It Takes Two to Tangle

ByTrisidium

It Takes Two to Tangle

 Guest Blog by Auldheid

When helping write up the previous blog on the matter of the (mis) commissioning by Harper Macleod, lawyers to the then SPL and current SPFL, of the Lord Nimmo Smith’s investigation into side letters arising from EBTs issued by Rangers FC from July 1999 (http://archive.sfm.scot/an-honest-game-convince-us/ ) .

I had it in mind that only the SFA had something to hide as a result of their President Campbell Ogilvie being fully aware of the history and distinction between the two illegal Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT ) ebts of wee tax case fame not declared to Harper Macleod and the more widely known Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT) Big Tax Case ebts which were declared and on which LNS focussed after (wrongly)treating both types as regular.

The idea that I think most bought into in terms of the registration matters LNS investigated was that no one in football except players with side letters had participated in those schemes and that football authority, both SFA and SPL were unaware of them until their existence became public in Feb 2012. This is when the Sun first published a side letter and the possibility of mis-registration was raised, notably on Celtic Quick News then more widely particularly following an interview between Alex Thomson of Ch4 News and Hugh Adam an ex Rangers Director.

However when you think of the world of Scottish football where players socialise with each other and with journalists, then it does seem stretching it a bit to think that no one in football authority ever heard any gossip or had any enquiry and decided not to investigate the matter before 2012.

Well Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps thought so and their lawyers Biggart Bailie asked Harper Mcleod in March 2012 why the SPL had not investigated a lot earlier on the basis that

  1. There had been entries every year since 2000 in Rangers Annual Accounts of sums of money being placed in employee benefit trusts
  2. HMRC had written to the SPL at some unknown point in the past to ask about the existence of side letters in players’ contracts.

The first argument on annual accounts was one made once public awareness of ebts widened but it was dismissed on the grounds that no one knew much about ebts in those early years and in any case properly administered ones, which they would have been presumed to have been, did not have side letters.

However it does seem likely that having written to MIH/Rangers in 2005 to enquire about the existence of side letters to De Boer and Flo (which MIH/Rangers denied holding even though they did) HMRC would have written to the SFA or SPL sometime after 2005 whenever they first became aware of side letters in players contracts with regards to the MGRT ebts of Big Tax Case fame..

That the SPL had been contacted two or three years previous to 2012 by HMRC was confirmed at a SPL Board meeting in March 2012 as a result of a question being asked by Celtic, who were unaware in 2012 that such an HMRC enquiry had been made in 2009 or 2010.  It is possible of course that the connection to misregistration was not made then by the SPL executive asked, but had it been history could have been so different.

How that HMRC enquiry and what it contained was handled by the SPL executive perhaps explains not only why the SPL were so keen to take the lead on the investigation but why they were unaware of the different types of ebts at play, the enquiry in 2009/2010 presumably relating only to the MGMRT type.

The motivation of the SPL executive can be read into their advice to the SPL Board on 23rd February 2012 to instruct an immediate inspection and investigation of the financial records of Rangers with respect to the ebt payments under SPL Rule F1 and under Section G of the Rules on the basis that such an inspection and investigation might reveal prima facie evidence of a breach of SPL Rules independently of any Administrator decision or the outcome of the FTT.

The SPL Board were further advised that taking the lead on such grounds would also go some way to forestalling any attempt by the SFA to include any dependency on the outcome of either Rangers Administration (which they entered on 14th February) or the result of the FTT, (which came in November 2012.)

The desire and benefits of delinking what was at heart a registration enquiry   from the much more serious use of tax evasion methods to pay players was obviously not lost on those giving the advice.

In fact in directing LNS in the way the SPL did (possibly unaware that tax evasion had already occurred with Flo and De Boer) it avoided focus on the real and still unresolved issue, were players paid by unfair means from 1999 from which sporting advantage would naturally accrue with no need for proof that it had. You cannot say this had not been thought through in the advice given.

It was also the SPL’ stance that matters concerning player payments had traditionally been considered to be for leagues.

The narrative emerging here is one of the two football authorities keeping from public gaze what individuals in both, if not the whole organisations corporately, knew about the history of ebts; the SFA knowing the history of both types from 1999/2000 onwards and the SPL possibly only knowing something of the MGMRT ebts and side letters from 2009/10 as a result of HMRC asking them questions.

Thus it suited the SFA that the SPL take the lead as much as it suited the SPL to do so but for different reasons. The SFA to keep the existence of the wee tax case ebts hidden from public view and LNS scrutiny and the SPL to avoid answering any “when did they know and why did they not act” questions.

Also if the SPL were indeed unaware of the two distinct types of ebts at play (and they may indeed have been), it explains why they never picked up that the earlier illegal ebts were missed/concealed from them by Rangers Administrators.

Perhaps the SPL and SFA were aware of the benefits to them of focusing only on the registration aspect. This could be presented as an administrative error (which LNS basically decided) rather than the possible illegal nature of the big tax case ebts after the FTT (and which might still arise from the UTT) which would present both with much more difficult and unwelcome consequences to manage and certainly would have changed the nature of the investigation from the outset had the full evidence been provided.

However unless the questions put to the SPFL in the previous blog are answered, we will never know who did what and why, but we at least will know that the LNS Investigation and its findings were a sham from the outset and should be set aside.

