It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

Avatar ByConcomitant

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

About the author

Avatar

Concomitant contributor

Despite over 30 years in exile I'm still as passionate about our national game as I ever was. It breaks my heart to see it being destroyed by those in power - the SFA, the SPFL, the Scottish media and in some cases the clubs.

779 Comments so far

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on2:52 pm - Dec 19, 2017


AllyjamboDecember 19, 2017 at 13:41

Does anyone know if his understanding of ‘significant control’ is correct or not? If it is wrong, then his conjecture is a load of mince, and I have wasted everyone’s time on here. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Significant control” appears to be based on the size of the shareholding. However, in my old tax days I have seen HMRC argue in company control matters that shareholder loans have to be considered because adding the value of those loans to the shares may entitle the shareholder to more than 50% of the company on a winding up or liquidation.Thus, it is argued they “control” the company.

Re the PSC confirmations by RIFC Plc and Johnston. I conjecture that he may have taken legal ownership (but not beneficial ownership) of the shares held by NOAL and thus he becomes a PSC. The reason for doing so is to distance TGSL from the shit storm that will follow from the CoS judgement.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:34 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Bogs DolloxDecember 19, 2017 at 14:52 
AllyjamboDecember 19, 2017 at 13:41Does anyone know if his understanding of ‘significant control’ is correct or not? If it is wrong, then his conjecture is a load of mince, and I have wasted everyone’s time on here. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++“Significant control” appears to be based on the size of the shareholding. However, in my old tax days I have seen HMRC argue in company control matters that shareholder loans have to be considered because adding the value of those loans to the shares may entitle the shareholder to more than 50% of the company on a winding up or liquidation.Thus, it is argued they “control” the company.Re the PSC confirmations by RIFC Plc and Johnston. I conjecture that he may have taken legal ownership (but not beneficial ownership) of the shares held by NOAL and thus he becomes a PSC. The reason for doing so is to distance TGSL from the shit storm that will follow from the CoS judgement.
__________

What you say kind of bears out what the poster on JJ’s site says, that ‘significant control’ isn’t limited to the amount of shares held, but can also refer to someone who has that control due to being on the board (which obviously confers a measure of control) and being a major creditor/lender, as is the case with almost all the directors of RIFC.

I suspect that having a number of people with significant control on a board is not an ideal scenario, particularly when the ‘significance’ is derived from loans to a loss making company, for effective leadership might well be difficult to come by. The standoff could come about when one director screams ‘austerity’, another screams, ‘sign Steven Naismith (Sky pushing him today)’, another screams, ‘get (any one of a dozen expensive managers)’, and another screams louder than the rest, ‘but We Arrr Ra Peepul!’ Each one backs up his idea for the way forward with a reminder of what might happen if he resigns. If, on the other hand, there was only one director (or proxy) with loans made to the club (as with Ashley), rightly or wrongly, a decision is made on how best to proceed. Any director who doesn’t like it can leave, but can’t hurt the club (unless he’s got the dirt21).

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:36 pm - Dec 19, 2017


The PSC issue is fairly well defined in terms of share ownership and constitution as detailed in conditions i to iii but it know doubt gets messy when considering conditions iv & v.

Its all within the docs somewhere in this link if anyone can be bothered.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-the-people-with-significant-control-requirements-for-companies-and-limited-liability-partnerships

The problem for everyone involved is however the lack of openness and transparency as promised by DCK.

That then leads everyone to to speculate on a range of potential issues from a simple case of good housekeeping to a major jelly and ice cream event. 

Nobody has an idea of what is going on with the board, with the search for a manager, team building strategy etc etc.

Its is frustrating enough for us but imagine being a Bear who has parted with their hard earned cash!

And this is the ‘basket of assets’ club/circus many people say Scottish Football really needs to survive.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:41 pm - Dec 19, 2017


This might be helpful in relation to the non share based provisions. It is examples, rather than specifics. If it becomes a mess again then please just refer to the link.
https://www.1stformations.co.uk/blog/the-register-of-people-with-significant-control/

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.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:53 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Allyjambo
December 19, 2017 at 13:41
============================

John Gilligan was removed as a person with significant control at the same time Johnston and Scott were added.

I have not seen anything to suggest that Gilligan has provided loans to the business.

I am therefore going with the solution requiring the least assumptions. That he was removed because he was no longer a director. I will change that opinion as and when evidence to the contrary comes to light. More than happy to accept that i am wrong based on new evidence.

Conjecture that Johnston had bought 25% of the business and that David Murray may be the person behind that purchase, based purely on the Companies House announcement that Johnston was now a Person with Significant Control is quite simply wild speculation. It is little more than a tabloid headline to try to attract more readers and presumably more donations.

I suppose if you put enough versions of events out then statistically one is probably going to be near the mark. Delete the rest and call the remaining one an exclusive and Bob is your Mother’s Brother.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:01 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Sorry for three in a row, but I just want to point out that the Directors consider these loans to be “quasi-equity”.

From the accounts

“The intention of the loans advanced is such that they can be converted to equity when future share issues are undertaken. Hence, for purposes of analysing the annual financial statements for the year under review, these loans are considered by the Directors to be quasi equity.”

So, according to them, not really loans per se. They are going to be converted to equity anyway so will not have to be repaid.

I trust no-one consider this to be disingenuous.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:17 pm - Dec 19, 2017


I despair at times with ex players. It’s a sad day when the Daily Record are more truthful than an ex Celtic player regarding TRFC.

The Record:  “The Ibrox club had to reapply to join the SPL after oldco Rangers suffered liquidation and were made to start out in the old Division Three after clubs voted almost unanimously against the proposal.”

Paul Lambert:
Talking to beIN Sports , Lambert said: “I think it was the worst decision to demote Rangers three leagues.”

He must know this is controversial.  If he can’t admit the truth why not just shut up?  Talk about something he has knowledge of.  On the pitch matters, not off the pitch.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:27 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Pure speculation on my part, but…

Why has TRFC delayed so much in bringing in a new manager ?

IMO, there are many risks involved for the team, ST sales etc., with this delay.
The only benefit seems to be that additional cash is not required for compensation and/or for new players in January for a new manager.
 
