LNS is currently back in the headlines. It might therefore be a good time to try to set out a timeline describing correspondence we had with the representatives of the authorities over discrepancies and anomalies that appeared to have arisen. None of this is necessarily predicated upon the recent findings of the CoS in the Big Tax Case, but stands on its own.
Back in February 2014 The Scottish Football Monitor wrote to Harper MacLeod, the law firm that the SPL had engaged to gather evidence for the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission investigating the full and proper registration of players paid by Rangers Football Club under Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements.
The initial set-up of the LNS Commission on 5th March 2012 by the SPL (View File) charged LNS with a look at EBTs from 1st July 1998 (when the SPL came into being).
In practice though, the Commission only looked at EBTs from 23 November 2000 onwards.
This change of date was based on the earliest side letter supplied by Duff and Phelps, although Harper MacLeod had requested ALL documentation from 1998 to March 2012 relating to ALL EBTs.
This prompted a series of letters to Harper MacLeod from The Scottish Football Monitor, although Harper MacLeod’s replies failed to address the issues raised.
The passage of time blurs memories but this archive is designed to remind readers of those blogs and correspondence, and the key points contained in them.
It also highlights the apparent inability or unwillingness on the part of the SPL and SFA to engage with us in any meaningful way.
NB: The SFA were informed of our correspondence by Harper MacLeod in October 2014.
It is extremely difficult to be concise in this situation. There are various strands of argument and details seemingly small, but vitally important – however the following is an attempt to make the material accessible and provides links to the relevant files in chronological order (links are in green).
- Item 1: The first SFM letter of 19th February 2014 to Harper MacLeod
- Item 2: The Annexes containing the documents apparently not supplied to Harper Macleod in the spring of 2012 along with other pertinent information about the testimony given to LNS during the Commission.
- Item 3: The SFM response of 29 March 2014 to Harper MacLeod’s reply to the first letter.
- Item 3.1: An SFM analysis of Harper MacLeod’s initial reply attached to response at 3.
- Item 4: An SFM blog of 5th September pointing out how the documents not supplied had a direct impact on the advice given to the SPL Board to accept The Decision of The LNS Commission.
- Item 5: The last letter of 4th October 2014 to Harper MacLeod answering points raised by them (see next) and thanking them for passing our correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer who has so far deigned not to reply.
- Item 5.1: Harper MacLeod’s actual response to SFM 5th September letter.
- Item 6: An SFM Blog (Inc. a transcript of an interview between Alex Thomson and Stewart Regan).
- Item 6.1: Truncated version of above blog.
- Item 7: A clearer extract of key document from Item 2 Annexes
Having no locus to demand answers from the SPL or the SFA, all we can do is provide information – information that we believe presents a prima facie case that LNS was deeply flawed even before the latest developments in the Tax Case came to light. The challenge for us is this: what can we do about it?
It is clear from the meagre response we have received that the authorities are unwilling to engage with us, so it is fair to assume that further correspondence will be met with the same lack of response.
Are we merely a bunch of obsessed nut-jobs with our own take on the Flat Earth conspiracy? If that is the case, surely a few words of explanation to dispel our doubts would have had traction with the rest of the football public. Indeed the lack of any reply undoubtedly serves as confirmation of our belief that something may be seriously wrong.
The questions have been posed. The SFA appears to think that not answering them is a wise course of action. Given that anecdotal evidence presents a compelling case that the general football public are widely in agreement with us, are there any journalists out there who will take the time to look at what we have observed and what we seek clarification on?
There are undoubtedly inferences to be drawn from the evidence we have, and from the silence of the authorities.
The statement by Celtic on Friday 13th November is certainly a start in the process we wish to begin, but it only mentions the elephant in the room. It gives no clue about how it could be transported to another place.
In the first instance we at SFM seek only explanations, and despite the inferences mentioned earlier, we are still eager to be satisfied that rules were followed and justice done.
Is there really nobody in the MSM who has the courage to seek the answers we seek? I suspect not. What we do in the absence of that courage is important. We are at a crossroads. Either we give up on the game altogether and spend our Saturdays and Sundays doing other things – or we find a way to get these questions out of blog pages and into the mainstream.
We need an alliance of fans of all clubs to do that, and we will be looking to build that alliance. I would urge fans of all clubs to give this material to fan sites of their own clubs.
