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 .
Guess who is favourite to be the next Swansea manager? Yes, folks, you got it, it’s the man in the magic hat again! MW is priced at 10/11- second favourites (joint) at 8/1 are Brendan Rogers and David Moyes.
You really couldn’t make this stuff up. But just in case you think I am-
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/swansea/next-permanent-manager
John Clark 4th December 2015 at 12:33 am #
tony 4th December 2015 at 12:40 am #
Outstanding!
It’s a bit like that car when it gets to a certain age – sometimes you think it would be better if someone stole it.
Maybe if it blows away altogether, the insurance will save this club/holding company. Or maybe not!
StevieBC, I never had much appetite for it myself, cleared my mail box on a daily basis, but I worked with two guys who deleted nothing, both in and out. So you are probably correct that much stuff will be available if people have the appetite & drive to make it useful.
My own organisation got fed up with the amount of data stored on its servers that it started deleting everything over 2 years old unless a compelling argument could be made against. They were not pleased.
RPMcMurphy 4th December 2015 at 8:19 pm
James Doleman
Do you have any means of accepting a donation via PayPal ?
Not that it will be massive mind !!
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ditto!!!
GoosyGoosy 4th December 2015 at 8:54 pm #Valentinesclown 4th December 2015 at 2:14 pm # I think if the SFA could legally (I use this term loosely) lend money to Ibrox club it would have been done long ago ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Agreed And yet It`s worse than that It wasn`t that they would have LENT money to Ibrox long ago if they could They GAVE money to Ibrox for over a decade Money, RFC wasn’t entitled to receive Ibrox got prize money and gate money from hundreds of matches in which they fielded ineligible players Ibrox registered contracts at the SFA that showed wages well below what they were actually paying their players All done with connivance of the SFA The most menial clerk at Hampden must have known that RFC players were registered on wages well below what dozens of other clubs were paying By turning a blind eye to their own rules the SFA robbed all the other clubs to pay them And as if that wasn`t bad enough They treated ordinary Scottish football fans as mushrooms. They told us there would be Armageddon if their own rules were applied to RFC. They then had the cheek to announce a secret 5 way Agreement had been reached An Agreement that satisfied everybody Except the lifeblood of the sport Us The fans got the mushroom treatment yet again And continue to do so ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Hope you`re reading this Mike Don`t give up on the Judicial Review We know you ain`t a mushroom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many thanks to Big Pink and the crew for unbanning me. I promise to be less flippant/confrontational than before.
Good points Goosy & VC but I have certain reservations.
The first one is that we appear to be relying on an unsrupulous billionare to sort our game out almost as much as Phil depends on him for info on RIFC. If change is to be realised it can only be through our own actions on our own clubs.
My second reservation is that Mike is only pushing at the SFA through the courts for his own commercial gain and that is probably to agree to lay off the SFA in order to gain control at Ibrox.
Brenda
I know you are out there. Please PM me and we’ll get your password sorted.
Bogs Dollox 4th December 2015 at 11:42 pm
‘……we appear to be relying on an unsrupulous billionare to sort our game out almost as much as Phil depends on him for info on RIFC…’
_____
That’s an interesting statement, Bogs Dollox. Do you have any grounds for believing that Phil has a hot-line to the Ashley camp?
Brenda: That was daft of me – of course you can’t PM me 🙁
Email bigpink@sfm.scot
<ul/>
February meeting: more like Perth again – or Stirling (maybe a bit less onerous for the Dumfries contingent!). I hope to do a broadcast from the meeting itself. Be great to do it live. It would also be good to do a video thing as well, but I will sound out attendees about their privacy concerns.
Bogs Dollox 4th December 2015 at 11:42 pm
Completely agree with you. Ashley is not in Scotland on a philanthropical mission, and I think everyone is aware of that. But there will be some collateral damage to the SFA which, if he goes ahead with his court case, may prove advantageous to cleansing our game….
I doubt anybody actually likes Ashley’s business practises, I certainly don’t ! But for now he may bring advantages. I think that is the total extent of any “cheerleading” which he may be on the receiving end of.
On a separate matter……….
It may be too late now wrt next weeks hearings, but for future reference, would it be possible for SFM to sponsor/employ James in some way for his court reports?
upthehoops 4th December 2015 at 6:57 am #
Interesting observation as always.
On tonights SSB (yes, yes I know but somebody has to) Gerry was dancing around the point of where the story came from and suggested he had been checking its origins but was only able to relate about 30 seconds of his attempt at journalism when BIG DJ interbursted him and nullified the point. It was almost as if DJ had been briefed beforehand by his paymasters.