So, is this is a prelude to something more significant, like an Admin. event ?
Bit of deja vu -again ?
Admin., followed by e.g. players on deferred wages ?

Kick the can into the summer, for a suitably accommodating SFA/SPFL to then assist with whatever dastardly plan has been cooked up in the Blue Room ?

No evidence whatsoever of course to support this wild speculation, but is TRFC the first ‘top tier’ club to – apparently – voluntarily delay securing a permanent, new manager ?

[And when the caretaker manager doesn’t seem to be an option?]

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:41 pm - Dec 19, 2017


StevieBC
December 19, 2017 at 16:27
===============================

They claim to have had a process where they accepted applications. Clearly no-one suitable applied.

They then publicly went to Derek McInnes, who didn’t want the job. No matter how anyone wants to spin it, they offered him the job, he didn’t take it.

I think the issue is simple. No-one wants the job on the terms they are able to offer, both personal terms and transfer budget.

It is difficult to see where they go from here, unless someone is willing to put even more money in. That’s over and above the existing predicted losses for this yera and next.

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on4:59 pm - Dec 19, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 19, 2017 at 16:17

Thing is, some folk – in fact many – can be smart and talented in one field but quite dumb when it comes to other fields.  Even university professors.  It’s all about what you bother to learn about and how you apply what you learn (and it can be affected by laziness, arrogance, prejudice and so on).

These folk get the attitude that because they know a lot about one thing they have an attitude that their expertise automatically transfers into other spheres of which they know very little.  Of course Lambert knows about football – about playing it and coaching, but he doesn’t know anything about what been going on in Scottish football these last couple of decades and no doubt has given no more than a very superficial effort into trying to find out. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on5:21 pm - Dec 19, 2017


coineanachantaighe, there might be something in what you say but he would need to have led a very sheltered life for the past 5 years!  I will say this though.  The Scottish press were all over it like flies.  They knew that using the word ‘demotion’ was a biggie.  Why didn’t they ask him to clarify that or expand on it?  There are lots of Celtic fans now condemning him for this statement.  Will he go away and think about it, learn about it?  Issue a retraction?

I think he does work for Sky now.  I won’t hold my breath.

Btw, has he ever heard ‘you’re no Rangers any more’ from the terraces?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on5:23 pm - Dec 19, 2017


I had intended/hoped that the significance of a boardroom with so many directors having made directors’ loans to a loss making company would have been the topic discussed, rather than the definition of a person of significant control, the post on JJ’s site being what brought this situation at RIFC to my attention. For, regardless of what officially constitutes a person of significant control, there can be little doubt that having a gun to hold to the head of other directors, can also be held at the company, itself.

The ‘soft loans’, no doubt made, in most cases, with absolutely the best intentions for the club, could also be seen as that gun to be held (in my opinion), and actually not so ‘soft’ after all. In fact, I would imagine those loans, intended to be turned into shares at some point, are probably more ‘significant’ than shares would be now, or will be in the future. Even more so if King, or any other lender on the board, doesn’t convert his whole lending to shares.

I would imagine that loans from an outside agency(s) would be of much less significance to a company than a loan from someone who has a say in how the company is run, and even more so in a company that survives on successive loans to cover successive losses.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:58 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Hearts AGM, today, was a relatively low key affair (probably because of Sunday’s result).  The one notable announcement was that the bill for the new stand is expected to rise by another £1m to £15m. However, that was more than matched by the promise of another £1.5m from the club’s mystery benefactor(s), taking the total from that source to £4.5m.  That’s in addition to £1m plus for the “Save the Children” shirt sponsorship deal entered into a couple of years ago.

No loan, no equity, no security involved, just a philanthropist doing their bit for the club.  It seems Ann Budge has wealthy friends who don’t mind putting their hands in their pockets.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on6:16 pm - Dec 19, 2017


I suspect the Hearts benefactor is EasyJambo.

Conjecture of course

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:23 pm - Dec 19, 2017


jimbo December 19, 2017 at 18:16
I suspect the Hearts benefactor is EasyJambo.
====================
I wish! ………… If I had that sort of money, it wouldn’t be going near a football club.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on6:52 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Holidays in Amsterdam in the run up to Christmas!  Money talks!

And don’t get me started about your pal John Clark, spends half the year in Australia, now he’s off to the USA for a wee Christmas break!   

It’s funny how you two know your way around the legal system in Scotland and the courts.
HHHMMMMMM!!!!

I rest my case MLud.

(No conjecture here, pure facts).

View Comment

Avatar

Jimmy BonesPosted on7:05 pm - Dec 19, 2017


AJ at 17:23
On the PSC, loans to equity discussion – very interesting indeed, all of the posts.  Your last post caused a penny to drop.  The guys with the loans outstanding have the power to call them in; once these are converted to equity that power has gone.  Is it now a case on the RIFC board that if one is in all are in – that is, either they all convert to equity or no-one converts to equity.
A sort of suicide pact ?
07

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:31 pm - Dec 19, 2017


BIG PINKDECEMBER 19, 2017 at 10:42
17
0 Rate This
Cluster One,
John Gilligan is not a wealthy man at all. He is a manager at Tennents who has a Rangers background and connections. His value to King is that he had the influence as a major player in a shareholders group.
———-
I don’t know if i asked if Mr Gilligan was a wealthy man or not Big Pink. If i did or i’m picking you up wrong Apologies from me.
But as you say. His value to King is that he had the influence as a major player in a shareholders group.
————-
I did say (and not put as elegantly as yourself).
CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 18, 2017 at 19:18
As John Gilligan ceased to be a PSC is he still a director of Garrison security but with little or no control on anything else,except he may hold shares and handy in a voting war?
For..influence as a major player in a shareholders group.
read my attempt of… he may hold shares and handy in a voting war.
———
Again apologies if i picked you up wrong

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on7:40 pm - Dec 19, 2017


IN addition to what Jimmy Bones said I am taken by the use of the quasi-equity chimera. I can already hear the claim that “we’re no in debt but in quasi-equity”. Equity sounds like a much more positive word than debt. Max Bialystok can be seen selling this quasi equity to the aficionados passing the ownership of the loans to them. Ridiculous, yes impossible, no.
How much value does this quasi equity hold? There is some merit in the saying that “the only way to value something is to sell it.”