 

Perhaps BDO who are investigating the role and behaviour of Duff and Phelps according to the latest report on their work should be asking Duff and Phelps about the circumstances surrounding the concealment of vital evidence from the LNS Commission?

Och why not?

To the BDO partner investigating. Dated 9th June by web site e mail

“ I see that BDO are carrying out a probe into the conduct of administrators Duff & Phelps. Does that cover the failure to supply SPL with full documentation requested to investigate side letters in 2012?

See http://www.tsfm.net/an-honest-game-convince-us/ for background. Missing evidence is available. ”

PS: I did try to ascertain if HMRC did indeed write to the SPL and when, but they were unable to confirm or deny that they had. The enquiry and response follow. The question on who is responsible for HMRC policy in respect of collection of tax from football clubs was not given but probably due more to an oversight than any attempt to stop the question being answered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,247 Comments so far

the taxman comethPosted on8:04 pm - Jun 18, 2014


redlichtie says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:59 pm

0

0

Rate This

From Phil’s latest article there is the following requirement from Deloittes :

“(2) The ten highest earning staff (excluding Chief Executive Officer Graham Wallace and Chief Financial Officer Phillip Nash) will have to be let go without further delay.”

Will this net catch Mr McCoist?

Who will be funding the substantial redundancy packages?

Scottish Football needs a strong Deloittes.

BTW what is the final straw that will tip the SFA/SPFL into taking some action to prevent further damage to Scottish Football? Does it have to be another insolvency event?

========

When was the first one?

What’s the timescale on these things being done, IIRC the dead club could spin out unsigned accounts for months with no sanction, I suspect this will be little different

View Comment

twopandaPosted on8:35 pm - Jun 18, 2014


the taxman cometh says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:04 pm

Not sure there is a timeline exploitable on this one
Accounts for y/e should be in prep – either they`re qualified or not

Nevertheless agree TC
spivs will find a way to keep big cash flowing out
– with PR`d MSM acquiescence no doubt
As they have been doing for two seasons

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:43 pm - Jun 18, 2014


Re the accountants allegedly making demands on the Ibrox Board before signing off on the year end figures. Am I alone in thinking the SFA will do nothing, nothing at all, should they not get their accounts cleared? Did they bother the last time a club from those parts did not produce audited accounts? Rules are only there for Aberdeen, Hibernian, Alloa Athletic, Arbroath, Celtic, Motherwell, Cowdenbeath, Brechin City, Dundee Utd, etc, etc.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:48 pm - Jun 18, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:39 pm

To be fair, Phil, none of the MSM churnalists would have the knowledge to realise the implications, but everybody can understand the implications of a top firm of accountants refusing to sign off the accounts as a going concern. As AIM NOMADS Daniel Stewart would be acceptable to AIM, regardless of how they came about being RIFC’s NOMAD. But the refusal by accountants of Deloittes standing will surely cause more than a little concern there, and if Deloittes, having been prepared to give them much lee-way on their previous accounts, walk away, just how much more lee-way could any new firm feel safe in allowing? Still, as you yourself pointed out the other day, we never cease to be amazed by the goings on at Ibrox, and the things that they manage to get away with. Worse still, is the continuing examples of just how little meaningful policing there is in all areas of finance!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:49 pm - Jun 18, 2014


If Phil’s sources are on the ball this gives austerity some meaning. http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/deloittes-respond-to-rifc/#more-4782

MP must be sold as the cost of running it is unsustainable for the company.

I wondered why there was a MP story in one of todays papers.Sinclair hits back at gers critics..
Jim Sinclair? (naw me neither )
Jim Sinclair says he doesn’t care what criticism comes his way about MP.

On reading this story, it looked like a lets talk up MP piece. All the usual Hutton, McCregor Charlie Adam and Wilson.”Hutton was sold for £9 mill and Wilson for over £2 mill so income has also generated by MP.

JUST WHO WAS THIS ARTICLE AIMED AT?
Was it to try and get the bears on board that MP is a great thing so they can’t loose it. Or was it a lets get a story out about how good MP is/was before the bad news comes out.
And why was this even a story Sinclair hits back at gers critics, Who recently criticised MP for this story to come out

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:15 pm - Jun 18, 2014


Cluster One says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:49 pm

‘JUST WHO WAS THIS ARTICLE AIMED AT?’

Cluster, perhaps a more pertinent question might be, for whose benefit was it written? The writers pals/contacts at MP, or this chap Sinclair, himself, who might have realised his cushy number with the club he now supports, is almost up?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:19 pm - Jun 18, 2014


Allyjambo says:

June 18, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Cluster, perhaps a more pertinent question might be, for whose benefit was it written?
Thanks Allyjambo for the words i just could not find.whose benefit was it written?
🙂

View Comment

tomtomPosted on9:20 pm - Jun 18, 2014


I remember seeing somewhere that that Jim Sinclair is getting paid £170k pa. For that sort of cash I’d be I’d be talking up the place as he ai’nt going to get that salary anywhere else

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:21 pm - Jun 18, 2014


Cluster One says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:19 pm

Teamwork, ye just cannae beat it! 😀

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:26 pm - Jun 18, 2014


Re: the Deloittes’ suggestions
========================
I don’t have an auditor background, so more than happy to be corrected here.

But, for the external auditors is the opinion given not a reactive event – i.e. after reviewing the accounts if there is still a material issue unresolved between senior management and the audit partner, then there is some further discussion – followed by sign-off or not ?