John Clark 5th December 2015 at 12:05 am #
No John I don’t. Its only me surmising from what I read on his blog.
BTW I’m not knocking him. I’m a big fan of his and regular donee.
Corrupt official 5th December 2015 at 12:10 am #Bogs Dollox 4th December 2015 at 11:42 pm On a separate matter………. It may be too late now wrt next weeks hearings, but for future reference, would it be possible for SFM to sponsor/employ James in some way for his court reports?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excellent suggestion. As JD is familiar with the reporting rules we could get our usual reporters and others to feed their stuff through him for scrutiny/legalisation before publication for a reasonable fee.
Depending on other stuff I may be able to attend court and take notes. I’m not bad at that kind of thing.
Bogs Dollox 5th December 2015 at 12:17 am
‘..Its only me surmising from what I read on his blog.BTW I’m not knocking him. I’m a big fan of his and regular donee.’
____
Yes, I tend to think he has an ‘in’ to the Ashley camp, rather than to anything directly from ‘Ibrox’. I just wondered whether you might be able say for sure-because Phil is not likely to!
Not at all questioning your ‘integrity’
JC, what’s on your mind tonight? it’s been a quiet day today. in a years time where do you think we will be? Best outcomes, worst outcomes? anyone else still up please join in too
jimbo 5th December 2015 at 1:12 am #JC, what’s on your mind tonight? it’s been a quiet day today. in a years time where do you think we will be? Best outcomes, worst outcomes? anyone else still up please join in too
____________________________________________________________________
My thinking is that the current TRFC is unsustainable for reasons of debt, accumulating trading losses, onerous contracts and pending court cases etc and one way or another will have to be crashed and started again.
I tend to think Ashley will be the new owner of the new new RFC because he holds all the assests and income streams at present and has the means to fund the club.
The timing of the crash is beyond anyones control, given the current conflict, but they will be hoping it happens once promotion is secured. If the crash is an Admin followed by a CVA they will hope to start in the Premiership minus a points deduction.
I suppose the thing I can’t get over is the SFA in all of this. The league authorities are in it for a structure to make money. Everyone of our clubs are bought into that but are also shamed by their silence. but the SFA is supposed to be above that. (Although they have a few money spinners too). Governance being a key word. So disappointing.
Big pink
lol think all ok now 
I wonder sometimes if the speculation of some of my favourite bloggers is no more than wishful thinking. I don’t mean folk who comment on here. But big sites who would have us believe that Rangers did not have the money to see the month out for about the last year or so. where is the truth?
jimbo 5th December 2015 at 1:12 am #
i worry that we might still be exactly here in a year’s time. I have followed this whole sorry mess on here, on the Clumpany, on Fields of Green and of course on Phil’s blog. I have even started to dip in occasionally to JJ’s site. Every time I feel we’re getting close something else is pulled out of the bag of tricks to save them. I have asked Phil several times “Are we nearly there yet.” And we never quite seem to be. I fear this time will be no different!
Not that I necessary want Rangers to die. I just want a level playing field where good people uphold the rules of fair competition and where journalists with integrity and no vested interests hold those who would seek to gain an unfair advantage to account.
That’s all. Oh and some sleep. Good night and god bless.
jimbo 5th December 2015 at 1:12 am #i worry that we might still be exactly here in a year’s time. I have followed this whole sorry mess on here, on the Clumpany, on Fields of Green and of course on Phil’s blog. I have even started to dip in occasionally to JJ’s site. Every time I feel we’re getting close something else is pulled out of the bag of tricks to save them. I have asked Phil several times “Are we nearly there yet.” And we never quite seem to be. I fear this time will be no different!
(this one didn’t seem to work last time!)
I tune in from New Zealand to await news of Admin 2 and always am amazed by the nowt to see spin from Sevco.
They will pay back $5,000,000 to Mike Ashley – Rubbish! They left out the the terms included with such a payment.
They will convert loans to shares. Rubbish! They lost the vote to do so at the AGM.
They own the stadium. Rubbish! Why then pay rent each month?
They will get $30,000,000 from Dave King . Rubbish! He could soon be in prison.
They will win the Championship. Rubbish! They have to have funds to last another six months.
It is not a question of IF. It is only a question of WHEN they will go under.
Might be of interest.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/28/celtic-fc-living-wage
How many times have BBC Complaints cut and pasted this?