Homunculus
I shall send a pm- but I am getting spooked by Govanhill Bedsits, Fitzgerald Lodge Management and John James as a pseudonym-things are strange enough.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:55 pm - Dec 19, 2017


ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 19, 2017 at 13:41
I would imagine that the requirement to announce ‘significant control’ is to let other shareholders know that certain individuals have this power.
————-
Has it been announced on Companies House that each of the directors who have made loans to RIFC have significant control, ? and is this where it would be announced?
————
Does anyone know if his understanding of ‘significant control’ is correct or not? If it is wrong, then his conjecture is a load of mince, and I have wasted everyone’s time on here. 
———–
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/people-with-significant-control-companies-house-register-goes-live
again..Hat tip to 
Alex McLaughlan@alexmclaughlan Replying to @AitkensDrum@Heavidor
gov.uk/government/new…
4:33 am – 15 Dec 2017for the link
——
Hope any of this helps and it does not look as if i have passed it off as my own. 19

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on8:10 pm - Dec 19, 2017


How not to answer questions from your second biggest shareholder
Graham Spiers‏ @GrahamSpiers
Graham Spiers Retweeted Andy McKellar
It is hard to believe Rangers FC can treat a major tranche of shareholders so contemptuously; equally that Club1872 is so happy to be the club’s adoring pet puppy…
http://club1872.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AGM-2017-QA.pdf

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:32 pm - Dec 19, 2017


EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 19, 2017 at 20:10
…It is hard to believe Rangers FC can treat a major tranche of shareholders so contemptuously; equally that Club1872 is so happy to be the club’s adoring pet puppy…http://club1872.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AGM-2017-QA.pdf
==================================
A couple of extracts caught the eye;

“The club felt that the questions on the search for the manager had been addressed by the answer given to Club 1872’s first question at the AGM…”
&
“The post of Director of Marketing and Corporate Communications was advertised and has now been filled…”
===================

Translated as;

Still looking for a team manager: so stop asking us questions about it!
&
But we have filled another senior management role: we advertised it and everything!

…priorities ? 09

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on8:37 pm - Dec 19, 2017


The Q &A that got me was:

16) Given that Club 1872 is now the second largest shareholder, are the Rangers board open tothe idea of having a Club 1872 representative on the Rangers board?
No such candidate has been proposed to RIFC to date so no consideration has been given to this.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:38 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Re the loans to equity discussion.
Did i not read or hear somewhere loans now don’t have to be paid back until july 2018?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:53 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Issue is whether loans being in place presumably at 31st Mar ((Auldheid?) contravenes FFP and so prejudices the expected euro slot and licence thereof.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:03 pm - Dec 19, 2017


There is absolutely nothing new in the loans / equity situation.

They have been mentioned in the PLC accounts so there’s no secret there. Though I think it’s a new spin describing them as “quasi equity”. 

The directors and their associates have said they will convert the loans to equity, but as far as I am aware there is not and never has been a contractual obligation. It has been discussed and mentioned in the accounts so they have kind of committed to it, even without a contract. 

With regards threatening other directors via the loans, what would the threat be. To repay the loan or they will move to have the PLC wound up. If that was done then the PLC would have to get the money from it’s debtor, which is the Ltd Company. It couldn’t sell of any other assets because I don’t think it has any, other than the shares in the subsidiary. I suppose the PLC could try to sell those shares. However how much could they actually get for them, and would they want to give away some control over the club. 

So the PLC would probably need to instruct the subsidiary to sell assets, to bring in money to pay the debt to it. The PLC would  then repay the loan to the director / shareholder.

Do people genuinely think that is a real threat. That it wouldn’t make the news and the person be vilified. Or worse have threats made on their life.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:06 pm - Dec 19, 2017


SMUGAS
DECEMBER 19, 2017 at 20:53
===============================

Could that be why it is described as “quasi equity” rather than loans.

You are in debt to the tune of £16m.

Not really it’s “quasi equity” so it’s really more like investment, the people just haven’t had their shares yet.

The unpublished announcement at Companies House may be telling, if there is new equity being distributed to the chosen few. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:14 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Again, apologies for three in a row.

I find this interesting from the Club 1872 / RIFC PLC Q&A Document

14) Can the board update shareholders as to the position of the litigation against former Directors regarding the entering of the retail partnership with Sports Direct?

We will have more to say on the conduct of previous directors of RIFC in due course. This does not relate to Sports Direct or our relationship with them.

Again I think this supports the view that Rangers have an ongoing relationship with Sports Direct, and that the £3m payment was not to terminate the arrangement, it was to vary it. I think someone suggested that it was moving to a yearly contract. That would make sense.

Though I don’t know if the support will see this as Dave King seeing Mike Ashley off, as they were led to believe at the time. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:27 pm - Dec 19, 2017


I remember someone asked the other day which boards they had joined.
Alastair Johnston joined the Board earlier this year and Barry Scott was appointed to theRIFC plc Board following the AGM.
the Club 1872 / RIFC PLC Q&A Document

View Comment

Avatar

gunnerbPosted on9:34 pm - Dec 19, 2017


I seem to recall a moratorium on anyone ever..ever using the stadium as security for a loan. If/when the `soft loan` is converted to equity then is that not kind of the same thing only more wide reaching in its effect ?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:00 pm - Dec 19, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 19, 2017 at 21:14
Again I think this supports the view that Rangers have an ongoing relationship with Sports Direct, and that the £3m payment was not to terminate the arrangement, it was to vary it. I think someone suggested that it was moving to a yearly contract. That would make sense.
Though I don’t know if the support will see this as Dave King seeing Mike Ashley off, as they were led to believe at the time. 
———-
And following on from that.
2) What are the board’s plans to grow the retail aspect of the business in future? The sports directdeal runs until the end of the season, but is it wise to enter negotiations with Sports Direct or isthere a better alternative on the horizon, that would be more beneficial to Rangers?The intention is to maximise the revenue which the Club generates from retail. Commercialconfidentiality dictates that no more can be said at this time in a public forum.
——
Could read as no other one will touch us and if we tell you all now that we did not see Ashley off and we will be having an ongoing relationship with SD all hell would/should break loose.But we still have a couple of months to spin that so the fans come around to our way of thinking.And thank god confidentiality dictates that no more can be said at this time.