However, on the face of it, in this RIFC story it looks like the auditors are being proactive – and giving advice/stipulations on operational requirements.
I don’t quite get this.

Unless, Deloittes have been separately engaged on a restricted consultancy basis to give RIFC suggestions on how to achieve a ‘clean bill of health’ so to speak.
Or had Deloittes already indicated to RIFC that they were indeed walking away – and RIFC has responded by asking “tell us what we have to do then to retain your services” ?

I could be way off the mark here, but giving operational and/or strategic advice – and delivering an audit with audit recommendations – are mutually exclusive remits, I believe.

View Comment

hectorPosted on10:14 pm - Jun 18, 2014


Hi Stevie BC I suspect the Nomad is the key to the mutually exclusive remits for Deloittes you mention above. Like yourself I don’t have an auditor or accountant background , thank god but as I read it the Nomad advises Rangers and is also there as an honest broker to make sure they follow the rules consistent with the AIM market. So if the auditors were going to walk the Nomad can serve as a middle man to strive for a compromise without Deloittes position as auditor being compromised. As with all things in this saga the truth is unlikely to be that simple but a company the size of Deloittes is not going to risk its good name on a small account like that of The Rangers . 😕

View Comment

johnnymancPosted on10:46 pm - Jun 18, 2014


AllyJambo You’ve got a PM!

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:42 pm - Jun 18, 2014


What is the future of TRFC ?

The answer depends on how well the onerous contracts have been drafted

These are very saleable commodities which can rotate around Spivland for decades
Providing
There is a legal route that gives these contracts immortality in the event of liquidation or repeated liquidations
The other known issues are secondary They are only relevant insofaras they can damage the prospects of onerous contracts being succesfully challenged
e.g.
Administration or liquidation of TRFC
An open revolt by the Gullible impacting pay at the gate and damaging cashflow
A legal challenge by Hector on the slightest pretext
A successful challenge by CW
Closure of Ibrox on H&S grounds
etc
I have no idea whether these contacts can be scrapped or renegotiated
However
Unless something is done to resolve this issue
TRFC will be skint for the foreseeable future

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on11:46 pm - Jun 18, 2014


hector says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Thanks for that;
I remember the long conversation I had with Paul about the Cenkos/Daniel Stewart story before he wrote that piece.
I miss the big guy….

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:56 pm - Jun 18, 2014


A wee reminder of why the wee tax case ebt is different and yet the modus operandi -concealment of evidence is the same as in the LNS Commissioning.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2RcU1YZ1pGZUloOGs/edit

Had this been presented to Harper MacLeod the Investigation would have to have included irregular means of payment not just failure to lodge side letters.

View Comment

SouthernExilePosted on12:37 am - Jun 19, 2014


Never mind Goldman Sachs, the big four accountants are the true vampire squids of the business world.

Who knows what “consultancy” Deloittes are doing on the side?

Auditors of companies should be debarred from providing any other service. I’ve worked for companies who apply this, and others who didn’t. The difference in the dynamics of the audit relationship is amazing.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:52 am - Jun 19, 2014


Cluster One says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:49 pm

16

0

Rate This

If Phil’s sources are on the ball this gives austerity some meaning. http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/deloittes-respond-to-rifc/#more-4782

____________________________

10 highest paid employees? phew! That’s a relief for the footballing bears.
Because given the financial probity & discipline demonstrated date, they’ll probably turn out to be cloakroom attendants who agreed to look the other way and brogue polishers who agreed to keep their gobs shut.
So no real harm done!
(Ibtw that gets Mr McCoist coming and going!)
It may not sound like it but Phil’s noises are good news for the Ryan’s I believe.
Austerity is a given.
So long as the cheeky chappy draws a stipend, insolvency is a contender being given serious boardroom consideration.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:07 am - Jun 19, 2014


RyanGosling says:
June 18, 2014 at 12:27 pm

19

55

Rate This

Allyjambo I can’t say I think anything smells funny there, I think that is just your paranoia (as you alluded to!). Each team plays each other four times. The odds on rangers getting either hearts or hibs in the first game was 2/9, so not insubstantial. With an Edinburgh derby in the second game you could argue that the fixture list has been beneficial financially to hearts also. I understand how we got to this point but let’s not have every single event that could possibly benefit rangers being viewed through Auldheids paranoia binoculars. This blog does good work in calling out actual corruption, but I feel this work is diminished when such excessive paranoia is employed.

___________________________________________

Ryan.
There are many honest TRFC fans out there. You are not alone!
There is only one SFA.
It is demonstrably compromised – if not corrupt – to a point that makes it unfit for purpose by any reasonable measure.
Suspicion is not only inevitable, it is justified.
Who knows – maybe they didn’t rig it this time?
So that’s OK then?!
They have shown themselves capable and willing participants in the subversion of the rules they are supposed to enforce!?
Its like Ofgem saying to Npower… “cut your prices a bit, people might notice the market is rigged!’
Our reaction should not be ‘ Oh they are being honest this time, well done!” It should be ” his top button was left undone. Sack him!”