‘Our reporters routinely appear on Sportsound and our other outlets to discuss the big stories of the day. Richard Wilson had been working on the Rangers story for all outlets and, as such, was bringing Sportsound listeners up to date with the latest developments.
He offered his thoughts in a fair, accurate and impartial manner’
Do they snigger when they do it?
Have BBC complaints ever found a complaint justified?
jimbo 5th December 2015 at 2:13 am # I wonder sometimes if the speculation of some of my favourite bloggers is no more than wishful thinking. I don’t mean folk who comment on here. But big sites who would have us believe that Rangers did not have the money to see the month out for about the last year or so. where is the truth?
_________________________________
I think that in many cases, at the time of posting, it was true to say TRFC (The only money Rangers have had in the past year or so is held by their liquidators
) didn’t have the money to see the month out. Somehow, though, the various shysters that have run that club have managed to find mugs to ‘lend’ them enough to keep going. They have even admitted to needing these loans to see the season out, on more than one occasion.
In any other enterprise, a company that has continually made the type of losses TRFC/RIFC have made since inception would have died before now. But this is football, and hearts are ruling the heads of even the most sensible of businessmen!
In the whole history of the club, there has only been one board with the ability, and the realistic motivation, to sort the mess out, and we know what happened to them.
Big Pink
Today, I am installing acoustic foam treatment in our incredibly boomy and unPodcast-friendly room. Sounding much better already 🙂
Egg boxes would’ve been cheaper BP.?
jimbo 5th December 2015 at 2:13 am #I wonder sometimes if the speculation of some of my favourite bloggers is no more than wishful thinking. I don’t mean folk who comment on here. But big sites who would have us believe that Rangers did not have the money to see the month out for about the last year or so. where is the truth?
———————————————
It is clearly true, since it’s inception some years back, Rangers have been running at a huge loss. That means on many occasions, they did not have money to see out the season and on a lot of those occasions, the month. That is well documented, even from Rangers themselves.
What I think you mean is that a lot of people are wishing that no more fools give them more money so at some point, they cease to trade.
armchairsupporter 5th December 2015 at 2:17 am # jimbo 5th December 2015 at 1:12 am #i worry that we might still be exactly here in a year’s time. ———————————————————————————
Well, a year ago this month I wrote the undernoted blog. The only real change is that MA seems to have been completely antagonised by the RRM with consequences likely to bring matters to a decidedly acrimonious conclusion. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
“A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
SFM | December 22, 2014
A Guest blog by redlichtie for TSFM
From what I can see Mike Ashley is likely to be the only game in town for RIFC/TRFC fans unless they want to see another of their clubs go through administration/liquidation.That particular scenario potentially allows for a phoenix to arise from the ashes but on past evidence it is probably going to be an underfunded operation with overly grandiose pretensions taking them right back into the vicious circle they seem condemned to repeat ad nauseam…..
From Ashley’s point of view I believe that what is being sought is a stable, self-financing operation that he can then sell on whilst retaining income streams of importance to SD.I also suspect that he will come to some arrangement with the SFA to dispose of his interest once he has stabilised the club.
The problem for RIFC/TRFC fans is that Ashley is not going to fund some mythical “return to where they belong”, though that is beginning to appear to be the second division of the SPFL where they are heading to have a regular gig.
Like at Newcastle, Ashley will cut their coat according to their cloth. This will mean, again like at Newcastle, a mid-table team with good runs every so often. If the finances can be fixed then they will have an advantage over most other Scottish clubs but in the main we will be back to actual footballing skills and good management being what is important (pace “honest mistakes”)……
But will the Bears go for Ashley’s plan? So far they seem antagonistic and still cling to their belief that the world owes them a top football club regardless of cost.
If the fans don’t get behind the current entity I can see Ashley deciding the game’s not worth it and cashing in his chips. Some ‘Rangers Men’ will probably turn up and create a new entity for The People to believe in and Ashley will continue to draw in income from shirt sales and, most likely, charging fans at the world famous Albion car park which he will then own…..
The crushing reality about to descend on The People is that there really is no Santa Claus. A Sanity Clause, perhaps but no Santa Claus.”
Are we there again yet? Will be be back here again in another year?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Oh Dear…..
Looks like JJ was maybe correct that some ballot papers were thrown in the bin. I’m sure BFDJ will be saying its ok, because they didn’t win anyway.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14125959._Easdale_block__shareholders_in_revolt_over_Rangers_AGM_voting_ban/?ref=twtrec
redlichtie 5th December 2015 at 10:20 am
As prescient now, I’m sure, as it was then, redlichtie.