“Who there said Transparency”05

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on10:33 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Regarding the Q&A session between Club 1872 and club 2012 posted above by eJ, there is one point which rips my knitting more than all the others.

9) Given the volume of lies being published and broadcast daily about our Club, when are the Directors going to adopt a more robust stance with our detractors in the media, as the current policy, just like its predecessors seems to be failing miserably?

How do you even begin to reason with people so deluded by their own misguided sense of victimhood?

Having told us loudly and in unison in 2012 that Rangers FC died, the mainstream media in Scotland shortly afterwards did a complete u-turn and has consistently advised us ever since that Rangers FC somehow survived its failure to exit administration in 2012 and inexplicably survived entering liquidation, but without ever attempting to explain how it did so, presumably because reporting the truth would offend the flat-earthers who couldn’t cope with that truth!

The big lie has been rife in the media ever since.

Yet these morons claim to have been badly treated by the media! Really? What planet do they come from? Uranus? 

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on10:51 pm - Dec 19, 2017


EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 19 , 2017 at 17:58

No loan, no equity, no security involved, just a philanthropist doing their bit for the club.  It seems Ann Budge has wealthy friends who don’t mind putting their hands in their pockets.
——————————————————————————————
Or a local criminal looking to get rid of some of their ill gotten gains,let’s not ask to many hard questions though as we all know that Ann Budge will always do what’s right 04 .

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:57 pm - Dec 19, 2017


TANGOED
DECEMBER 19, 2017 at 22:51
============================

Forgive me but do you have anything to substantiate that. 

Do you really think that Hearts are being used as a vehicle for money laundering. 

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on11:40 pm - Dec 19, 2017


Homunculus, I don’t think that money laundering was referred to by Tangoed, no doubt they’ll respond to fully explain.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:48 pm - Dec 19, 2017


BLU
DECEMBER 19, 2017 at 23:40
==============================

Yes it was

“Or a local criminal looking to get rid of some of their ill gotten gains” is money laundering.

If people think that’s what is happening fair enough.

I think it is offensive to Hearts, their board and their fans, but that is just my opinion.

View Comment

Avatar

MercDocPosted on12:11 am - Dec 20, 2017


Is Dave talking about Pooropa League or Champions League money?

6) With the accounts identifying funding of £7.2m being required by the end of season 2018/19, when do the board forecast that the club will become self-sustaining and what is the plan to convert loans to equity? Will this be staggered or will it be done in totality at the next share issue?

As mentioned by the Chairman in his speech at the AGM, regular European football will be the key to the Club’s finances becoming fully self-sustaining. The increased revenues from retail will go some way to narrowing the gap as will more effective player trading.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:48 am - Dec 20, 2017


“…..I seem to recall a moratorium on anyone ever..ever using the stadium as security for a loan. If/when the `soft loan` is converted to equity then is that not kind of the same thing only more wide reaching in its effect ?…”

No GunnerB.  A loan is a loan to be paid back.  In the event of default, for failure to repay a lender can act on his/her security to make said repayment,  by forced sale if needs be.

A share, post D/E swop, is just that. They would own a share of RIFC.

the advantage to “Rangers” (and to be fair this is why UEFA prefer it) is you remove the requirement of the debtor to make repayment if you convert it to shares.  Normally a lender is happy to this since he is converting his loan to shares that will attract dividend and or appreciate in value.  In a constantly loss making situation where you might not even trust your fellow lenders to make the same conversion (leaving them in the priority seat for any ‘repayment’ and where there are active dilution resolutions floating around maybe not so much.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:54 am - Dec 20, 2017


4) Recently a new member of the ‘Executive Club’ was announced on social media with a photothat was taken on a mobile phone, in what appears to be a field, with Josh Windass in a pair offlip flops.How does the club expect to attract a higher calibre of commercial partnership when this is thepublic facing image being presented?
————
When a pair of flip flops. is all they seem to worry about their public facing image06

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:58 am - Dec 20, 2017


14) Can the board update shareholders as to the position of the litigation against former Directorsregarding the entering of the retail partnership with Sports Direct?We will have more to say on the conduct of previous directors of RIFC in due course
———–
Can’t wait for that. remind me next year when nothing has come of it

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:00 am - Dec 20, 2017


Regarding the Q&A session between Club 1872 and club 2012
—————-
They don’t half mention all things celtic19

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:39 am - Dec 20, 2017


HomunculusDecember 19, 2017 at 21:03 
There is absolutely nothing new in the loans / equity situation.They have been mentioned in the PLC accounts so there’s no secret there. Though I think it’s a new spin describing them as “quasi equity”. The directors and their associates have said they will convert the loans to equity, but as far as I am aware there is not and never has been a contractual obligation. It has been discussed and mentioned in the accounts so they have kind of committed to it, even without a contract. With regards threatening other directors via the loans, what would the threat be. To repay the loan or they will move to have the PLC wound up. If that was done then the PLC would have to get the money from it’s debtor, which is the Ltd Company. It couldn’t sell of any other assets because I don’t think it has any, other than the shares in the subsidiary. I suppose the PLC could try to sell those shares. However how much could they actually get for them, and would they want to give away some control over the club. So the PLC would probably need to instruct the subsidiary to sell assets, to bring in money to pay the debt to it. The PLC would then repay the loan to the director / shareholder.Do people genuinely think that is a real threat. That it wouldn’t make the news and the person be vilified. Or worse have threats made on their life.
___________________________

I’m not suggesting any of the directors are likely to threaten to close the club down, although demanding repayment of their individual loan might well have the same effect, but what exists at RIFC is a board whose individual level of influence is greater than their shareholdings, and their abilities, and it looks as though they are beginning to realise that they have been lied to, well all but one (the liar) has had to realise that.

What I am suggesting, though, is that it must make choosing the right direction for the club rather difficult, unless everyone is in agreement, for, without these loans, an individual would only have, as his lever to influence the board, the threat of resignation.

In the Blue Room, though, resignation carries a far greater lever!