These are not just words. There can be no movement on this issue unless our reach is extended. SFM alone does not have the clout required to bring the clubs to the table or the MSM to fair and balanced reporting. We need that alliance of fans desperately. We don’t seek leadership of that alliance – but we are happy to provide it if required.
This is not a campaign to have Rangers punished. I understand that Rangers fans (since their club is in the middle of this mess) are reluctant to see us as anything other than a bunch of Rangers haters.
That is unequivocally not the case from the perspective of the moderators of this blog. SFM is committed to justice, and to the integrity of the sport we all love.
Justice is ON THE SIDE of Rangers and their fans – it does not conspire against them. A growing number of Rangers fans are coming round to our way of thinking and our tone must reflect that. This is not a Celtic or Hearts or Aberdeen or anybody else v Rangers issue. This is a fans v corrupt authorities issue.
We all deserve answers, and hopefully our alliance will compel each individual club to act in the interests of the fans .
rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/ …
upthehoops 30th November 2015 at 7:53 pm # Smugas 30th November 2015 at 7:42 pm #Caught 10mins of sportsound on the radio and instantly regretted it. To be fair I’ll redo on I player to check context. ============================
Looms like I made the right choice not to listen. It’s amazing how we have guys in our media who condemn large scale tax avoidance on the front pages, while those on the back pages do all they can to condone it. As I said earlier, they seem to dread the finality of Rangers being found guilty with no further avenue for appeal. I wonder why?
________________________
It will never cease to amaze me how people who pay their taxes, on low, or relatively low, wages, would seek to excuse wealthy tax avoiders! Surely it is in the best interests of all honest tax payers to have as many loopholes closed in the tax system as possible. A win for HMRC, in any tax case, is a win for all honest tax payers.
Yes and (I’m now quoting them directly for the absence of doubt) “Boy, did they suffer the consequences!!!”
Three of the most senior law lords in Scotland have decided that Rangers were guilty of tax evasion. Cutting through the legalise they say it was a matter of common sense.
Now BDO have decided to spend some more of the creditors’ pot – and earn a nice wee fee of course.
I’d love to here their rationale for seeking leave to appeal but would imagine our judiciary will be less than pleased about their decision being challenged.
In the meantime HMRC may silently be not at all unhappy since the UK Supreme Court, in reaching their decision, may set in stone the decision they really want made so they can go after other clubs and institutions for similar offences.
Just wondering how long MA could prolong legal action against RIFC
The 2012 asset purchase agreement included IP
This IP was used later on as security in the SD contract which included a loan of £5m and a potential drawdown of a further £5m
Suppose the asset sale is found to be fraudulent ?
What`s the legal status of the IP ownership?
And
What`s the legal status of the SD contract?
And
Would there be grounds for MA to take legal action against RIFC?
Any lawyers out there?
Good god, a thumbs down within a minute……. We’re being trolled.
( my comment at 8:18)
Deldon 30th November 2015 at 7:13 pm
‘…Law Lords overturning their Peers’ ruling is something rare.’
_______
This kind of thing was all new to me , Deldon, but apparently the ‘Law Lords’ (in H of Parliament) were done away with a while ago, and all judicial functions were removed from Parliament when the Supreme Court was set up, ( except maybe the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still exercises some function in former colonies)
The judges of the Supreme Court (like our Lord Hodge!) are not ‘Lords’ in Parliament.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/judicialrole/overview/supremecourt/
Just wondering how long MA could prolong legal action against RIFC
The 2012 asset purchase agreement included IP
This IP was used later on as security in the SD contract which included a loan of £5m and a potential drawdown of a further £5m
Suppose the asset sale is found to be fraudulent ?
What`s the legal status of the IP ownership?
And
Whats the legal status of the SD contract?
And
Would there be grounds for MA to take legal action against RIFC?
Any lawyers out there?
Allyjambo 30th November 2015 at 8:04 pm #
It will never cease to amaze me how people who pay their taxes, on low, or relatively low, wages, would seek to excuse wealthy tax avoiders! Surely it is in the best interests of all honest tax payers to have as many loopholes closed in the tax system as possible. A win for HMRC, in any tax case, is a win for all honest tax payers.
=======================================
All of these Journalists who seemed very keen for this appeal to happen will fall into the honest taxpayer bracket like the rest of us. It seems clear to me the fear of having to have an adult debate about sporting advantage gained drives them to hope for a result which mitigates against that. They just don’t want to concede an inch because of the size of the can of worms we are talking about, therefore they are happy to see rich men avoid the tax they themselves have to pay. There were no banner – almost joyful – headlines when HMRC appealed previous results. Indeed. there was anger at taxpayers money being wasted. Yet they are happy for BDO to throw the creditors pot at an attempt to deny HMRC some form of settlement from a case THREE Judges agreed they were right to pursue.