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:08 am - Jun 19, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:
June 19, 2014 at 2:07 am

let’s not have every single event that could possibly benefit rangers being viewed through Auldheids paranoia binoculars. This blog does good work in calling out actual corruption, but I feel this work is diminished when such excessive paranoia is employed.
======================================================

You really think the evidence based work produced on here by Auldheid is founded on paranoia?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on7:17 am - Jun 19, 2014


StevieBC says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:26 pm
21 0 Rate This

Re: the Deloittes’ suggestions
========================
I don’t have an auditor background, so more than happy to be corrected here.
I don’t quite get this.
Unless, Deloittes have been separately engaged on a restricted consultancy basis to give RIFC suggestions on how to achieve a ‘clean bill of health’ so to speak.
Or had Deloittes already indicated to RIFC that they were indeed walking away – and RIFC has responded by asking “tell us what we have to do then to retain your services” ?
I could be way off the mark here, but giving operational and/or strategic advice – and delivering an audit with audit recommendations – are mutually exclusive remits, I believe.
========================================================
Stevie…this is part of the current “ethical” divide which afflicts the accountancy/auditing “profession”, whereby a firm, as in this case Deloittes, in addition to offering accountancy/taxation/consultancy services to a company, can then audit those results. The ethical and conflict of interest issues are plain for all to see.
It should be borne in mind that Arthur Andersen, now defunct, had a wonderful ability to conduct audits for major clients at particularly low audit fees, but charge enormous non-audit fees to the same clients. Deloittes effectively acquired Arthur Andersen and I strongly suspect the same ethos pervades their operations to this day.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on7:21 am - Jun 19, 2014


Allyjambo says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:10 pm
28 0 Rate This

PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 18, 2014 at 6:35 pm

From Cenkos to Daniel Stewart might have been bad, from Deloittes to essexbeancounter… 😉 (no offence meant, ebc, I know you wouldn’t take the gig)
=============================================================
Allyjambo…I would like to think I would not “take the gig”, but for a fee….(?)…oops, there go my ethical standards again!

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on7:31 am - Jun 19, 2014


SouthernExile says:
June 19, 2014 at 12:37 am
13 0 Rate This

Never mind Goldman Sachs, the big four accountants are the true vampire squids of the business world.
=========================================================
SouthernExile…superbly expressed…!
The amount of global distortion to business morality and ethics perpetrated by these outfits is quite literally unfathomable…and their global tax avoidance/evasion policies as introduced/sold to wealthy clients has to be seen to be believed.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on9:19 am - Jun 19, 2014


essexbeancounter says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:31 am

Not to mention the conflicts of interest they basically ignore. if there is a case for splitting the banks, there is definitely a case for splitting up the big accountancy firms. They are as culpable for the failures in the banking industry, as folk like Fred Goodwin.

The dogs that didn’t bark in the night.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:27 am - Jun 19, 2014


RyanGosling says:
June 18, 2014

…. Auldheids paranoia binoculars.
———–

What an odd thing to say about one of the stand-out contributors to this blog.

Personally, I see Auldheid as tenacious and with a dogged determination to see that truth will out and justice done.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:38 am - Jun 19, 2014


Danish Pastry

As that is the second comment that has been made taking what I said completely out of context I should clarify. My original comment followed on immediately after a comment posted by Auldheid making a tongue in check reference to “paranoia binoculars”. I merely picked up on this and repeated it, I was not in any way having a dig at Auldheid or impugning his work.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:58 am - Jun 19, 2014


RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 9:38 am
7 2 Rate This

Danish Pastry

As that is the second comment that has been made taking what I said completely out of context I should clarify. My original comment followed on immediately after a comment posted by Auldheid making a tongue in check reference to “paranoia binoculars”. I merely picked up on this and repeated it, I was not in any way having a dig at Auldheid or impugning his work.
———-

Glad to hear it. Sometimes ” ” around a particular phrase helps defuse its more literal meaning. I thought it was too odd, especially from someone like yourself.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:14 am - Jun 19, 2014


Point taken, no harm done.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:28 am - Jun 19, 2014


RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 10:14 am
3 0 Rate This

Point taken, no harm done.
——–

Just out of interest Ryan, where are you on next season? Bought an ST? Going pay-as-you-go? If huge cuts in staff and among best players (well, top earners at least), would the prospect of a Championship struggle actually be appealing, knowing that the club is finally moving towards financial sanity?

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:45 am - Jun 19, 2014


For reasons unrelated to Rangers I’ve not been able to have a season ticket for years, and have just paid for individual tickets when I’ve gone. So as far as the season ticket question goes I can only answer hypothetically, but I wouldn’t be buying one. I think that money ends up in spiv pockets as much as if not more than going toward the actual running of the team, so wouldn’t buy one for that reason.

As for continuing to buy the odd ticket when I can, a championship struggle, if that is what materialises, would not put me off in the slightest, I’d still go to support my team. Look at it this way, the football has been abysmal for years, going back even pre liquidation it was regularly pretty poor, so poor standard of football or displeasing results hasn’t put me off so far and I don’t think it will in the near future.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:50 am - Jun 19, 2014


And I should have added, any footballing impacts felt as a result of “moves towards financial sanity” would certainly be tolerated by me. They’d have been tolerated by me and most I know for years. No Rangers fan I know is happy with the money that has been spent in the last two years. Even if we were on a sound footing now we wouldn’t have been happy about the spending, and that’s just on the football side of things, never mind the onerous contracts and “executive” staff. I’ve said it a million times on here and I’ll keep saying it; a massive opportunity was lost in 2012 to build a club that could have risen to the top with a youth driven squad based around a sound footballing culture from the ground up and which would as a result have been financially sound. Every bear would have backed that I think, and the way it has gone has been a major disappointment, to put it politely, and a ******* disgrace to put it realistically.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on11:09 am - Jun 19, 2014


john Collins live on sky sports news

Q3 – What made the job appeal considering Rangers arent in the league

Q4 – Any thoughts on the Championship next year, its going to be a great league isnt it