Scottish football needs a strong Sanity Clause
Entertaining, as ever from the Clunpany.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com
Corrupt official 5th December 2015 at 10:29 am # Oh Dear….. Looks like JJ was maybe correct that some ballot papers were thrown in the bin. I’m sure BFDJ will be saying its ok, because they didn’t win anyway.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14125959._Easdale_block__shareholders_in_revolt_over_Rangers_AGM_voting_ban/?ref=twtrec
_______________________
Interesting development, and possibly yet another jaunt to the courts for TRFC. Interestingly, the Herald fails to point out that there was a surprisingly large number of shareholders who didn’t vote, a large proportion of whom must have been supporters, preferring to dwell on the close call of the vote.
I wonder why no newspaper has run with a story questioning why such a large number of TRFC supporters might choose not to vote in favour of King’s plans! They (the SMSM) do, once again, seem determined not to raise questions amongst the support that might be uncomfortable for the incumbent board. Oh well, it keeps the laughter flowing
I’m in at last! ( thanks for the extra help BP).
The board of a PLC wish to remove the rights of around 20% of the shareholders (owners) of the company they run for those very shareholders.
They want to do it so that they can decide who to sell shares to, and at what price, with the existing owners having no say in the matter and no right to buy those shares if they wish to maintain their holding.
They also want to do it so that those shareholders cannot call inconvenient general meetings and question the boards actions.
The person at the head of this is a convicted criminal, a tax fraudster who is currently on a suspended sentence for contempt of Court having in essence stolen assets which formed part of a Court order. He is currently awaiting a hearing in relation to another alleged contempt of court.
This is nothing short of a scandal, who do these people think they are.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-rangers-chairman-malcolm-murray-6956074
Looks like TRFC want pressure put on shareholders who didn’t vote in favour of Resolution 10, so have handed the story to the DR.
Interesting, I think, that the DR lets us know that they asked Murray why (he didn’t vote) but he refused to comment. This is something many of us have spoken about as something the SMSM avoid publishing when it’s their favourites that the questions should be being asked of! There’s so many questions that should have been asked of Whyte, Green and now King, that, at the very least, we should have read they refused to answer!
Why has this story become “…their bid to allot new shares to outside investors.”
That is quite a leap.
Where has it ever been said previously that they wanted to dis-apply pre-emption rights in order to sell to some un-named “outside investors”.
I was always of the belief that the shares were to go to the existing major shareholders (except Mike Ashley) and at least one fan supported organisation. In fact it has already been made quite clear that the £3.75m owed to King et al would be repaid by a debt to equity swap. There is nothing to suggest that they would not also be buying any further shares made available.
I suspect that these mythical “outside investors” will form an integral part of the story as we move forward. It will become the new truth. Making it look like there was a chance to bring in new wealthy people to fund the PLC going forward.
Who pray tell would be investing in a business which has posted trading losses totaling something like £27m in the three years of it’s existence. Is still making losses on an ongoing basis. Would use the bulk of their investment to pay back debts of £8.75m and would use the remaining money just to keep the lights on.
Spin … no not spin, lies. Plain and simple.
Allyjambo 5th December 2015 at 10:51 am #
“I wonder why no newspaper has run with a story questioning why such a large number of TRFC supporters might choose not to vote in favour of King’s plans!”
——————————————————————————————
If there is any substance in the claim in the article, it would in fact make the voting turnout considerably higher. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to suggest that if scrubbing certain voting rights was their game, further manipulations took place.
Not enough to swing the vote, and possibly face a stewards inquiry, but just enough to make it look tight for some valuable PR.
The odd 500 here, 1000 there, of the plaque above the mantlepiece voters, who would in the main, be unaware of it.
Just speculation mind, but I have found thinking the worst, usually ends up closer to the truth, than the benefit of the doubt.
Homunculus 5th December 2015 at 11:04 am
“This is nothing short of a scandal, who do these people think they are.”
_____________________
They are the representatives of The Peepil. The Guardians of Rangersness. Crooks. Charlatans… and a load of silly boys, blinded by said Rangersness into siding with the crooks and charlatans while losing sight of the principles of good corporate governance.