BDO asking tleave to appeal might be the sensible move they are being seen to do what they can do-less likelihood of “civil disobedience”.
A very good read from RTC – first blog in three years:
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/
(thanks for the link, Jean, I fixed it for you here)
I can’t really get a handle on this BDO decision except like jimmci mentioned for HMRC to bring some finality to the case. I believe HMRC are involved in the Liquidation Committee.
However to – all of us? – this case was decided 5 years ago, it is morally corrupt regardless of any legal outcomes.
Thanks howiemac. Great read.
GoosyGoosy 30th November 2015 at 8:21 pm # Just wondering how long MA could prolong legal action against RIFC The 2012 asset purchase agreement included IP This IP was used later on as security in the SD contract which included a loan of £5m and a potential drawdown of a further £5m Suppose the asset sale is found to be fraudulent ? What`s the legal status of the IP ownership? And What`s the legal status of the SD contract? And Would there be grounds for MA to take legal action against RIFC? Any lawyers out there?
_________________________
I suspect the IP will suffer the same fate as all the other assets purchased by Green/Sevco, whatever that might be. Should all the assets revert back to RFC (IL) then a new company might be set up to purchase the assets, though it would be unlikely to be gallus enough to claim to be RFC after a time-lapse of perhaps as much as 5 years or so, but would, of course, want the IP. Should someone try to keep RIFC/TRFC going (and so claim, according to them, an uninterrupted timeline), and buy the assets, they might then find SD/MA sending their legal team to claim the rights to their security over the IP, as it would be the same company (MA wouldn’t give a toss about NC/OC).
I doubt even a reasonably astute legal mind could come up with the answers to all the possible scenarios that might play out over the next year or two!
Of course, if SD/MA should gain the rights to the IP before the result of the criminal case(s) is known, it is conceivable he will hold title to it that would remain regardless of the verdict. Maybe that is at the back of his mind at the moment!
With regards to the cry from ex players, the media and fans of the deid club that it was the players who won it on the field, the EBT’s did not influence the result, it was 11 v 11. To them I would say, well when Dunfermline or some other club got kicked out the Scottish Cup or other competitions for menial things such as not signing a form and results stood then it would have been 11 v 11. In any football game it’s 11 v 11 and therefore if you did not find that unacceptable or cried loudly that the punishment outweighed the crime being ejected from a competition for such an oversight then you have to accept that side contracts and payment broke the rules and results must be amended accordingly, end of.
upthehoops 30th November 2015 at 8:38 pm # Allyjambo 30th November 2015 at 8:04 pm # It will never cease to amaze me how people who pay their taxes, on low, or relatively low, wages, would seek to excuse wealthy tax avoiders! Surely it is in the best interests of all honest tax payers to have as many loopholes closed in the tax system as possible. A win for HMRC, in any tax case, is a win for all honest tax payers. =======================================
All of these Journalists who seemed very keen for this appeal to happen will fall into the honest taxpayer bracket like the rest of us. It seems clear to me the fear of having to have an adult debate about sporting advantage gained drives them to hope for a result which mitigates against that. They just don’t want to concede an inch because of the size of the can of worms we are talking about, therefore they are happy to see rich men avoid the tax they themselves have to pay. There were no banner – almost joyful – headlines when HMRC appealed previous results. Indeed. there was anger at taxpayers money being wasted. Yet they are happy for BDO to throw the creditors pot at an attempt to deny HMRC some form of settlement from a case THREE Judges agreed they were right to pursue.
_____________________________
I never doubted their motivation in this case, uth, but I’ve often heard, or read, ordinary people sympathise with the tax rates (going back a few years) the highly paid, in some/many cases ludicrously highly paid, have to pay. I’ve always responded with the line, ‘I wish I was paying (whatever the highest tax rate was at the time)% tax!’
tykebhoy 30th November 2015 at 7:13 pm #
@CO off track I believe. Much like RFC had joint administrators from D&P they have joint liquidators (two named persons from BDO)
——————————————————————————————–
Thanks Tyke. My heid was in bits trying to figure how MIH liquidators could throw their tuppence worth in.
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/
When you read the above blog you cannot put wonder why it took to COS for HMRC to win their appeal. Now this may be appealed by BDO, really???