Q5 – Do you think England will win tonight

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on11:28 am - Jun 19, 2014


Well it has started already:
New TV deal will see more Championship matches shown live – but the unattractive SPFL is still struggling to find a sponsor

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-tv-deal-see-more-3722622

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:30 am - Jun 19, 2014


RyanGosling says:
June 19, 2014 at 10:50 am
9 0 Rate This

… I’ve said it a million times on here and I’ll keep saying it; a massive opportunity was lost in 2012 to build a club that could have risen to the top with a youth driven squad based around a sound footballing culture from the ground up and which would as a result have been financially sound.
———-

Yes, it was indeed lost. I think a lot of folks saw that as what would eventually happen. Why it didn’t still remains a mystery.

On the other hand, when you heard Smith saying stuff about, “We’re Rangers, we have to spend,” you begin to think none of them were up to the task of actually managing a team on a more modest budget. They seemed to expect to continue as before and with their snouts in the trough. Maybe the demise of the ‘real Rangers men’ myth will be a plus from all this?

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on12:17 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Allyjambo says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm

So, after a fire sale of their second most valuable asset,
_____________________________________________

Perhaps their most valuable asset?
After all, what good is a 52,000 capacity stadium in Govan to anyone other than a Scottish football club/company/immortal entity?

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:51 pm - Jun 19, 2014


MoreCelticParanoia says:
June 19, 2014 at 12:17 pm
2 0 i
Rate This

Allyjambo says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm

So, after a fire sale of their second most valuable asset,
_____________________________________________

Perhaps their most valuable asset?
After all, what good is a 52,000 capacity stadium in Govan to anyone other than a Scottish football club/company/immortal entity?
——————————————————————————–

I believe it was all worth a quid.

BUT…………..Green paid £5.5 Million for the pair.

Buyers (and leasebackers) market.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:44 pm - Jun 19, 2014


On a quiet day, if you fancy a laugh, take a look at the LSE discussion board – http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC

They are going at it tooth and nail over the oldco / newco debate. Guess it keeps them from thinking too much about the actual financials of the company whose shares they are supposed to be discussing.

BTW Have I missed comments about the consequences of Deloittes not signed off accounts:

1) does it reset the UEFA three year audited accounts requirement

2) what does it mean for the proposed share option and share issue – can you sell new shares in an un-audited company – what would the prospectus say

3) how would AIM and the NOMAD react to ” this is not a going concern” judgement – suspend trading

4) is it possible for Deloittes to accept assurances than MP will be sold, staff costs will be cut in order to sign-off caveated accounts – they did it last year with the imaginary £2.5m credit facility

5) Is too much made about Deloittes “instructing” RIFC to fix things. Surely, they are simply saying we can’t sign off these accounts for these reasons – which could be fixed by doing this. At this stage the “doing this” list is blindingly obvious because they have so few options – so not exactly management consultancy.

6) Are Deloittes just nodding and winking; “tell us you have plans to do these things, and we can sign off the books” – but get yourself another auditor for next year. Isn’t Charles Green founding director of Football Financial Services plc aka FFS plc?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on2:17 pm - Jun 19, 2014


oh, and of course

7) SFA send a hard hitting, no nonsense, task force into RIFC/TRFC to ensure the integrity of the best league in Scottish football for the upcoming season.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:42 pm - Jun 19, 2014


mcfc says:
June 19, 2014 at 1:44 pm
6 0 Rate This

On a quiet day, if you fancy a laugh, take a look at the LSE discussion board – http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC

They are going at it tooth and nail over the oldco / newco debate …
———

Those discussions tend to be a wee bit circular.

What I am wondering about is who all the small traders are who are nudging the share price up.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:10 pm - Jun 19, 2014


DP – circular doesn’t quite describe it 🙂

On share trading I’m beginning to think that someone at Ibrox is tasked with buying and selling small irregular numbers of shares each day to simulate the existence of life. The price has been bobbing around the same point for weeks.

The vast majority of shares are owned by people with a “hold” mentality – the majority by spivs and asset strippers, the minority by fans who won’t sell as a matter of loyalty. I can’t see many people trading these shares to try to make a profit – the shenanigans behind the scenes make it impossible to predict a trend in any conventional way – so would only attract gamblers and insider traders (allegedly).

View Comment

bluPosted on3:38 pm - Jun 19, 2014


mcfc says:
June 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm

DP – circular doesn’t quite describe it 🙂

On share trading I’m beginning to think that someone at Ibrox is tasked with buying and selling small irregular numbers of shares each day to simulate the existence of life. The price has been bobbing around the same point for weeks.

mcfc, what you’ve just described would be a deliberate intention to create a disorderly market. Surely Mr Wallace and Mr Somers wouldn’t be party to such activity?