Corrupt official 5th December 2015 at 11:21 am # Allyjambo 5th December 2015 at 10:51 am #
“I wonder why no newspaper has run with a story questioning why such a large number of TRFC supporters might choose not to vote in favour of King’s plans!” —————————————————————————————— If there is any substance in the claim in the article, it would in fact make the voting turnout considerably higher. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to suggest that if scrubbing certain voting rights was their game, further manipulations took place. Not enough to swing the vote, and possibly face a stewards inquiry, but just enough to make it look tight for some valuable PR. The odd 500 here, 1000 there, of the plaque above the mantlepiece voters, who would in the main, be unaware of it. Just speculation mind, but I have found thinking the worst, usually ends up closer to the truth, than the benefit of the doubt.
________________________
Imagine what the consequences might be now had the vote gone in favour of the board. I’d imagine as things stand, should an ‘honest error’ have been made in disenfranchising the Easdale block, it might yet be possible to squirm out of it, but I suspect jail-time might be awaiting someone/people otherwise, as it wouldn’t have been possible to placate the plaintiffs if the board had won.
Even as things stand, should those affected decide to take it all the way, there may be serious trouble ahead for some of those involved.
dont know if this has been posted
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/vote-rigging/
Allyjambo
its about time the DR is brought to task,surely its employees cannot be members of NUJ,as I would expect them to be kicked out of this Union ,to print issues that can possibly bring harm to shareholders of companies because the result went the wrong way and there is a more investigative story in a possible fraud and manipulation of the original vote is nothing short of criminality being deployed ,everyone involved in putting these stories together should be arrested and brought to book,immediately .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35014745
“Storm Desmond: Flooding threat across parts of UK”
So Celtic’s game was called off because Desmond finally paid a visit to Glasgow.
The Cat NR1 5th December 2015 at 12:43 pm #…“Storm Desmond: Flooding threat across parts of UK”
So Celtic’s game was called off because Desmond finally paid a visit to Glasgow.
…………
Wait till Storm Mike hits!
Homunculus 5th December 2015 at 11:04 am
“This is nothing short of a scandal, who do these people think they are.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Which people?
The people who think they are the people who are?
TPWA!!
Allyjambo,
I think the Disenfranchised have to seek legal redress, or else what is to stop King from attempting the same stunt again?
ThomTheThim 5th December 2015 at 2:55 pm
==========================
It seems they are doing just that.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14125959._Easdale_block__shareholders_in_revolt_over_Rangers_AGM_voting_ban/?ref=twtrec
ThomTheThim 5th December 2015 at 2:55 pm # Allyjambo,
I think the Disenfranchised have to seek legal redress, or else what is to stop King from attempting the same stunt again?
_________________________________
The fact that the disenfranchised would almost certainly have made it a condition of not seeking legal redress that Mr King was removed from the board. The promise that should the board, or anyone connected with RIFC/TRFC, ever attempt something similar, they would then lodge the postponed complaint. A board so cowed by the near miss of porridge that they are determined not to get involved in any King style manoeuvres again, and also looking for the first opportunity to leave the board, whether or not they’ve managed to find a buyer for their shares first.
If there has been a deliberate attempt to improperly deprive any shareholders of their right to vote, particularly on a resolution aimed at diluting their shareholding, and thus costing them money, then any director not used to the world of spivs will be sweating blood.
To quote that famous writer, Backyard Kindling, If you can keep your head while those around are losing theirs… then you’ve probably underestimated the seriousness of your position, my son!
Maybe a re reading of William McIlvanney,s first novel “Remedy is None” might be appropriate at this time.
Thanks for all the great reads William.
PMG is back with news of possible developments in the RIFC/TRFC saga, most of it less than happy reading for the Clumpany and potentially increasing their legal bills.
One bright spot may be that their transport costs could possibly be reduced in coming years.
Apparently MA is looking to set up a luxury coach company. Talk about Parking your tanks on someone’s lawn!
One other wee thing is that SD/MA heard about the Board now having cash available to pay back the outstanding loan.
Surely an oversight that this hasn’t winged it’s way into their coffers over a week after the announcement by DCK that it was in his back pocket.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
If King and the board raised the money in an hour or so it’s difficult to see why it takes over a week to simply transfer the money back to it’s rightful owner.
They surely want their IP back and the security being removed from their assets. That has to be essential for the business moving forward.
Wait a minute though.
You don’t really need to have unencumbered assets to offer as security if no-one is actually willing to give you a loan anyway.
Neither is their any point in owning your IP if Rangers Retail own the licence to use them for the next 7 years, so you can’t actually do anything with them yourself.
Basically Rangers need the short term cash (if it really exists) to survive just now much more than the need what it could buy as part of any medium term business plan.
That is a dreadful position for a business to be in. They are actually working on a month to month basis, and losing money consistently.
