scott, on the same day, with John Gilligan being removed as a person with significant control. Gilligan was removed and King added on 15th November.
There was a lot posted on 11th December.
—————
Getting things ready for the christmas dinner,and who sit’s where around the table……more sprouts anyone?
Jim Spence article on cheats.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/jim-spence/564970/jim-spence-sporting-cheats-steal-faith-honesty-competition/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
HomunculusDecember 16, 2017 at 11:35
You are, of course, correct, but I was looking at the worst case scenario from a moral? perspective. I say ‘moral’ for there can be little doubt that there is some shenanigans afoot! But the King consortium owns 30%+ of the shares, hence the CoT involvement, so Johnston might have bought out King and gained control of some of the others’ shares.
Whatever it is that’s afoot, they don’t seem to be in a hurry to announce it, as they would if it was a genuinely positive development.
In any event, Johnston has got control of more than 25% of the shares (25.01%?), and the only obvious immediate benefit would be if he’s bought out Dave King.
ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 11:52
=================================
I know where you are coming from, however with the movement involving Scott and Gilligan on the same day I tend to think it is something else.
Gilligan resigned as a director in May. Was removed as a POSC in November and it was reported at Companies House on Dec 11th.
Scott was appointed as Director on 11th December and notifies as a POSC on the same day.
There is also a confirmation statement posted on 11th December, dated 16th November which shows 5 major shareholders
Club1872
George Alexander Taylor
Alexander Easdale
Douglas Ireland Park
New Oasis Asset Ltd
I think for Johnston or Scott it is more likely to be one of the other conditions.
Directly or indirectly holds the right to appoint or remove a majority of board of directors.
Has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control of the company, LLP or SE.
That is pure conjecture on my part, he may well have bought King’s shares, however it would have to have brought him up to owning or controlling 25%.
Do we think Scott has also bought 25%
Or that Gilligan used to control 25%
It may not be related, but in terms of Johnson taking some form control, it is he who as RFC Chairman signed the Interim Accounts of 1 April 2011 which described an actual liability as potential.
It is this that the SFA Compliance Officer is investigating and if it proves that was a false statement either Johnson has to demonstrate that
1. he was another of the duped (but by whom?),
2 step down or
3 carry on giving the Vicky to Scottish football.
AULDHEID
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 12:30
===================================
Forgive my cynicism, however I think Johnson will be unconcerned with what the SFA Compliance Officer thinks about anything.
So I think your option 3. is actually option 1.
In a series of 1.
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 16, 2017 at 11:52
2
0 Rate This
HomunculusDecember 16, 2017 at 11:35
You are, of course, correct, but I was looking at the worst case scenario from a moral? perspective. I say ‘moral’ for there can be little doubt that there is some shenanigans afoot! But the King consortium owns 30%+ of the shares, hence the CoT involvement, so Johnston might have bought out King and gained control of some of the others’ shares.
Whatever it is that’s afoot, they don’t seem to be in a hurry to announce it, as they would if it was a genuinely positive development.
In any event, Johnston has got control of more than 25% of the shares (25.01%?), and the only obvious immediate benefit would be if he’s bought out Dave King.
—————–
If johnston has bought out king? was king not the one who got the accounts signed off by claiming he could get the money or the loans that are required to keep the lights on to see out the season.
Who comes up with the loans now? also did phil not mention campbell Dallas this week made an unexpected visit to ibrox?
whatever is going on something is afoot.but then maybe not as the smsm would be all over it
CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 12:43
=============================
Johnson may well have bought out King, however being listed as a person with significant control does not mean that.
Sorry but I think people are seeing something happening and making a leap on what it means. They may be correct, I don’t know.
I am not saying King has not sold his shares, I have no idea. However this development does not in and of itself mean that he has, or that Johnson has bought them.
If someone owns or controls 25% then they are a person with significant control. However just because someone is a person with significant control does not mean that they own or control 25%
I have copied this from
https://www.1stformations.co.uk/blog/the-register-of-people-with-significant-control/
2. Who qualifies as a Person with Significant Control?
A person with significant control (“PSC”) is an individual (person or registrable legal entity) who meets one or more of the following conditions in relation to a company:
Condition 1: Directly or indirectly holds more than 25% of the company’s issued share capital.Condition 2: Directly or indirectly holds more than 25% of the company’s voting rights.Condition 3: Directly or indirectly holds the right to appoint or remove a majority of board of directors.Condition 4: Has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control of the company, LLP or SE.Condition 5: Has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the activities of a trust or firm which is not a legal entity, but would itself satisfy any of the first four conditions if it were an individual.
and
3. What does “significant control or influence” mean?
An individual who has significant control or influence over a company can be a person or legal entity, such as another company or firm. As per some examples provided by Companies House, “control” and “influence” can be exercised in a number of different ways:
A person directs the activities of a company, trust or firm.A person can ensure that a company, trust or firm generally adopts the activities which they desire.A person has absolute decision rights over decisions related to the running of the business of the company, for example relating to:– Adopting or amending the company’s business plan.– Changing the nature of the company’s business.– Making any additional borrowing from lenders.– Appointment or removal of the CEO.– Establishing or amending any profit-sharing, bonus or other incentive scheme of any nature for directors or employees.– The grant of options under a share option or other share based incentive scheme.A person has absolute veto rights over decisions related to the running of the business of the company, such as adopting or amending the company’s business plan, or making additional borrowing from lenders.Where a person holds absolute veto rights over the appointment of the majority of directors, meaning those directors who hold a majority of the voting rights at meetings of the board on all or substantially all matters.A person who is not a member of the board of directors but regularly or consistently directs or influences a significant section of the board, or is regularly consulted on board decisions and whose views influence decisions made by the board.A company founder who no longer has a significant shareholding in the company they started, but makes recommendations to the other shareholders on how to vote and those recommendations are always or almost always followed.