Just imagine the scenario if the majority of the board were in agreement that austerity was the best way forward, but one member, steeped in the traditions of WATP, was not prepared to accept that. Or imagine the opposite scenario, where the bulk of the board have decided to go for it and spend even more money they don’t have. An individual wouldn’t have to threaten demanding his loan back, he’d just have to say he’d resign and not convert his loan to equity if they go against him.

It’s unlikely that the loan situation might result in administration, or worse, but it might create a situation where stalemate in the boardroom could prevent them finding a way out of their troubles, which in turn, might lead to even greater troubles.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:04 am - Dec 20, 2017


Given all the recent conjecture re PSC and potential new loans, I am still wondering what exactly it is that King is getting out of his involvement in T’Rangers.

I can see the emotional attachment from the likes of Parks and ,possibly now, Johnston and putting cash into a club they love.

However as was pointed out at the time of Jim Whyte’s South African visit, King’s ‘sports room’ didn’t seem to have any Rangers memorabilia on the walls. It was all golf stuff.

There only seems to be one image of him in his younger days with a Gers scarf in a New York Street and he doesn’t appear to have a great record at attending matches, both past and present.

So he is either a smarty pants with an agenda that we can’t fathom or as  Allyjambo suspects he is not as bright as he thinks he is and the whole episode is a sham and a waste of his kid’s inheritance money.

Either way I still can’t see any plan or what he is getting from this, especially if he isn’t going to pony to the extent he intimated.

Anyone have any decent ideas other than just watching his and other’s cash going down the toilet?

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on10:27 am - Dec 20, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 19 , 2017 at 22:57

Forgive me but do you have anything to substantiate that. 
Do you really think that Hearts are being used as a vehicle for money laundering. 
—————————————————————————–
Only a suggestion H,since i did use the OR as a follow on from easyjambos post.

It could easily be David Murray or the scottish goverment funnelling funds to buy the silence of hearts over the cheating that’s taken place.

OR it could be as easyjambo suggests,a nice as pie guy throwing millions of pounds at his favourite club.

If you stuck mystery benefactor in sevco’s accounts or in the SFA’s the peeps on this blog would be all over it.

What happened to transparency for all our clubs?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:57 am - Dec 20, 2017


I’ll decline from commenting further, the majority of members here seem to think it is acceptable to conjecture that Hearts are being funded by the proceeds of crime.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on11:16 am - Dec 20, 2017


HomunculusDecember 20, 2017 at 10:57
I’ll decline from commenting further, the majority of members here seem to think it is acceptable to conjecture that Hearts are being funded by the proceeds of crime.

For the avoidance of doubt Homunculus, I agree with your challenge to Tangoed – his subsequent response confirms it is simple speculation, possibly mischievous. My question was more focused on what might be considered as money laundering, tangential and less important than your challenge.
There is an element of truth in Tangoed’s assertion about the need for transparency though – I’m sure there’s plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback as to the identity of the mysterious benefactors.
 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:23 am - Dec 20, 2017


blu December 20, 2017 at 11:16
There is an element of truth in Tangoed’s assertion about the need for transparency though – I’m sure there’s plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback as to the identity of the mysterious benefactors.
=====================
There is indeed plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback about the benefactor(s).

A couple of well informed posters have all but confirmed that the money has come from partners in an Edinburgh investment company.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:27 am - Dec 20, 2017


MercDoc December 20, 2017 at 00:11
Is Dave talking about Pooropa League or Champions League money?
============================
I posted something about that a week or two ago.

There was a note in their accounts about assumptions based on Europa League group stage participation.

Critical sensitivities
Sensitivity applied – Domestic and European football performance
Critical value resulting in impairment charge – Failure to participate in Europa League group stages a minimum of two times during the forecast period.

So their financial forecasting is predicated on reaching the EL Group stages at least twice in the next five years.  That will be a tough ask given the likelihood of three qualifying rounds and a play-off round to be negotiated before reaching the Group stages.

“Progres” on that front wasn’t great in the first of the five year forecast period, so it is now qualification in two of the next four seasons.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:58 am - Dec 20, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 20, 2017 at 10:57

Sorry to be pedantic but ‘a majority of those who chose to thumbs up/thumbs down your post’ seem to think it is acceptable to conjecture that Hearts are being funded by the proceeds of crime.

That doesn’t not constitute the membership / readership of SFM as a whole.

I have my own thoughts on the types who may have chosen to thumbs down you on the matter of Hearts mysterious benefactor but will keep that to myself.  02

 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:04 pm - Dec 20, 2017


EASYJAMBODECEMBER 20, 2017 at 11:27

I’m in pedantic mode today.

It also seems to also assume that T’Rangers will achieve somewhere in league spots 1 to 3 and/or have a cup win /final appearance as well, just to get to any Euro qualifying rounds let alone group stages.

While sitting in third spot at present, even that could be a hard ask depending on what happens next down Govan way. 07

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on12:16 pm - Dec 20, 2017


easyJamboDecember 20, 2017 at 11:23

blu December 20, 2017 at 11:16 There is an element of truth in Tangoed’s assertion about the need for transparency though – I’m sure there’s plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback as to the identity of the mysterious benefactors. ===================== There is indeed plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback about the benefactor(s).
A couple of well informed posters have all but confirmed that the money has come from partners in an Edinburgh investment company.

EJ,
I’m sure that you and others closer to the club will have a very good idea who these people are but as long as the club is asked to keep their identities private there will be speculation and aspersions cast from the east of Edinburgh and further afield.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:44 pm - Dec 20, 2017


blu December 20, 2017 at 12:16
EJ,
I’m sure that you and others closer to the club will have a very good idea who these people are but as long as the club is asked to keep their identities private there will be speculation and aspersions cast from the east of Edinburgh and further afield.
==========================
If the club is asked to keep their benefactors’ identities private, then that is a matter between those  parties.

However, it is the responsibility of the Club and its auditors to ensure that such funds are legitimately provided. As neither the Club nor its auditors have seen fit to express any concerns about the donations, then I for one am content with the arrangements.