If the vote was in any way rigged, I would imagine that as far as director responsibilities go, this would be the higher end of the spectrum wrt to seriousness. If there is any substance to the allegations, then it must be deduced that they are in serious deep doo doo to even consider such a manoeuvre.
This would lead me to suspect that contrary to their released statement, whereby they claimed to have received more votes than expected. The situation was the opposite and quite desperate.
What remains to be seen now is not only if the £5m will be forthcoming, but also the optimistic £2.5m to see out the season.
As we all know they are at a burn rate of around £2m per month, which does beggar the question……Why do they need it pre Christmas when it is little more than a months worth of lights on-ness.
So to add to DCK v SD Wed we have:
MA v DCK
MA v SFA
Players Holiday pay v Rifc
Looking likely:
AGM err nonsense (briefings underway)
Ditto breach of share conditions price driven down and breach of 30% rule (another tool in MAs box if needed).
Unknown BDO appeal.
So any spare change anyone ?
Fr. Paul Stone @FrPaulStone 8m8 minutes ago It would appear that the AGM dirty tricks are going to be the straws that break the camels back. https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/mike-ashleys-agm/ …
OMG I managed a real link!!!
News bulletin from Phil.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/an-foreseen-intervention-by-a-real-rangers-man/
Well what was bubbling under it seems, has perforce broken surface.
Who figured, they had until Wednesday after all.
Bye Dave.
Yep, Corrupt official 5th December 2015 at 9:12 pm #
Good old Mac, he is back. Things always feel a bit more certain when phil is online.
Et tu, Malcolm?
Set phasers to Malky Murray.
armchairsupporter 5th December 2015 at 9:57 pm #Yep, Corrupt official 5th December 2015 at 9:12 pm #Good old Mac, he is back. Things always feel a bit more certain when phil is online.
—————————————————————————————
I think the only certainty is the uncertainty. If it was taken for granted that Malky’s support was a given to carry the vote, then it does put the expected input of cash in Jeopardy if shares were a condition. I had it in my head that Bennet and Park would have been the largest contributors by far to the chip-in-eese fund.
Equally the funding may still be forthcoming on the same terms as Ashley had, namely security over the assets.
It seems more likely though that it concerned the Herald story today that The Easedale block were making waves. It seems hard to believe that if they were unscrupulously excluded from lodging their votes, Bennet and Parks were kept out of the loop. I can certainly see that provoking a lot of calls to find out WTF was going on.
Someone asked last night where ‘The Rangers’ situation would be this time next year.
Well on the bright side the team look as if they have a reasonable chance of gaining promotion which will allow an increase in value of season tickets. On the back of promotion hospitality, sponsorship, and TV revenue will also increase. This will close the gap in annual losses.
That is the best case scenario but there is always the mirror reflection of the worst case.
The innumerable on going court cases are draining current cash reserves, if there are any.
The loss of the IP’s and the security held over three properties are issues that will have to be resolved going forward if the company wishes to grow financially. This along with the current merchandising deal is financially crippling the company.
The only thing left to raise money against is the stadium but, considering the constant rumours of disrepair, who would loan money against it when you also consider that, as we are always told, it is only useful for a football team. No one can do anything with it except return it to the people who owe you the money!
Meanwhile there is already a £5M debt to a very successful business man who the current board seem determined to antagonise at every turn. This is before you even get to the unsecured loans by people who are sympathetic to the company. These guys are not ‘wealth off the radar’ guys but men who have spent their whole lives building reputations and money in completely different spheres of business. They are not going to squander their wealth endlessly.
Then there is the status of the man who is the currently running the show. He may have been made fit and proper by the SFA but that counts for little when you are trying to raise money for an ailing company.
Finally there is the breaking news today that there seems to have been counting irregularities at the recent AGM. So if you are a city investor buying shares in this company if they do not like the cut of your jib or you are not imbibed by enough ‘Rangersness’ then you could have your voting rights removed. That is not going to entice you in!!
In conclusion this business has already been shorn of most of its best financial assets so its ability to raise future revenue is virtually limited to player trading. So most money has already been raised and those assets cannot be used again until the £5M loan is repaid and yet they do not appear to have the money to pay that loan back. The best players they currently have are only proven at a certain level of English football or the company does not own them. More players will again be out of contract next year and will have to be replaced.
