LNS – A Summary

ByTrisidium

LNS – A Summary

 

cropped-sfmSquare.pngLNS 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 2The 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 3The 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 5.1Harper 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 .

 

 

 

 

 

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

2,349 Comments so far

yourhavingalaughPosted on8:55 am - Dec 12, 2015


I see it’s the armed forces shirt they are selling with £10.40 from each average £32 sale going to various armed forces charities,I wonder how the other £22 is divided up as I imagine it would only be about a fiver to make,if that.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on9:16 am - Dec 12, 2015


They must already be registered. At £32 a throw, they only need to sell 2563 to be over the £82,000 threshold.
Otherwise, what’s the point, given that theauditors said ,in the annual accounts, that £2.5 million was needed before the end of December, to exist as a going concern.

View Comment

Buteo ButeoPosted on10:37 am - Dec 12, 2015


easyJambo 11th December 2015 at 10:20 pm #ianagain 11th December 2015 at 10:00 pm #So another 2 for 1 for court aficionados on Monday. Peter Smith obviously has no synch with my diary. Hope JD stayed on.==================It seems a bit puzzling that the action should continue on Monday when he set a trial date for January.  
Is it possible that, as I think I read somewhere, the case was scheduled for 3 days and, as it was delayed by one day, this is just the last of the 3 days scheduled? Maybe the rolls haven’t been updated yet. Not that I know anything about courts, just a thought

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:05 am - Dec 12, 2015


Going to write to the ASA re an advert I saw this morning for the Microsoft Cloud that stated Real Madrid only have some 450 million fans world wide. 

Given the 500 million fans that support a Scottish second tier side someone somewhere is lying and delusional.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:19 am - Dec 12, 2015


Big Pink 12th December 2015 at 12:04 am #
=====================
Very well put BP. Given all the blatant untruths that have emerged re Rangers repaying the Sports Direct Loan, it is clear the media have no interest at all in questioning anything coming from Ibrox or their seemingly well respected board of directors. One of those untruths was even told in a court, and still everything is okay. I am not narrowing this down to a Celtic v Rangers issue but as Celtic are my club I can only shudder at the the thought of the media coverage were the club’s board behaving in the same disgraceful way. I am sure I speak for the fans of many other clubs regarding the various boards of directors in wondering just what they have to do to gain the level of respect the Rangers board gets. Is it really still the case in 2015 that a Rangers director automatically gets more media respect than others, no matter their track record in business or indeed their criminal record?

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on11:34 am - Dec 12, 2015


You would think the media would have been all over King like a rash after yesterday’s court revelation’s about being 500K short,they were not slow on Thursday interviewing him,a one liner would have been suffice yesterday along the line of ,Dave !Jim White here Sky Sports,can you tell the viewers ,who has not ponied up,Dave,Dave,it’s me Jim come back Dave,boy can he move quick.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:55 am - Dec 12, 2015


yourhavingalaugh 12th December 2015 at 11:34 am 
=================================

The judge has actually helped RIFC/TRFC/Level Sinko/SMSM by his comments, IMHO.

Not quite a ‘D Notice’, but fear of upsetting M’Lud will enable a virtual press blackout.

View Comment

armchairsupporterPosted on11:56 am - Dec 12, 2015


neepheid 11th December 2015 at 1:38 pm #http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-falsely-claimed-5m-loan-6994648

Good spot neepheid. Does this mean the tide is beginning to turn against King, if even the DR are unable to spin in  his favour? Still a few partisan comments in favour of the King camp but definitely a level of back covering, until now unseen.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on12:20 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Big Pink
Parallel with the x axis suggest some level of understanding. I would guess that the equation for the line would involve y being a negative number perhaps even in a curve towards infinity. The effect being something like that involving negative compound interest and time. Something similar would be appropriate for many aspects of behaviour of some of the player’s activities including level of lies obfuscation lack of cash and more.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:27 pm - Dec 12, 2015