It might be worth noting that PMGB’s “rugger guy”, when reviewing Hearts accounts, stated the following:
“The name of the donor is not disclosed, which is common with philanthropists”

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on1:03 pm - Dec 20, 2017


easyJamboDecember 20, 2017 at 12:44
EJ, I’ve no cause to doubt you or Hearts directors or the company auditors. It’s a fact though that people will speculate on these matters, often getting things completely wrong, intentionally or simply through ignorance.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:34 pm - Dec 20, 2017


On the matter of TRFC’s suicidal policy of reducing their deficit – it isn’t just them that gets damaged.
I’ve copied this from CQN/E Tims with an SFM add on.
AULDHEID on19TH DECEMBER 2017 10:40 PM
Club 1871 has put out some Q & As that arose at last AGM.
https://twitter.com/GrahamSpiers/status/943209048740126720and this extract caught my eye
Q.7) The most recent financial results are encouraging but highlight the staggering gulf between us
and our nearest competition. Can this board please outline how they plan to deal with this
substantial deficit going forward?
A) The majority of the deficit is accounted for through qualification for the Champions League group stages. Other income streams such as retail revenue and commercial income are increasing however there needs to be a recognition of just how valuable qualification forthe group stages of the Champions League has now become. It is worth in the region of
 30m Euros plus associated gate monies.
  What this says is that CL qualification will fund the debt that will get them CL qualification!!!!!
  Its back to 2011 when getting CL qualification was essential for survival and look at the impact that had on season 2010/2011 (aka The Honest Mistakes Season) not to mention the damage from season 2011/2012 that still poisons our game.
Celtic really must raise this with fellow clubs and at very least insist on an independent audit of UEFA Licence applications and, if Scottish football wishes to avoid a repeat of the consequences of this insane TRFC policy (keep doing the same thing and expect a different result) the other clubs need to support Celtic in taking some steps to prevent the same outcome happening again.
above Copied to Celtic SLO.

The only way to keep TRFC/RIFC in check is to remove the system that protects but also harms them – a compliant Licensing Authority at Hampden.

An independent domestic audit should be one of the conditions set by supporters before ST’s are purchased next season, because as matters stand the SFA and SPFL are saying everything in the regulation garden is rosey.

Well it isn’t.

However if the SFA Compliance Officer is true to himself and the game and not his employer (and yes it is a personal dilemma that life can throw at any one of us) he must at the very least point out that as a consequence of RFC breaking trust, some form of independent audit of Club Licensing is necessary to assure ST purchasers that TRFC/RIFC are living within their not inconsiderable means (compared to Aberdeen, Hearts. Hibs etc.)

This change takes it beyond what Res12 asked for initially (it was always a means to a reform of SFA because the evidence suggested that what an investigation would show was deceit) but unless other clubs’ supporters start putting questions to their club Directors re independent audit as has been put to Celtic,  then quite simply you are paying to be cheated. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:34 pm - Dec 20, 2017


This has been a pattern for many years Auldheid. They were c£80m in debt when David Murray decided to have a £57m shares issue, which crucuially was under-written by MIH. Who then had to buy the vast majority of the shares when no-one else wanted them.

It is arguably his push for Champions League success that was the root cause of the finncial collapse 

Anyone see a familiar story here.

David Murray from 2004.
=======================================================

“I am, of course, well aware of the current financial position at the club,” said Murray.”The board has been considering the principle of fund-raising for some time and, following my recent acquisition of ENIC’s shareholding in the club, I now feel the time is right to move matters forward.

“The proposed rights issue will remove a substantial element of the long-term debt so that we can improve all aspects of the club’s performance.

“I have, however, consistently stressed that we will no longer be net spenders in the transfer market and the rights issue is not intended to generate surplus cash at this stage for investment in the playing squad.

“The new funding will ensure the ability to re-invest cash generated from future operations which would otherwise have gone to service and repay historic debt.

“I understand this has been a difficult and frustrating period for everyone who supports Rangers.

“We have, at times, been accused of over ambition and we were unfortunate that the majority of the long-term debt was incurred by investment in the playing squad when transfer values and player wages were grossly over-inflated by the promise of media revenues which failed to materialise.

“At the same time, recognising the unsustainability of that level of expenditure, our investment in Murray Park, although adding to the debt, has provided us with the opportunity to develop home-grown talent at our own centre of excellence.

“The introduction of Alan Hutton and Chris Burke as regulars in the first-team squad is early evidence that this strategy is beginning to pay dividends.

“This announcement heralds the beginning of a new chapter in Rangers’ history.”

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on2:36 pm - Dec 20, 2017


WOTTPI
DECEMBER 20, 2017 at 09:04Given all the recent conjecture re PSC and potential new loans, I am still wondering what exactly it is that King is getting out of his involvement in T’Rangers.
——————————————————————
Some maybes…

Its a legitimate business with amazing annual revenue generation capacity and a very committed customer base and friends on high.

It was a unique opportunity to talk down a share price to the disadvantage of some mug punters and to get significant control level shareholding quite cheaply. 

With an inside well-coiffeured friend in situ he had access to knowledge most people wouldn’t have access to.

There are various sub companies in the group where personal unseen revenue streams might be forthcoming.

It might even be a good way to repatriate monies from South Africa or maybe elsewhere into the UK or indeed somewhere else.

Chairman of an establishment club is also a nice position to have if you have an ego that needs constant tending and you know that no media outlet will ever look at what is really happening under the bonnet. 

Maybe there is also an opportunity to take advantage of some other directorial shareholders, who may be real Rangers men, but are just not be as incisive with the particulars skills G&SL seems to have built his wealth upon.

And finally if there is a sort of nod and wink understanding in certain quarters that when the time is right that SDM and a new consortium will come to the rescue then the shares will be worth having.

Or control of a situation that needs Blair Nimmo or Bryan Jackson called in?
……………………………………..

But what do I know anyway?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:53 pm - Dec 20, 2017


HomunculusDecember 19, 2017 at 22:57 
TANGOEDDECEMBER 19, 2017 at 22:51============================Forgive me but do you have anything to substantiate that. Do you really think that Hearts are being used as a vehicle for money laundering.
__________________

Very good points, Homunculus.