RTC again thanks.
From RTC Blog
This is not a subject where people will be swayed by persuasive argument. Almost anyone who cares about these matters will already have a fully formed opinion that will now be closed to reasoning. So the arguments will continue to rage on into futile infinity. However, anyone who can still be objective would be able to see that Rangers died by its own hand. What should have been a moderately important tussle with HMRC in 2004 festered into a calamity by the actions and inaction of those who ran the club.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Suicide
What a fitting end
@CO I think that MIH liquidators could appeal as the overturning of the FTTT obviously affects MIH. However the MIH EBTs tax due is a fleabite of the total debt as opposed to the RFC(IL) debt being doubled (give or take). I suspect BDO will be on their own
tykebhoy 30th November 2015 at 10:04 pm #
@CO I think that MIH liquidators could appeal as the overturning of the FTTT obviously affects MIH.
——————————————————————————————–
What really threw me was the other MIH companies had baled out of the process. I didn’t understand how they could possibly “Bale in2 again. Your earlier explanation makes perfect sense.
Taxable or not?
Sporting advantage or not?
Bucket loads of mud deliberately added to a small glass of water.
Were the football player registration rules broken?
Yes, said LNS.
Has SFA governance utterly embarrassed all football fans on this matter to date, especially Rangers fans?
Yes, say we all.
Why do I say especially Rangers fans?
As a Celtic fan, if it turned out that anything won by Celtic was achieved through accidentally or deliberately breaking any rule, I would be devastated. As devastated as Rangers fans must privately be.
But, if the club, the SFA, UEFA, FIFA, NATO and the UN all then argued black was white to allow us to keep the wins on our record, I would be sportingly humiliated.
Would I want them not to argue black was white? Would I want them to allow Celtic FC and me to start again with a clean slate and hope that future wins were achieved within the rules of football? Would I be ashamed of any Celtic fan or club representative who argued otherwise because a court or a tribunal said so, when I knew they were talking rubbish because I can read a football rule myself and work out whether or not it has been broken?
Yes, yes and yes.
To the Scottish FA. What greater embarrassment can a governing body have when everyone sees it as being incapable of governing?
Every Rangers fan knows and all other fans know. Stop the humiliation and act.
So good to see Rangers Tax Case back up. No comments allowed on site so I hope RTC reads this. Thanks.
Goosy Goosy
Suicide resulting from hubris, narcissism* and stupidity.
*Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one’s own attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism#/media/File:Narcissus-Caravaggio_(1594-96)_edited.jpg
tykebhoy
Was it not the MIH Group Liquidators that made the decision not to challenge HMRC’s appeal?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14113270.CONFIRMED__Rangers_oldco_liquidators_formally_take__Big_Tax_Case__to_a_Supreme_Court_appeal/?ref=mr&lp=7
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34966436
Championship strugglers Bolton have revealed that their players have not been paid for November.
Wanderers, who are £172.9m in debt, recently appointed Trevor Birch as an advisor to the board in order to ease a takeover from owner Eddie Davies.
In a statement on their website, the club said the non-payment happened because of the need to find a new buyer.
“This is due to a short-term funding issue,” said 57-year-old Birch.
“We are working hard behind the scenes and hope to have this resolved in a quick and timely manner and I will be meeting the players tomorrow (Tuesday) to update them.”
Isle of Man-based businessman Davies is willing to forego the entire debt owed to his company Burden Leisure PLC in the hope of easing a takeover process.
Bolton are currently four points adrift at the foot of the Championship table, having won only one of their 17 league games so far this season.
They face Brentford at home on Monday evening.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34965953
Northampton Town’s winding-up petition withdrawn by HMRC
The winding-up petition brought against League Two side Northampton Town has been withdrawn following a court hearing on Monday.
The news had been expected after the Cobblers’ new owner Kelvin Thomas paid HM Revenue & Customs unpaid tax it was due when he bought the club last week.
“This is a very positive step as we move forward,” said Thomas.
“We can now focus on our review of the club and developing the future plans.”
On Friday, the Cobblers’ administration petition brought by Northampton Borough Council was adjourned to 11 December for a deal to be made between Thomas and the council.
Thomas purchased the club from David Cardoza on Thursday and became executive chairman of the Cobblers.
Thomas and the council have a memorandum of understanding in place over a £10.25m loan to the club for redevelopment work at Sixfields Stadium, which would would see the debt wiped out, with the council acquiring land near Sixfields for development in return.