View Comment

nickmcguinnessPosted on3:42 pm - Jun 19, 2014


An indication of the direction TRIFC is possibly heading in can be seen from the stock market histories of two AIM-listed companies with a lot of similar shareholders/controllers, Nova Resources and Tricor.
Rafat Ali Rizvi has been heavily involved in both; Charles Green was Chairman of Nova; Chris Morgan (who Blue Pitch & Margarita wanted on the Rangers board) is a director of both; the Abelas have a substantial shareholding; the likes of Ahmad, Stockbridge, Zeus Capital, Allenby Capital and Daniel Hanson have all been involved too.
Nova and Tricor make large losses practically every year. Basically because they don’t do very much – yet large sums are withdrawn regularly for “operational expenses”.
But the companies are kept going with regular debt-for-equity rights issues plus the issuing of millions of new shares that are pumped (and dumped) into the market.
I’ll leave it at that for now.
Suffice to say, shares of both Tricor and Nova have collapsed in value in recent years, leaving many independent investors well out of pocket.
Yet still the shares are issued. Tricor has 129 million in circulation; Nova has 393 million (each worth little more than 1p).
What does this mean for RIFC?
Possibly that the current rights issue will allow Laxey, Blue Pitch, Margarita et al to boost their holdings (for little outlay) to more than 75%, the magic figure that then allows them to issue as many million new shares as they want, time and again, to anyone daft enough to part with their cash for them.
The football club, meanwhile, will limp on, starved of funds. It’s not important, after all.
For Rangers, the real games that matter will be played in the shares market, not on the pitch.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on3:52 pm - Jun 19, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:28 am
Well it has started already:
New TV deal will see more Championship matches shown live – but the unattractive SPFL is still struggling to find a sponsor

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-tv-deal-see-more-3722622
_________________________________________________________________________

What you have to remember is that the “unattractive” SPFL includes all the divisions, not just the top one, so also covers the all singing-all dancing coming to a TV screen near you soon Championship.

It is like saying the Italian league can’t get a sponsor but more Serie B games will the televised live than before, as if the number of games televised in the second tier of that league is some kind of positive to outweight the lack of a sponsor.

I’m quite sure the headline writers were fully aware of the possibility of readers taking the reference to the Championship and the SPFL as being the Championship and SPL in line with the prevailing propaganda drive. Just another angle of the relentless media talking down of the game and the insistence that we’re aw doomed without TRFC in the top division.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:52 pm - Jun 19, 2014


blu says:
June 19, 2014 at 3:38 pm
mcfc, what you’ve just described would be a deliberate intention to create a disorderly market. Surely Mr Wallace and Mr Somers wouldn’t be party to such activity?
=============================================
I’m sure Mssrs Wallace and Somers would not countenance such activity. But at the same time it is awfully convenience that the share appears to be traded daily – albeit at miniscule volumes.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on4:03 pm - Jun 19, 2014


scapaflow says:

June 19, 2014 at 9:19 am
essexbeancounter says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:31 am

Not to mention the conflicts of interest they basically ignore. if there is a case for splitting the banks, there is definitely a case for splitting up the big accountancy firms. They are as culpable for the failures in the banking industry, as folk like Fred Goodwin.
The dogs that didn’t bark in the night.
=============================================================
Scapa…again agreeing with you wholeheartedly.
The EC is however, doing its best to bring the UK into line with European guidelines where “auditing” firms do auditing and nothing else, i.e no accountancy, tax or consultancy matters.
However, there is massive resistance against this from…you will never guess…the “Big Four” accountancy/auditing/taxation/consultancy firms…!
It will happen, but not in my lifetime!

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:20 pm - Jun 19, 2014


nickmcguinness says:
June 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Yet still the shares are issued. Tricor has 129 million in circulation; Nova has 393 million (each worth little more than 1p).
====================================
Nick – interesting insight – but who buys shares in such obvious zombie companies ?

Are they boiler-roomed, ramped and dumped or is there a legitimate process for reeling in an endless stream of suckers ?

View Comment

TSFMPosted on4:37 pm - Jun 19, 2014


I don’t know why we are getting all hot and bothered about the Big Production number surrounding the Championship. We are talking about the 2nd, 3rd and 5th best supported teams in the country. The standard of football on offer is secondary to the box office appeal of those clubs.
Can’t blame the TV companies for wanting to sustain their sub levels.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:44 pm - Jun 19, 2014


mcfc says:
June 19, 2014 at 4:20 pm
1 0 Rate This

nickmcguinness says:
June 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Yet still the shares are issued. Tricor has 129 million in circulation; Nova has 393 million (each worth little more than 1p).
====================================
Nick – interesting insight – but who buys shares in such obvious zombie companies ?

Are they boiler-roomed, ramped and dumped or is there a legitimate process for reeling in an endless stream of suckers ?
———–

Thanks both. Very interesting indeed. Are Nova and Tricor involved in industrial-scale laundry services by any chance?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:48 pm - Jun 19, 2014


essexbeancounter says:
June 19, 2014 at 4:03 pm

scapaflow says:
June 19, 2014 at 9:19 am

The EC is however, doing its best to bring the UK into line with European guidelines where “auditing” firms do auditing and nothing else, i.e no accountancy, tax or consultancy matters.
However, there is massive resistance against this from…you will never guess…the “Big Four” accountancy/auditing/taxation/consultancy firms…!…
====================
1) I read an article recently which showed the length of audit engagements by the Big 4 and assorted multinationals. IIRC, some have been auditing the same groups for 10, 20 years or more.
I always thought the simplest solution would be mandatory maximum engagements of e.g. 5 years – and which would also facilitate self-regulation in the audit profession. But as EB indicates, presumably the Big 4 have a powerful lobbying influence.