Not only is there nothing to substantiate the idea that there’s something dubious about this incredible donation, there is absolutely no way that money laundering could be involved, as the prime aim of money laundering is for dirty money to be cleaned and end up back in the hands, often after much layering, of the original crook(s), with something creamed off the top at each layer. If someone has attempted to launder money through Hearts, they are in for a big shock when they try to get their money back, unless they fancy taking it in seats, bricks and sheet metal!

On the other hand, if Hearts hadn’t built a new stand, and instead were using the donation to buy a player, or players, for around £4.5m in the January window, then alarm bells should rightly be ringing. In fact, an anonymous donation of this kind is far less suspicious that an anonymous investment or loan, for in both cases (investment or loan), there can be a reasonable expectation to get ‘clean’ money back at some point.

I can’t think of ever reading of any other illegal activities at a football club involving an outside agency donating or investing money other than by way of money laundering. It is, though, possible that crooks, both known to be, and those who operate in less obvious ways, might invest their ill gotten gains in a football club to fulfil a lifetime’s ambition to run their favourite club. It is, however, highly unlikely that anyone who has risked imprisonment to make their fortune, is, one day, going to decide it would be a good idea to give away £4.5m of it to a football club, no matter how much that club might mean to them.

It might be a worthwhile exercise for those who would suggest some nefarious dealings at Hearts if they could also speculate on just how donations totalling £4.5m towards the building of a new stand, almost complete and of no value to anyone other than the football club currently residing at Tynecastle, could possibly constitute some criminal act (if that is what they are suggesting).

View Comment

Avatar

bobcobbPosted on3:19 pm - Dec 20, 2017


I suspect that Tangoed was merely making the point that had such a donation been made to help out at Ibrox, the clamour for transparency might be a teensy bit bigger than that which we are seeing at Hearts…
However, I would add that Ann Budge has unimpeachable business credentials and that Hearts are following due process and corporate law i.e. audited accounts etc. So if Ann Budge says the funding is legit and the Auditors are happy with it then it isn’t really open for question. A Hearts controlled by Budge have proved their integrity.
But if such a transaction was to take place at a company with a convicted criminal as a chairman; a company not listed on any exchange and one subject to a “cold shoulder” order? Then I might want to dig a bit deeper.

Tangoed being a bit mischievous, I suspect, but I think transparency is to be encouraged whenever possible. But with Hearts and RIFC, we are not comparing apples with apples. Rather apples with bad apples…
I still think it’s always best to be open though.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on3:55 pm - Dec 20, 2017


I note the following on the Court of Session website:

‘OUTER HOUSE ROLLS
 
LORD BANNATYNE
 
Friday 22nd December
 
Judgment
(No appearance of counsel necessary)
 
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders section 955

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-roll?id=d8fc44a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

(It’s down near the bottom of the list, BTW.)

Does it involve anyone of interest?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:08 pm - Dec 20, 2017


FINLOCHDECEMBER 20, 2017 at 14:36

Thanks for your thoughts.

No argument from me and all well and good but I’m still struggling to see where the benefit is for the money and hassle expended to date.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:11 pm - Dec 20, 2017


bobcobbDecember 20, 2017 at 15:19 
I suspect that Tangoed was merely making the point that had such a donation been made to help out at Ibrox, the clamour for transparency might be a teensy bit bigger than that which we are seeing at Hearts…However, I would add that Ann Budge has unimpeachable business credentials and that Hearts are following due process and corporate law i.e. audited accounts etc. So if Ann Budge says the funding is legit and the Auditors are happy with it then it isn’t really open for question. A Hearts controlled by Budge have proved their integrity.But if such a transaction was to take place at a company with a convicted criminal as a chairman; a company not listed on any exchange and one subject to a “cold shoulder” order? Then I might want to dig a bit deeper.Tangoed being a bit mischievous, I suspect, but I think transparency is to be encouraged whenever possible. But with Hearts and RIFC, we are not comparing apples with apples. Rather apples with bad apples…I still think it’s always best to be open though.
_________________________________

Is that what you take from his original post (see below) on the subject? His point that we’d be all over a similar donation to TRFC came a bit later in a separate post. The bulk of your post, though, does give a good summary of how the difference might be viewed should a similar donation arrive at Ibrox.

But, on the other hand, should such a donation be earmarked for stand improvements/rebuilding, and that expensive building work be carried out, then I would say exactly the same and look for speculation on just how a donation, demonstrably used for rebuilding/construction work (of a stand only of use to the resident football club), could be utilised in some sort of criminal activity.

As to the question of transparency, what more transparency can we look for than for the club to announce that they have received this donation(s) and include such information in their accounts, or should we expect our football clubs to turn such largess down whenever the donor request/insist on anonymity?

tangoedDecember 19, 2017 at 22:51 
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 19 , 2017 at 17:58No loan, no equity, no security involved, just a philanthropist doing their bit for the club. It seems Ann Budge has wealthy friends who don’t mind putting their hands in their pockets.——————————————————————————————Or a local criminal looking to get rid of some of their ill gotten gains,let’s not ask to many hard questions though as we all know that Ann Budge will always do what’s right .

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:15 pm - Dec 20, 2017


View Comment
Jingso.JimsieDecember 20, 2017 at 15:55 
I note the following on the Court of Session website:‘OUTER HOUSE ROLLS LORD BANNATYNE Friday 22nd December Judgment(No appearance of counsel necessary) P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders section 955‘
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-roll?id=d8fc44a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7(It’s down near the bottom of the list, BTW.)Does it involve anyone of interest?
__________________________

Which just happens to be my birthday 19 hopefully his Lordship will give me something to smile about, rather than spend my day in bewilderment18

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:33 pm - Dec 20, 2017


wottpiDecember 20, 2017 at 16:08 
FINLOCHDECEMBER 20, 2017 at 14:36Thanks for your thoughts.No argument from me and all well and good but I’m still struggling to see where the benefit is for the money and hassle expended to date.
___________________

I doubt very much that he anticipated so much hassle nor that it would take so long to see some sort of return on his money. I get the impression from what little I’ve read of his business style that he’s more of a quick in and quick out wheeler dealer than a hands on businessman like Mike Ashley, or even the Parks.