In Scotland very few clubs make a profit. The ones that do manage it on having control of their merchandising and IP’s and also manage to qualify for European competition. This business has none of the above and is already in debt. It is the same old conundrum; as long as someone is willing to lose circa £7M-£10M per annum then this business will struggle along. However once that willingness is exhausted and there is no one to fill the void then there is only a matter of weeks left.
Tyke or anyone still interested in an away day on the 9th in London PM me.
I’m sometimes behind the curve,as they say, so while it’s quiet, can I confess to not being up to speed with the ‘vote rigging’ issue?
I remember that there was talk about Directors’ powers to suspend the voting rights of shareholders ‘hiding behind’ Nominees, if those nominees refused to provide adequate information about who the beneficial shareholders are.
Is that what the Board did- refuse [ in exercise of their supposed powers]to allow some shareholders to vote at all? That action might conceivably be open to a Board (I don’t know), but, of course, legally challengeable.
Or did they refuse to count votes actually cast by Nominees on behalf of ‘unknown’ shareholders? Which would certainly bring heavy penalties of one kind or another as being ‘vote rigging’ .
But aren’t these voting situations conducted by independent folk, who would have to be suborned, and put themselves at serious risk?
I’d appreciate a wee quiet steer!
John Clark 6th December 2015 at 6:28 am #
“I’d appreciate a wee quiet steer!”
, but that has not prevented further speculation as to who may have done what.
———————————————————–
Nothing definitive John. JJ made an allegation previously that the Easedale block was legally compliant and eligible to vote. An article appeared in yesterdays Herald re-iterated that and added that lawyers Darn sarf were “crawling all over it”
As an aside to that though, I had always wondered on the original grounds for the removal of their voting rights, as the SFA had notified us some time ago that they had the low-down on all shareholders and were satisfied with the information received.
As we know, the SFA operate to a much more stringent criterea than the mere laws of the land.
Here is yesterdays article. J. Irvine still appears to be acting on behalf of the two brothers. So nothing concrete as such, although JJ says he has it on good authority
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14125959._Easdale_block__shareholders_in_revolt_over_Rangers_AGM_voting_ban/?ref=twtrec
This voting issue is interesting. I’m assuming that shareholders were issued with official voting forms by the Clumpany. At that point you would expect any shareholder whose voting rights had been suspended to receive a letter explaining the position and how they might remedy matters.
The suggestion however seems to be that certain shareholder(s) voted but subsequently found these votes disregarded by the Board.
Unusual, to say the least, but doubtless can be fully explained by the legally-experienced people involved.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Here is a summary of a Supreme Court ruling from last week, copied from http://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/cases/1_eclairs_group.html
This judgement looks extremely relevant to recent events at Ibrox, and has arrived at a particularly bad time for Mr King. In the light of this, King’s best (only?) option is to reissue the AGM results, but including the proxy votes. After all, he lost the crucial resolution anyway, so it has no practical effect. But then King allegedly hates climbing down, so he might want to tough it out and go to court with the Easdales.
Corrupt official 6th December 2015 at 8:24 am
redlichtie 6th December 2015 at 8:40 am
_______
That’s very helpful, gentlemen.
If the Board had been advised that they had no legal authority to deny voting rights, I have little doubt that their minds might turn to other expedients.
But to destroy polling cards would be such an extreme thing to do if it was an independent body that was responsible for the count.
And it would be a lovely irony if, having indeed stooped to do the deed, it was a botched job which did not give them the required result, and was found out!
John Clark 6th December 2015 at 9:38 am #Corrupt official 6th December 2015 at 8:24 amredlichtie 6th December 2015 at 8:40 am_______That’s very helpful, gentlemen.If the Board had been advised that they had no legal authority to deny voting rights, I have little doubt that their minds might turn to other expedients.
————————————
Nail on head John. How many instances have we seen a rather dubious tactic filed away under, “We asked a leading QC who advised us it could be argued that…….Blah blah”. The fact that it can be argued black is white, though clearly wrong, escapes them.
Even Nimmo Smith put forward, that enriching a leading QC prior to doing a wrong ‘un would have helped their case.