2) Re: Regan’s “unattractive SPFL” comment.
This just confirms that the biggest diddies in Scottish football are actually Regan and Doncaster.
Whilst Regan continues to make negative, disparaging remarks about Scottish football, Doncaster is failing miserably in trying to attract sponsors for said “unattractive” product.
You would think they would have a wee chat together to align each other with promoting the game…but maybe their offices are too far away from each other on the 6th floor at Hampden ? 🙄

View Comment

bluPosted on4:56 pm - Jun 19, 2014


mcfc says:
June 19, 2014 at 3:52 pm

I’m sure Mssrs Wallace and Somers would not countenance such activity. But at the same time it is awfully convenience that the share appears to be traded daily – albeit at miniscule volumes.

Thanks for the clarification, Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne can be stood down now.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:32 pm - Jun 19, 2014


blu says:
June 19, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne can be stood down now.
=========================

🙂

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on6:28 pm - Jun 19, 2014


@Charlotte2Weeks: 1: Daniel Stewart OK’d new share issue. Agreed with Laxey, Margarita and BP.

2: Alexander Easdale to be CEO.

3: Share issue is final.

View Comment

hectorPosted on7:07 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Alexander Easdale to be CEO. I was sure since Phil and I think it was James Forrest had talked up the big man on their blogs he was toast. The Rangers saga never ceases to surprise. 😆

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:33 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Share issue? Is that an “option”?

Does Charlotte2 know her issues from her options?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:37 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Could the signing off of TRFC’s accounts depend on how much they are able to pay their firm of accountants? I seem to remember reading that the eventual signing off of the last set (or was it the interim?) resulted in a huge increase in the accountant’s fees. Obviously Deloittes are well aware of TRFC’s ability to pay a figure commensurate with the professional risk they would be taking, so could it be that Wallace and co will have to search out a smaller firm, with less of a reputation to damage, to sign off the accounts? I’m pretty certain that somewhere, low down, in the accountancy firms’ food chain, there will be companies prepared to sign off on almost anything, if the price is right, but not sure if they would be acceptable to (even) AIM, as they must have some standards, surely!

View Comment

twopandaPosted on7:47 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Speculation !

This accountant’s thing relatively straightforward – I think – 67m expenditure / 18 months – fixed costs base [whatever they are] needs at least 21m pa reduction immediate. Cover story `leaked` is 16m MP and 6-8m `shares` IMO. What’s missing is any guarantee from `shareholders` to underwrite these / any other conditions with plausible reserves. Spivs don`t like underwriting reserves – accountants may need 20m bits of paper to qualify y/e accounts.

Someone tell me that’s nonsense.
😉

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:49 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Allyjambo says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:37 pm
1 0 Rate This

Could the signing off of TRFC’s accounts depend on how much they are able to pay their firm of accountants? I seem to remember reading that the eventual signing off of the last set (or was it the interim?) resulted in a huge increase in the accountant’s fees. Obviously Deloittes are well aware of TRFC’s ability to pay a figure commensurate with the professional risk they would be taking, so could it be that Wallace and co will have to search out a smaller firm, with less of a reputation to damage, to sign off the accounts? I’m pretty certain that somewhere, low down, in the accountancy firms’ food chain, there will be companies prepared to sign off on almost anything, if the price is right, but not sure if they would be acceptable to (even) AIM, as they must have some standards, surely!
=================================================================
Allyjambo…I await the call(s), without holding my breath…but I could do a deal for “cash”…transferred to some offshore fund…now is that not where we all came in?
Sorry, must dash, that is a call from my Professional Indemnity Insurer…and I am sure it is not in a positive vein…!

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:57 pm - Jun 19, 2014


twopanda says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:47 pm
2 0 Rate This

Speculation !

Spivs don`t like underwriting reserves – accountants may need 20m bits of paper to qualify y/e accounts.

Someone tell me that’s nonsense. 😉
===========================================================
Twopanda…I will “bite” (copyright StevieBC!)
I have qualified my audit opinion on accounts on the basis of absolutely zero/nada/zilch pieces of paper…the basis of my qualification being the total absence of any such pieces of paper to give me the necessary “comfort”…(wee green smug thing!)

But your point is valid in many cases.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on9:49 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Nice header on from Gerrard to his team 💡 mate….. 🙄

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:37 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Bloody hell! Decided to take an hour off the football (following what can only be described as a pleasing 90 mins earlier) and stuck on the ladies american open on 404. Christie Kerr sporting her chief sponsor on her Cap…Duff and Phelps 😳

Well if they’re in the way of sponsoring sport events anyway…….

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on11:01 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Nice header on from Gerrard to his teammate…does that count as an “assist” in his stats?

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on11:37 pm - Jun 19, 2014


Scottish football needs a strong Uruguay…

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:46 pm - Jun 19, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:37 pm
Scottish football needs a strong Uruguay…
————–
England needs a competent back four

And rid of Rooney . . .

And a complex miracle . . .