Despite the uncertainty off the pitch, the Cobblers are currently in the League Two automatic promotion places.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039qs50
Sportsound: 30 Nov 15 Scottish Football
We discuss BDO’s application to the Court of Session seeking Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, Rangers v Dumbarton tomorrow night, Anthony Stokes, Dundee United and hear from James McArthur on the phone.
Richard Wilson, Graham Spiers and Tom English join Kenny McIntyre.
Eyes down for the latest game of Sevco Bingo!
Just a couple of observations.
These observations, are not intended to express an opinion on the likelihood of any particular outcome.
As I understand matters, the majority of charges relating to the purchase of the old club’s assets involve fraud, conspiracy and involvement in serious crime. In broad terms, the allegations surround the plan to purchase those assets for less than their true worth.
There are a number of possible outcomes – and again I stress I offer no opinion on what will transpire – but one possibility is that all of the charges are proven. What then?
It would seem likely that BDO would seek recompense from TRFC/D&P for the difference between true worth and what was actually received. This could be a relatively small amount or many millions of pounds. However, the key thing is that guilty verdicts do not mean the transaction that led to TRFC holding the assets of the old club can be undone.
Except one….
Charles Green has been charged under section 190 of the Companies Act. If he is found guilty of this offence, section 195 of the Act applies.
Section 190 appears to relate to the novation of Sevco 5088’s rights to purchase the assets without shareholders approval.
Section 195 allows for a transaction to be made void if a charge under Section 190 is proven. Sevco 5088, could have their right to purchase the assets reinstated. Of course, that would depend on the outcome of the other charges.
It is interesting that TRFC is, at the same time, unwilling to fund the defence of its former CEO against charges that would leave the company vulnerable and also appear to be be willing to spend £5m repurchasing assets that could theoretically be retaken for the £1 price – listed only under ‘goodwill’ in the D&P sale.
Very strange
@Sannoffymesssoitizz 11.23 Yes MIH liquidators chose not to challenge the HMRC appeal in my opinion because of the lack of materiality of the tax in the overall MIH debt and not because they thought HMRC would lose anyway. That meant BDO did have to pick up the appeal because the tax is/was very material in terms of RFC (IL) debt. My understanding is CoS overturned all FTTT rulings which obviously affects the MIH liquidation. For this reason,and I have previously compared it to rejoining a hand of poker after folding, I think MIH could join the appeal if granted. If my original opinion is correct they won’t because legal costs could outstrip potential savings. All of this is just my opinion/understanding and is therefore not necessarily accurate.
HirsutePursuit 1st December 2015 at 12:33 am
“Very strange”
——————————————————————–
Probably just discussing the fitba and nothing else.
Still no sign of the results of the voting at the AGM? I mean how long can it realistically take?
One could be forgiven for wondering if there was something afoot.
It might be taking the Level5PR spin machine more time than usual to construct a positive message from the results.
No indication either that Ashley has received his £5m yet. Maybe that’s where the PR effort is directed right now.
Hmm, conflict of interest much?
sannoffymesssoitizz 1st December 2015 at 12:07 am
‘…Sportsound: 30 Nov 15 Scottish FootballWe discuss BDO’s application to the Court of Session seeking Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, Rangers v Dumbarton tomorrow night, Anthony Stokes,..’
__________
I imagine that the discredited Kenny McIntyre, Wilson,Speirs and English will present a less balance view of these matters than the regulars in Louden’s-as they usually and disgracefully do.
I will not be tuning in.
Good Morning
Goosy says at 8.21 yesterday
“Any lawyers out there?”
Yes but subject to the caveats of not discussing or prejudging anything that may be coming out in the forthcoming trial and giving advice in questions of Law which are outwith one’s expertise.
Shortly after the Court of Session decision was issued on 4th November I put up a post (don’t have a copy or exact date I did so)
In that post I pointed people in the direction of another case, Chalmers v Chalmers [CSIH 75] decided on 27th October 2015.
In that case the judge quoted from Lord Hatherley in Lockyer v Ferryman (1877) 4R (HL) 32 at 39 where he said, ‘It is well established…. that nothing can protect the perpetration of a fraud.’
Although this case was primarily about a forged signature I believe that similar principles may apply in that a forger (fraudster) must bear the consequences of his own acts.
Other landmark cases were also mentioned and considered by the Judges. If you read the original judgements in them and without discussing the merits of the forthcoming case it is well established in Law what the consequences would be if a course of fraudulent conduct were proved.