John Clark 6th December 2015 at 6:28 am #I’m sometimes behind the curve,as they say, so while it’s quiet, can I confess to not being up to speed with the ‘vote rigging’ issue?I remember that there was talk about Directors’ powers to suspend the voting rights of shareholders ‘hiding behind’ Nominees, if those nominees refused to provide adequate information about who the beneficial shareholders are.Is that what the Board did- refuse [ in exercise of their supposed powers]to allow some shareholders to vote at all? That action might conceivably be open to a Board (I don’t know), but, of course, legally challengeable.Or did they refuse to count votes actually cast by Nominees on behalf of ‘unknown’ shareholders? Which would certainly bring heavy penalties of one kind or another as being ‘vote rigging’ .But aren’t these voting situations conducted by independent folk, who would have to be suborned, and put themselves at serious risk?I’d appreciate a wee quiet steer
______________
Presumably the votes were collected and counted by the company’s registrars, a completely independent company who will be beyond reproach, and the count and figures released will be correct. I have not read anywhere other than on blogs, that there is any claim of wrongdoing other than the disenchfranchising (is that a word) of the Easedale proxy votes. As it is cheaper, I suspect the shareholders will have been encouraged to vote electronically, as did Hearts, and so relatively few votes would pass through anyone’s hands.
What puzzles me is that the disenfranchising seems to have taken the Easedales by surprise, or at least they are giving that impression, which might suggest they received the documentation (electronically or physically) from the registrars (whose task it is to do). What is puzzling me is that surely, if the shareholders had been legitimately disenfranchised, they shouldn’t have received this documentation, or, at least have received an explanatory letter/note with no voting form attached, enabling them to stop the voting/AGM until the court issued a ruling, if they so wished.
It will be interesting to know if they did receive a voting form, and, if they did, how it came about their votes weren’t counted. Did the registrars receive an instruction to remove the voting rights, they would require something in writing, or did the board delete them after receiving the figures?
If the Easedales are correct, and the votes should have been counted, it looks like another expensive, and very unneccessary, day in court for TRFC!
What is it with King and his fetish with courts,he is dragging everyone associated with Rangers down to his level,which ,in an opinion ,could be lower than a snakes belly ,surely DPark and co must be seriously wondering what’s going on,the 5 million GBP,that was pulled together in an hour has by now added just over 200 hours of interest ,why the urgency to collect and boast of this Dave for it to sit in an account,it is all still there Dave,isn’t it,I think it’s about time someone started asking probing questions,obviously these won’t come from the cowards that are the Scottish Press.
The first we really got wind of this was the announcement on Rangers* website on 29th July
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/shareholder-information/
According to the Herald article the implication is that those shareholders believed that they had complied with this s.793 request.
Cases have been referenced here and on JJ’s blog that show that the courts generally take a dim view on Companies that try and diminish the rights of (minority) shareholders by hiding behind s.793 requests.
However, the status of these proxies was subject of an earlier RNS announcement (late 2013/early 2014?) where the Club had declared that previous s.793 requests had been complied with. I am unable to find a link to that at this time.
Oh, and of the list of shareholders, I believe ATP Investments is/was Margarita.
This isn’t the first time that one group of shareholders has gone after these proxies. Any bets that the anonymous shareholder in the article below is King?
Unlike King these shareholders actually put money into the Club.
From the Herald in Dec 2013
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13136145.Rangers_investor_aims_to_crack_Blue_Pitch_and_Margarita_mystery/
According to “news now rangers” TRFC are considering a double move for Accrington`s Josh Windass, and Matt Crooks . Imagine the headline … Rangers target Crooks !
You couldnae make it up.
Meantime it seems Kingco made big Mike an offer he couldn’t accept, and its now strictly personal, not business !
zerotolerance1903 6th December 2015 at 11:20 am
‘…According to the Herald article the implication is that those shareholders believed…….’
______
Yes, zerotolerance1903, I think that’s the piece I vaguely remembered,thank you..
I’ve searched a little and found this link to the statement you mention( issued 11th November 2013)
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/misleading-statements-regarding-shareholders/
which says that the company was satisfied with the info provided about the nominee-held shareholdings.(( issued 11th November 2013))
And we know who Blue Pitch is:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/blue-pitch-holdings-chief-wants-control-of-rangers-1-3454787
zerotolerance1903 6th December 2015 at 11:27am
A bet that the anonymous shareholder referred to in The Herald article in December 2013 is King would not strike me as being a prudent wager.Dave King’s current skin in the game hinges on the 14.57% shareholding of New Oasis Asset Limited which has officially been described as
“a Company 100% owned by the Family Trust of Dave King” and as “the vehicle through which Dave King holds his interest in the Company.”
This shareholding did not take place until 2014 so any anonymous shareholder being referred to a month earlier cannot be Dave King (who has never held any shares) nor can it be Dave King flying under a flag (skull and crossbones?) of convenience.
I’d like a Section 793 request for information about the nature of New Oasis Asset Limited’s interest.
As Capability McCoist put it:
“Who are these people?”