La Rochefoucauld said ” Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”.
By jingo, we’re seeing plenty of it now as our SMSM, so lacking in integrity itself in relation to the reporting of the whole ugly ‘Rangers’ saga, heaps praise on the sadly departed Ian Bell as being a journalist of highest integrity and moral courage.
With James Connolly as a great grand-uncle [his grandfather was Connolly’s brother] it’s not surprising that Bell was a man of great principle who would not have sold his journalistic soul for a lamb chop and a glass of Murray plonk.
It’s a pity in a way that he was a serious political reporter rather than a Jackson-like sports hack and Traynor-like PR temporiser shielding decidedly shady customers from the consequences of their shady actions. Had he got involved in the saga, we might well have had our own Woodward / Bernstein hero.
Of course,Bell  made a couple of  errors of judgement by going, twice,  to work briefly for the DR!
But even Homer nods, and I can forgive him for that.
As I am prepared, even now, to forgive  the lesser breed of compromised hacks. There is time yet for them  to work their way back to some level of personal integrity by taking Bell’s standards as their own yardstick, and deciding that principle is worth taking some risks for. 
Merely honouring a former, true  journalist’s adherence to truth and integrity without trying to emulate it is , at bottom,is doing no more spouting canting hypocrisy.
They know this, and they owe it themselves and the rest of us, to admit it openly, and begin to function as true respecters of truth.
Like Ian Bell, God rest him.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:49 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Apologies. I missed out a ‘than’ between ‘more’ and ‘spouting’, in my immediately preceding post. [ trying to do three things at one time, and up and down like a feckin yo-yo in the process]

View Comment

The Ungrateful DeadPosted on3:05 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Does the Ashley V King case continue on Monday?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:08 pm - Dec 12, 2015


http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/1335602-spfl-should-ask-ann-budge-to-join-board-sooner-rather-than-later/

Hearts owner believes SPFL would benefit from change of personnel
Hearts owner Ann Budge believes the SPFL would benefit from a change of personnel and a rush of new ideas at the very top of the organisation.
Budge issued a statement attacking the SPFL’s communications after claiming the Edinburgh club was not fully consulted on the details of the League Cup revamp.
As well as attacking some media outlets for a perceived ‘sensationalism’ in reporting her initial quotes on the matter, Budge specifically said that the failure to keep clubs in the loop on matters within the league body needed urgent change.
Budge has now called for change to made on the organisation’s board, suggesting that a process of constant review is the way forward for the SPFL.
“I do, actually,” the Jam Tarts owner replied when asked whether the body should embrace a change of personnel and thinking.

I don’t think that should prove too controversial on here!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:03 pm - Dec 12, 2015


In reference to BP’s post above about the erroneous SMSM reporting in court…
Is it not standard practise that if a media outlet misreports (especially wrt court details) then an apology / retraction / clarification is swiftly forthcoming – if only to reinforce that outlet’s own view of it’s editorial credibility? 
But in the absence of any media corrections does this signal that footie fans don’t deserve the same level of service…as the misreporting was ‘only’ footie related?!
And rather than just confirming that the likes of Keef, Spier’s etc are woefully inept, this also confirms that the relevant SMSM outlets are not credible wrt football reporting – but are also not credible wrt reporting in general?

191919

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:14 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Rangers have said that they need £2.5m to last to the end of the season (I think that’s to last till season tickets are in but that’s a different point).

Rangers have previously fought not to repay £5m to SD.

They now seem to be raising money to do just that. Going out of their way to get £5m to repay a loan that as far as we are aware they don’t have to pay just now.

This simply doesn’t make sense, they are raising money to give away when they are desperate for money. I can only think of two reasons.

1, They have in fact defaulted and the loan is due right away. The reasons are not being reported.

2, They desperately need the assets back, including the IP, because something may just be about to happen which would cause them to lose those assets.

I’d be happy to hear if anyone can think of anything else. I don’t think they are doing it simply because it’s the right thing to do.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:46 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Homunculus 12th December 2015 at 4:14 pm #

I have similar thoughts, Hom, that it is strange that they are, apparently, striving to raise £5m to repay Ashley when they previously went to great lengths to have the gullible believe it wasn’t even a loan, and so not a priority, at least. The thought did cross my mind, and remain there, that an approaching event might make it desirable to get their IP back in the very short term (well the IP that they claim as their own), as, I believe, MA will own it all outright in the event of an insolvency event. It is, in fact, what I’ve considered to be his end game since this aspect of his security came into the public domain.

They can lose most of their assets and still fool the gullible, but not without the badges! What a super wheeze that might be, when he would make a percentage of whatever merchandise is produced, even if it’s just memorabilia!