I can foresee a three way fight between BDO, the Trustee in Bankruptcy for CW and possibly the Crown under the proceeds of Crime legislation, depending of course on the outcome of the Trial.
What I cannot get my head around is why people like Douglas Park who is both respectable and respected continues to plough money into a shell of a plc, given that there exists the possibility in the final analysis that RIFC plc may not enjoy the beneficial ownership of the Club presently playing out of Govan.
Do they know something we don’t?
Without the benefit of all of the facts all we can do is speculate.
On the question of an Appeal some people are seeing this as a sign of a victory for Rangers. Far from it. It is only a request to be allowed to appeal and a few hoops have to be jumped through before any Appeal is allowed.
I think it won’t be allowed.
jimbo 30th November 2015 at 11:04 pm
‘…So good to see Rangers Tax Case back up. No comments allowed on site so I hope RTC reads this. Thanks.
______I echo those sentiments.
in the RTC lifted a stone in the garden of football governance.
The stone turned out to be metaphorically the size of Uluru , such was the volume of dirty wee beasties discovered crawling about underneath.
From deceitful knights of the realm to semi-literate radio journalists, from partisan CEOs to dog-whistling ‘managers’, from threatening ex-national club managers to Alice-in-Wonderland interpreters of the English language………They’re all there, every rotten type of con-man and liar and truth-denier.
As an ordinary, everyday punter I never imagined that, in the matter of sport, the very governing bodies of our game ( as distinct from the occasional individual rogue ‘Secretary’) would help create and sustain the Big Lie, or that they would be assisted in so doing by part of the BBC.
The Big Lie was exposed by RTC. Praise and honour to him.
And shame on us if we let the liars win.
Looking at it one way, in the event that a legal ruling overturns the original Sevco Scotland purchase who would seek to aggressively buy ‘the bits’ (my legal terminology) out, whether for £1 or otherwise? No-one is going to buy them to legally operate them since the result would lie somewhere between the mother of all OC/NC debates and Glebe Park revisited. Surely they would seek to immediately sell them back to TRFC (making the £5m Mash repayment all the stranger). One might even speculate that this was another off the radar billionaire’s plan all along, no?
Hoopy 7 said @ 10:13 am:
‘What I cannot get my head around is why people like Douglas Park who is both respectable and respected continues to plough money into a shell of a plc, given that there exists the possibility in the final analysis that RIFC plc may not enjoy the beneficial ownership of the Club presently playing out of Govan. … Without the benefit of all of the facts all we can do is speculate.’
In the same vein: it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to figure that Douglas Park is simply a busy guy, whose main source of info on matters Sevco is not SFM, or similar.
On the contrary, as someone with much cash and emotion already ‘invested’ in this affair, I imagine his main source of info will be similarly busy and invested RRM.
As the old saying goes: if you fly with the crows, you’ll get shot with the crows.
Rangers AGM Resolution 10 failed to get enough votes.
73.8% for Res 10. A close run thing!
Very prescient, Jungle Jim. No wonder they wanted to prevent MASH voting. Will we see the breakdown, I wonder?
Therefore 9 is useless.
From Adrian Durham in the Mail. Warning- only click the link if you are feeling strong enough to read the most atrocious pap which makes Chris Jack look like an actual journalist
A special warning to any Celtic fans- apoplexy can be life threatening.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3340590/Celtic-fans-never-admit-t-wait-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership-celebrating-Mark-Warburton-s-win-promotion.html
So it looks like 30% of the shareholders (circa 23m votes) either cannae be arsed or have had their voting rights revoked and of those who did get to cast a vote a quarter (circa 14.5 m votes) are against the board (supporters = circa (41.6m votes).
Doesn’t seem much of a united front to me in terms of the holding company.
Sorry, but LOL.
Despite extensive gerrymandering (notably the removal of voting rights from various of the Easdale proxies) they still couldn’t push it through. Comical.
Perhaps now would be a good time for SoS to undertake the long awaited analysis of the accounts and incorporate in what the AGM results mean for the way forward in terms of finances?
A small number of people better have deep deep pockets over the coming months is £2.5m is required to keep the lights on, £5m is to be paid to Ashley and Warbs is to get those Euro standard players in January.
Oh and did I forget the ongoing annual loses that even if cut should promotion be achieved will most likely be in the millions come June 2016.
From the AGM statement:
I’m sorry, what? Is that really saying ‘we got more votes than we expected, so it’s sort of a victory’?