There was a post yesterday, I think it was, that made the point that some people, incredibly clever in their own field, often mistakenly believe they are so clever they’d be good at whatever they choose to do. I think this may be what’s happened with King. He’s no more suited to running a football club than a joiner is at rewiring a house. He might do quite a good job if everything goes to plan, but as soon as problems start to crop up…The joiner might call in his spark mate, but King has already got rid of the one man who might be able to sort out TRFC!

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:56 pm - Dec 20, 2017


ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 20, 2017 at 16:33

Fair point and as you said a while back he isn’t really that good at conning the tax man either, if that is his area of expertise, being an the end he was facing 41 years in jail and had to cough up to avoid porridge.

Never mind he is apparently a RRM so that all it really takes to convince some people that you are fit and proper.

As an aside it is obvious Lord Bannatyne wants things off his desk before the festive break.

The legal judgments in the T’Rangers saga  have been all over the place so not sure what will be under the wrapping of this particular Christmas present come Friday!!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:48 pm - Dec 20, 2017


IMO, following the prolonged McInnes debacle, TRFC is now playing a high risk game.

By not appointing a new manager and by not paying potential compensation – the Blue Room is in full control over January player movement, or player departures mostly.

So, with Murts temporarily manning the tiller TRFC can try to avoid another cash crisis next month. [?]

But…what if TRFC receives a right good humping at Celtic Park on the 30th ?

To state the bleedin’ obvious: the bears would not be best pleased with the result. 16
But, they could be even more annoyed / frustrated at the apparent lack of progress securing a new, decent manager and new, quality players…and at the general lack of direction and leadership within the club.

Or, will TRFC pull a decent manager out of the hat before the 30th?

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on6:31 pm - Dec 20, 2017


STEVIEBC
Or, will TRFC pull a decent manager out of the hat before the 30th?
think the magic hat has been binned

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:35 pm - Dec 20, 2017


Some level heads at Falkirk

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:38 pm - Dec 20, 2017


TRY AGAIN WITH PIC

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:04 pm - Dec 20, 2017


STEVIEBCDECEMBER 20, 2017 at 17:48
Or, will TRFC pull a decent manager out of the hat before the 30th?
————–
That could lead to all sorts though. what if TRFC receives a right good humping at Celtic Park with the new manager in place?
The call would then go out from the bears to spend,spend and give the new manager the funds to challenge celtic.They could get even more annoyed / frustrated at the apparent lack of progress on new, quality players if the money that they don’t have is not spent,and at the general lack of direction and leadership within the club.
What a dilemma, and all the while they look to see celtic already buying players to strengthen the team.
Ps. look at pedro once he lost his first game against celtic the knives were out.
to put a new manager in place to face celtic and if they get beat and the bears don’t see any strengthening of the team in january. not a good place to put a new manager in

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:25 pm - Dec 20, 2017


Sorry to be posting again, but i caught a part of a post that mentioned under the bonnet(later i will go back and take my time to read the posts thoroughly) although it will have nothing to do with my post that i am about to write.
With all the talk of late of share issues and investment and The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers,the cold shoulder, the plan to be sustainable with european money the go to guy for the Daily Record was Kieran Prior. He did back the Three bears and urged them to throw every deal ever signed with Sports Direct in the dustbin.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-investor-kieran-prior-backs-4937812
Right KJ get on the phone ask KP his thoughts, get his withering assessment of those currently in control

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:34 pm - Dec 20, 2017


STEVIEBC

DECEMBER 20, 2017 at 17:48

IMO, following the prolonged McInnes debacle, TRFC is now playing a high risk game.

By not appointing a new manager and by not paying potential compensation – the Blue Room is in full control over January player movement, or player departures mostly.

So, with Murts temporarily manning the tiller TRFC can try to avoid another cash crisis next month. [?]

But…what if TRFC receives a right good humping at Celtic Park on the 30th ?
—————————————————–

Whatever the results between now & the end of the year, Murty is nominally in charge.

Despite Craig Swan in the DR waving the flag for Tony Pulis, TRFC simply can’t afford a high six-figure salary (or low seven-figure pay-packet) for a manager, who’d actually be a coach given that there’s a DoF in post. I don’t know if Pulis has worked with a DoF in any of his previous jobs. I also don’t know if TRFC could afford to dispose of the DoF, or handle the media/fan flaming that would result.

I still suspect that a senior player will step into the player-coach role at minimal, if any, cost & TRFC will continue, as they are at the moment, to be managed by a committee (DoF, Johansen, Murty, said player-coach & PR guru) until May/June 2018.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on7:52 pm - Dec 20, 2017


Bogs Dollox December 19, 2017 at 14:52

Is this the HMRC guidance that you were referring to?

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/company-taxation-manual/ctm60100

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/company-taxation-manual/ctm60320

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:12 pm - Dec 20, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIEDECEMBER 20, 2017 at 15:55
11
0 Rate This
I note the following on the Court of Session website:
‘OUTER HOUSE ROLLS LORD BANNATYNE Friday 22nd December Judgment(No appearance of counsel necessary)
——————
I wonder if the ibrox boards knew something was coming down the pipe line with all the musical chairs of late? and hot on it’s heals
19 Dec 2017

Resolutions •Resolution of allotment of securities

This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on8:35 pm - Dec 20, 2017


WOTTPI Dec 20th 2017 at 16.56
As an aside it is obvious Lord Bannatyne wants things off his desk before the festive break.
————————————— 
If indeed His Lordship promulgates his judgment on Friday 22nd then I for one would be highly suspicious of the baffling delay in doing so.  Lord Bannatyne was required to make a comparatively simple ruling on whether he “may” or “must” decide.  It is not as if he was tasked with safeguarding the constitution of the realm.  Even sending a felon to the gallows would not entail the length of time this matter has sat on his desk.
 
With the recent flurry of activity down Ibrox way, I wonder if Lord Bannatyne has deliberately waited until certain moves have been completed so that any ‘cold shoulder’ process against King becomes superfluous.  Time and truth will tell.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:15 pm - Dec 20, 2017


Home too late to make the match .
On Lord Bannatyne , is he not too far down the pecking to be making this kind of decision ? He sits with other extraordinary lords in the Outer House, with a couple of levels of judiciary above him . As this action sets a precedent for the CoS , youda thunk that the top wigs would be on show .
(Yes, thanks to wiki  !).

View Comment

Comments are closed.