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:57 am - Jun 20, 2014


Another rumoured big name signing planted with the SMSM to keep the Bears onside. But in reality, if it came off would mean more money going out the door for little return. Austerity? What austerity?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bqhu1iPIcAACBki.jpg

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on1:20 am - Jun 20, 2014


Watching the England-Uruguay game tonight it struck me that there are just too many ways that politics is allowed to interfere in football.
In Scotland we are pretty near the bottom of the barrel in terms of political interference, but at this exact moment, the lack of a top flight team at Ibrox is at least making life a damn sight easier for Gordon Strachan.
A week of calls to either drop Rooney or play him in the centre compelled Hodgson to move Sterling to the wing and basically cut off the only effective route from the defensive 6 England are playing with to the four attacking players. They looked as organised as a pub team. Partly because half the players can’t be dropped and partly because there were too many Indians and not enough chiefs on the pitch. Most of these guys play with foreign world clad players at their clubs and can’t compensate when that level of class is replaced by another passenger. Spain have a similar problem. St Iker is probably not even in the top 20 best Spanish keepers right now, but given the loss of Valdez, the only player of similar stature, he was undroppable. Until there is another clear out like the one that ended Guti and Raul’s international careers, Spain will remain well below the level their players ability merits.
So while Strachan is currently not as encumbered by these problems as he could be, there is still plenty of politics messing up the game here.
Rangers being allowed to not pay tax for months before dying – politics
Rangers not having titles stripped – politics
Sevco being allowed to play in the national league – pure politics.
Choice of venues for national cup semis and finals – politics.
Regan opening his previously sellotaped gub on the subject of Dubai – really grubby politics

There is a difference here though. When an FA boss has a quiet word to the manager explaining that Rooney, Casillas or even Barry Ferguson must be selected and play, that official is damaging his own team. If a manager insists that the striker he paid a club record fee for must play if fit, it is his team he’s damaging if the manager had something more intricate in mind. It’s a financial decision and in a sense there is a level of reason to it.
In Scotland though, the damage has been done by “neutrals”. While some of them could truthfully claim they are acting in the best interests of the wider game (many – Mr Ogilvie – cannot make this claim), they cannot deny that their actions have harmed other innocent bystanders. opportunity has been taken from the deserving. Money has been diverted from those who the rules say deserve it. If the SFA were under any legal obligation to act as an honest broker, it would have perpetrated massive fraud. There almost certainly will be a butterfly effect to to what they’ve done and it’s not likely to be a positive one. If you jump down that rotten a rabbit hole, what bites you in the dark isn’t going to be soft and cuddly.
I feel a little bit sorry for England tonight (but I’m a hundred times more glad that they won’t win the World Cup). That said, at least they only shot themselves in the foot. The SFA are taking out other people. People they’re supposed to exist to protect.

View Comment

oldbhoy99Posted on1:39 am - Jun 20, 2014


easyJambo says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:57 am

Will there be an ebt on the table this time round the merry-go-round? Nice wee reminder of what brought us here 😆

View Comment

joburgt1mPosted on7:47 am - Jun 20, 2014


Good morning all,

Not on or off topic, was doing a google search for the Scotland fan celebrating in amongst the Uruguay fans last night and found this gem.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:40 am - Jun 20, 2014


joburgt1m says:
June 20, 2014 at 7:47 am

Thanks for that reminder of how good it can be to be a Scot when we all sing from the same hymn sheet. Great song, great crowd, great people. Wha’s like us?

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on8:44 am - Jun 20, 2014


https://vine.co/v/MTOMQuV06zT

Said Scot abroad

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:59 am - Jun 20, 2014


joburgt1m says:
June 20, 2014 at 7:47 am

Good morning all,

Not on or off topic, was doing a google search for the Scotland fan celebrating in amongst the Uruguay fans last night and found this gem.

This lad?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10913694/Scotland-fan-spotted-supporting-Uruguay-at-Englands-2-1-defeat.html

View Comment

joburgt1mPosted on9:16 am - Jun 20, 2014


andygraham.66
scottc

Thats the very man, thanks. I done the same thing 4 years ago (but not at an england game) Got some weird looks from some people but had great fun

View Comment

joburgt1mPosted on9:20 am - Jun 20, 2014


Allyjambo says:
June 20, 2014 at 8:40 am

Well said Ally, and hope to see your team back in the top flight next year :mrgreen:

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on9:20 am - Jun 20, 2014


World Cup ethics.Excellent.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on10:08 am - Jun 20, 2014


German Squirrels on the loose, there must be a big bad rangers story coming..Was Charles Green an altar boy, Does Craig Whyte have an onerous contract. Have the Dallas Cowboys scrapped plans to hook up with the rangers. Only time will tell….

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on10:18 am - Jun 20, 2014


Ally as coherent and concise as ever after hearing there was a German squirrel on the lose..

If Nerlinger takes on the position, he would essentially be assuming some of responsibility that manager Ally McCoist currently holds… — Would that be 2 people now checking out the contract free auld rangers boys on the market?

Following publication of the review in April, McCoist said: “We need help with scouting, with the medical department and with everything. –Is Nerlinger any good with a paint brush?

“I don’t know what [a chief football operations officer] would cover. If the manager tells him which talent to identify then that’s a good idea.” — I don’t feel threatened at all I took a 50% pay cut you know..

Did Nerlinger have a side contract???

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:27 am - Jun 20, 2014


Re Nerlinger being linked with the club from Ibrox. Clearly the media are as much putty in the hands of the club from Ibrox as they have always been. The very notion of such stories should be completely savaged given their financial state, but instead the good news continues to flow out of Ibrox as quickly as the cash, with eager hacks waiting to cut and paste all sorts of nonsense on demand!

View Comment

Comments are closed.