Only about 69% voted in each of the resolutions and they was an approximate 75/25 split. So despite an orchestrated campaign to hoover up shares by the fan groups, virtually half the shareholders did not vote in favour of any of them.
Can anyone explain in simple terms (for my benefit
) what the effect of this failed vote is? Thanks.
jimbo it’s at times like this that I really miss Ecobhoy.
He had a way of cutting through all the jargon and legal terms and making it make sense.
wottpi,
You forgot to factor in the finance for the feel-good facility of the fantastic auditorium! As opposed to guffawing at those naughty guttersnipe’s gazebo, which at least was paid for!
On a slightly more serious note, in the interests of balance, the 2.5m required now is one and the same thing as the loss to be announced at June 16. June 17 however is a different margin call tbc.
Re Res 10. Ok chaps. Deep pockets, long memories and big BIG trust in your board’s integrity required. Anyone, anyone at all…
oops!
So four days after the votes were cast we have the results.
All ten resolutions received Nay votes from over a quarter of those voting.
Not being versed in statistics can anyone help me with identifying where the corresponding over a quarter naysaying is in the press, radio, television and supporters groups?
They can’t issue new shares to people who are not already shareholders, and therefore can’t raise cash that way. It’s a moot point as to whether anyone would have done that anyway, but it was suggested that there were RRM out there who would provide soft loans which would be converted into shares at some later date . That’s now off the table (pending another resolution vote at another general meeting).
A real journalist would be asking Dave King under what terms the 5mil to pay off Ashley is going to be lent. Will there be interest? Will there be security (only Ibrox is available as far as I know, but he wouldn’t do that, would he)? Is it debt for equity, in which case how does the failure of Res 10 affect that? I expect Chris Jack will be right on it.
It’s just as well that Resolutions 1-9 only required simple majorities. Had they required the same 75% vote in favour as Resolution 10, then none of the directors would have been re-elected.
Question.
To a capable lender (like Park or even Ashley for instance) is £7.5m with tangible security better than £2.5m without?
Assuming the board got an idea that there was a problem with the proposed vote balance on the Thursday night, in conjunction with the rather nasty letter received from Mike, something to do with winding up, lots of red pen, big names etc etc, then the terms of the 10m phone calls to get some cash in take on a bit of a different perspective do they not.
Whats that you say, and they met with the SPFL as well…..Hmmmmmm
LUGOSI 1st December 2015 at 1:06 pm #
So four days after the votes were cast we have the results. All ten resolutions received Nay votes from over a quarter of those voting. Not being versed in statistics can anyone help me with identifying where the corresponding over a quarter naysaying is in the press, radio, television and supporters groups?
==============================
A possible breakdown of those voting against all the resolutions:
Mash – 8.92%
Sandy Easdale – 6.45%
James Easdale – 0.70%
Remnants of SE Proxy circa. 2%
That gives a total of 18.07%
However since only 69% of the total shares were voted, that 18.07% becomes 26.18% of the votes cast, which is pretty close to the actual result.
It appears, to me at least, that JohnJames’ recent pieces have resonated with many of the EGM voters. His latest blog challenges many of the perceptions and beliefs of the people who are.
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/the-joy-of-easy-listening/
easyJambo 1st December 2015 at 1:43 pm A possible breakdown of those voting against all the resolutions: Mash – 8.92% Sandy Easdale – 6.45% James Easdale – 0.70% Remnants of SE Proxy circa. 2% That gives a total of 18.07%
However since only 69% of the total shares were voted, that 18.07% becomes 26.18% of the votes cast, which is pretty close to the actual result.
____________________________
Bloody Hell, EJ, are you some kind of forensic numerologist? Pretty impressive effort; far, far better than anything we’ll ever get from the SMSM.
Now, can you work out how many lottery tickets I’ll have to buy to ensure…
If you thought the shareholder vote was predictable AJ, just wait till you see the cup draw!
Who are the 31% of shareholders whom took no part in the voting and why not? If influenced by King they would vote him, if not they would vote against him. Someone please enlighten me if they can.
The Resolution 10 result makes the BDO leave to appeal request kind of pale into insignificance, if not for us, then certainly for the bears who are stupid enough to believe in King!
Can I just point out, that if there’s detailed research, or extremely clever figure crunching, in any post from a Jambo, it’s not AJ (Allyjambo) that’s produced it, it’s my fellow Jambo, EJ (Easyjambo).