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:00 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Homunculus 12th December 2015 at 4:14 pm #
This simply doesn’t make sense, they are raising money to give away when they are desperate for money. I can only think of two reasons.
1, They have in fact defaulted and the loan is due right away. The reasons are not being reported.
2, They desperately need the assets back, including the IP, because something may just be about to happen which would cause them to lose those assets.
I’d be happy to hear if anyone can think of anything else. I don’t think they are doing it simply because it’s the right thing to do.

I’ve been puzzling over this, and simply can’t make any sense of it. There clearly isn’t £5m sitting around doing nothing, in fact desperate attempts are being made to raise the sum required.
On your two possibilities, surely if the loan was being repaid on demand, Ashley’s side would be shouting about it. And if recalling the assets is a precursor to insolvency, then the provider(s) of the £5m will surely be wanting to take their own security against the assets.
All I can come up with is the odd timeline. King just pops in to Hampden for a cup of tea and a chat the afternoon before the AGM. That same evening, a Board meeting decides on a 180 degree U-turn on the matter of repaying the £5m. King gets on the phone for an hour, and has the £5m lodged in the bank the next morning (well, we now know that was a barefaced lie, but that was the story in the papers). AGM informed of the repayment to a standing ovation.
I have to think that King’s little chat at Hampden is connected in some way with the sudden reversal on the wisdom of paying the loan back. Do the authorities see the loan as somehow weakening their forthcoming court cases with Ashley? And even if they do, why would that bother King? I can’t see any way that the repayment of the loan could impinge on King’s fit and proper status.
I suppose the loan might have some bearing on Ashley’s dual interest appeal, but why don’t the SFA just cancel the fine before the hearing? What is it, £1000 or something equally laughable? That would make more sense than ordering King to pay off Ashley.
There is definitely something going on behind the scenes here.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on5:01 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Was Dave at Ibrox today

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:20 pm - Dec 12, 2015


With regards to the possibility of the loan being defaulted, this aspect never seems to be discussed:
“In addition to security over Murray Park, Edmiston House and Albion Car Park, Sports Direct will also have the right to nominate two directors to Rangers’ board for the duration of the loan. ” (A Lamont BBC 27.01.15)

Since DKs concert party took over, MA has had no representation on the board at Ibrox.  But this is not new so I’m not sure that would be the leverage MA is using.  He’s had months to force this issue.   It’s a strange one.

View Comment

armchairsupporterPosted on5:23 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Homunculus 12th December 2015 at 4:14 pm #
Here’s my theory and please bear in mind that I have been wildly wrong many times before.
Ibrox is a liability which will eat up any amount of money (supposing they had any) that Rangers care to throw at it. It would still leave them with a black hole to fill, in terms of transfer funds, to mount any serious challenge.
So, Dave King visits HQ to find out what it would take for Rangers Mark 3 to join a re-constructed Premier League, playing out of Hapden. Yep you heard me correctly, playing out of Hapden Park. (Wild, I know, and people with more knowledge than I will be able to shoot holes in this flight of fancy.)
However, it would mean no repair bills and very favourable rates from their SFA cronies. The board of the new club/company would conveniently blame the liquidation and subsequent loss of their stadium on Big Bad Mike and gain the sympathy of the support and the continued succulence of the SMSM.
Of course liquidation without paying back big mike would mean that no new club could be formed without him holding all the aces.
Therefore, pay back MA, sell assets to holding company, liquidate, form Rangers 3, but back assets, move to Hampden with the option to buy back Ibrox at a later date (although this would not necessarily be in Rangers interest). Let’s be clear, Ibrox is not an asset but a liability.
A simple plan which would have worked if it hadn’t been for those pesky court cases eating up the money which would have been used to pay-off MA.
Disclaimer: Please note, none of the above can be substantiated – a mere work of fiction (and who said you couldn’t make this stuff up).

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:33 pm - Dec 12, 2015


The thing about the SFA telling him to repay the £5m right away does make sense from a certain perspective.

However it surely must also make lasting out the season considerably more difficult, unless those supplying the £5m are also willing to come up with the balance to keep the business afloat.

That’s a lot of money to put into a loss making business, which is not guaranteed promotion and has to find more money for maintenance of the stadium if the stories are to be believed.

Remember even when the £5m is repaid there is still a 7 year notice period before they can get their merchandising back. Merchandising which they don’t have the infrastructure to produce and sell.