That guy does incredible work, and I just take advantage of his, and others, hard work and put in my tuppence worth from time to time!
I have to admit I get quite embarrassed by the amount of times credit is given to me, or my pseudonym actually, for some seriously good work that I am certainly not capable of.
y4rmy, Cheers for that I understand now, the wording of the resolution was double dutch to me.
(been dying to use that new smiley)
——————————-
“That guy does incredible work, and I just take advantage of his, and others, hard work and put in my tuppence worth from time to time”
Same here AJ
valentinesclown 1st December 2015 at 2:26 pm # Who are the 31% of shareholders whom took no part in the voting and why not? If influenced by King they would vote him, if not they would vote against him. Someone please enlighten me if they can.
____________________________________-
I’d suggest that some of the 31% of RIFC shareholders (supporters?) are those clever enough to doubt King, but not prepared to vote against their club’s Chairman and/or board, regardless of who that might be. The rest might be the disenfranchised anonymous companies.
Soz if I’m being a bit dumb here but I’m doing a wee bit of catch-up: does the defeat of Proposition 10 mean that the £5m “raised” by King can’t be converted into equity for those guys without others being allowed to buy shares to keep the same holding? Or is that a separate thing?
Thanks Allyjambo
Maybe someone has already answered this.
) to make this payment now?
The vote by shareholders at the June 2015 EGM supported withholding repayment of £5M to Mike Ashley.
Does King not need to get those shareholders to support his decision (due to changed circumstances
Given the tight margin re Resolution 10 I am wondering if it may have squeezed through had King actually put up a clear and openly identifiable few millions (say £5m for example) as has been implied would be his way froward over the last few years.
To date questions are still being asked about how much he has actually put in. Even when he supposedly helped out with £1.5m in May it required a double confirmation in the press to convince folks that this was what had actually happened.
Could the lack of transparency over his contributions to the club, combined with his ‘baggage’ have put off enough cautious shareholders from throwing a vote the boards way.
JB,
Not dumb at all. Bang on the money.
They can still stick in their ‘soft loans’ but they will remain as such. This has three immediate impacts. Your generosity ensures everyone else’s stake remains the same (since your cash maintains the share price through the ethereal thingy continuing to be) and secondly you (as opposed to they) are now more exposed to any insolvency event or legal claim on titles (properties, not shiny tin or embroidered stars) until such time as the resolutions are passed. Getting the resolutions passed also becomes more difficult, because, well, why the hell should they (see reasons 1 & 2).
You need to have a lot of faith in your board’s ability and trust in their integrity in order to do this. It might also be an idea to have 2.5m spare change that you can afford to lose or, alternatively, go the whole hog and ‘blow’ £7.5m if that had the entirely coincidental effect of freeing up property for you to take in security.
That’s my take on it anyway.
redetin 1st December 2015 at 2:55 pm
You would have thought that might be the case, especially given the reported standing ovation given to the board for their stance at the EGM when the matter was discussed, but in the words of David Somers:-
‘When you are chairman of Rangers, you can do it your way.’
neepheid 1st December 2015 at 12:05 pm
‘..From Adrian Durham in the Mail. ..’
_________
I have emailed Durham as follows:
“Dear Mr Durham,You say today:
” they say it’s a new club formed after summer 2012, and they are campaigning feverishly for Rangers to be stripped of their titles”
Unlike you, we are actually simply stating the truth: Sevco Scotland was founded in 2012. It changed its name to The Rangers FC Ltd.It manifestly cannot be the same entity that is languishing in Liquidation. Simples, as that irritating wee beastie with the Russian accent says.
The club that is dying in Liquidation (Rangers Football Club) fielded ineligible players for more than a decade.
Each and every game that they won while fielding even ONE ineligible player is forfeit under the rules, the score to be 3-0 to the opposing team.
There is nothing ‘feverish ‘ in the repeated, calm, assertion that titles ‘earned’ by cheating must be stripped from the records.
That is the simple footballing truth.
You might be Goebbelsian propagandist enough to wish not to acknowledge Truth.That is your misfortune. And perhaps the ‘Daily Mail’s.Yours sincerely,John Clark
JJ’s new post – A reversal of Resolutions – puts it much more eloquently than wot I do by the way!
We know that 10.4% of the 31% who didn’t vote were the four groups, including BPH and Margarita, who had their rights removed in the summer.
Others who may not have voted probably include institutional investors such as River and Mercantile who wouldn’t want their shareholdings diluted.