As an aside, I see that after today’s result the good people over on follow follow are talking about how much will be spent in January to win the division and how much in the summer to be competitive in the top division. They really don’t get it and the SMSM are not helping them.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on5:44 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Was it not about this time last year, when Mr Sommers was in a panic over a £6m surprise ?

View Comment

ianagainPosted on6:08 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Re is it on on Monday or not.
All I know is the court rolls were issued just after 1600 the case was on it. The update came at 1720 (unusually late) case still listed.
Normally this update includes any late changes.
So as it stands its on.
No updates since. Unless a late change appears early Mon which I’ve not clocked ever.
Not impossible its a cock up. Just don’t know.

View Comment

billyj1Posted on6:09 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Armchair supporter.
The SFA aren’t in a position to arrange to lease Hampden Park to Third Rangers or anyone else.
Hampden is owned by Queens Park and the SFA are only tenants.
If memory serves me correctly their own lease of Hampden is due to run out fairly soon, and they will need either to negotiate a new lease or find new accommodation. Murray Park anyone? ( Or whatever it’s called)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:30 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Just a wee thought on the supposed £5m loan payback.

If you were going for a pre-pack administration, would that be impossible/difficult to pull off, if you have (hostile) secured creditors?

Genuine question for our more insolvency event savvy contributors.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on7:39 pm - Dec 12, 2015


yourhavingalaugh 12th December 2015 at 5:01 pm #Was Dave at Ibrox today?
========================
It’s possible, as Chelsea don’t play at Leicester until Monday so he could jet into East Midlands Airport after his day in court and post-court monologue to the press.

View Comment

scottcPosted on7:40 pm - Dec 12, 2015


The IP is held under licence by RR even once SD get their money back. Is there not a clause in the RR contract relating to their holding on to the IP in the event of an insolvency? (Sure i read that before)

View Comment

armchairsupporterPosted on7:44 pm - Dec 12, 2015


billyj1 12th December 2015 at 6:09 pm #
Thanks for bursting my bubble billyj1. I knew there would be very good reasons why my fanciful scenario would be impossible. But I don’t think it is as far fetched as some of the real story unfolding.

View Comment

armchairsupporterPosted on7:56 pm - Dec 12, 2015


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-third-punic-war-and-other-expensive-excursions/
According to Phil, it looks like, due to default, Rangers now have to find £6m. I wonder how frequent the increments of 1m are? Or is that just a one-off hike? I would doubt that, knowing what we do about MA.

View Comment

JoeninhoPosted on7:57 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Big Pink “…we are part of that evolution, which, along with others like BellaCaledonia and Wings Over Scotland, are doing their damndest to save journalism from the disrepute…”
Three of my favourite sites. If you were together, in newspaper form, I would buy that.
And I wouldn’t be alone.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:58 pm - Dec 12, 2015


scottc 12th December 2015 at 7:40 pm
===========================

As I understand it SD currently own the IP plus 26% of the Rangers shares in Rangers Retail Ltd.

When the £5m is repaid those will revert to Rangers, however the licence to use the IP will still be with Rangers Retail. Rangers require to give 7 years notice to reverse that.

In addition the 49% holding of SD will still make all of the decisions with regards financial matters. For example payment of dividends.

Basically the repayment of the £5m gets the ownership of the IP (plus the securities on assets) back to Rangers. Nothing else changes.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:03 pm - Dec 12, 2015


armchairsupporter 12th December 2015 at 7:56 pm
===================================

That would certainly answer the question of earlier if it is correct.

Rangers are in default, there are penalties accruing, they need to find the money to repay the loan.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:17 pm - Dec 12, 2015


I have not had a reply from Mr McCrae of the SFA.
I have sent him this (handwritten) letter this evening:
” Dear Mr McCrae,
I wrote to you on 28th October, 2015.
I have received neither acknowledgement nor reply.
The letter was sent by ‘recorded delivery’. Before I go to the inconvenience of making enquiry of Royal Mail, perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know whether it was in fact delivered? And if it was delivered, whether I am to expect a reply?
Yours sincerely,
[real name etc]”

____
In my day, failure to acknowledge correspondence of any kind was up there with personal uncleanliness , unpolished shoes , chewing food with one’s mouth open and not walking on the outside of the pavement when escorting your  (or any) girl, as markers of the social underclass who know no better.
Of course, it can also signal an arrogant disregard for paying customers. Or, indeed, it might be that Mr McCrae is in fear of being actually caught out [ as a certain politician was the other day] in a bare-faced lie, no matter how he were to reply to my original letter.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:18 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Lots of talk tonight re the loan repayment. However it misses the main point.

If you are the saviour of your beloved club  with a Fistful of Rand then the sensible thing would have been to keep Ashley onside, pay him off as a gesture of goodwill and then pow wow over restructuring the retail deal.

The whole RRM takeover has been an emotionally charged underfunded cock up. End off.

Hell mend them!!

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on9:38 pm - Dec 12, 2015


bfbpuzzled 12th December 2015 at 12:20 pm #Big PinkParallel with the x axis suggest some level of understanding

Indeed I’m think that in this case y is a negative constant.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:53 pm - Dec 12, 2015


In points of law, which is the only concern of a court, WTF does the £5m debt have to do with a contempt of court charge? Where is the connection? What has been missed?   What is, and where is the relevance to the confidentiality clause allegedly breached. Why was it even mentioned?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:57 pm - Dec 12, 2015


wottpi 12th December 2015 at 9:18 pm
===========================

February 2015

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13200239.King_claims_victory_in_Rangers_power_struggle__says__I_can_do_business_with_Ashley/

King claims victory in Rangers power struggle, says: I can do business with Ashley

October 2015

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-dave-king-says-6717065

Rangers chairman Dave King says he will battle Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct and will not be silenced by “bully boy” tactics

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:07 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Corrupt official 12th December 2015 at 9:53 pm
=================================

As I posted a bit earlier I think there are two issues.

Are King / Rangers guilty of contempt of Court by revealing details of their arrangements with SD which were subject to a “gagging order”.

If so, were SD damaged by those revelations.

As I understand it there were two sanctions proposed by SD for the alleged breach of the “gagging order”.

Put Dave King in jail / pay us damages of £200,000. The Judge has already rejected the former.

I think the £5m loan / repayment relates to the potential sanction of £200,000 damages, rather than the offence itself.

I am more than happy to be corrected in that, it’s just a guess.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:31 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Homunculus 12th December 2015 at 10:07 pm #
   I must admit to be more than a tad confused. Ashley had DCK up in front of the beak for breaching the confidentiality terms of the retail agreement. I don’t understand how the loan ties in to the retail agreement, but it appears to be a factor. Otherwise why mention it?

View Comment

billyj1Posted on10:43 pm - Dec 12, 2015


The discussion earlier on covering the Ashley confidentiality agreement posed the question if there was a breach, what loss did Ashley actually suffer?
in my opinion the answer is pretty straightforward.
In his field, Mr Ashley is an absolute expert, whether you like or loathe his practices.
in his line of business, contract negotiation is of prime importance.
No doubt he will have in the future negotiations with other firms and clubs regarding merchandising arrangements. The longer he can strike a deal for, with advantageous conditions to him, the better.
Should he try to do a deal with another club for a period greater than 7 years the negotiators on the other side will basically tell him to get lost.
He was prepared to deal with The Rangers for a period of 7 years, and that is the maximum he will ever be able to insist on in future negotiations with other clubs and companies.
If the details of his deal with The Rangers had not been made public, he could in the future have held out for a much longer deal.
Hope this makes sense to anyone reading this.
It did to me when I started typing but by the end a nice very large Spanish brandy kicked in.
It is Saturday after all.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on10:51 pm - Dec 12, 2015


neepheid 12th December 2015 at 5:00 pm
There is definitely something going on behind the scenes here.
—————————————————————————————
The 5 million way agreement?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:58 pm - Dec 12, 2015


billyj1 12th December 2015 at 10:43 pm #
———————————————–
Oldco Rangers signed a 10 year deal with JJB in 2006 (while DCK was a director), so the 7 year deal signed by the Newco wasn’t excessive in itself.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:04 pm - Dec 12, 2015


Corrupt official 12th December 2015 at 10:31 pm #
Homunculus 12th December 2015 at 10:07 pm #
I must admit to be more than a tad confused. Ashley had DCK up in front of the beak for breaching the confidentiality terms of the retail agreement. I don’t understand how the loan ties in to the retail agreement, but it appears to be a factor. Otherwise why mention it?
===========================
The RRL deal was obviously in existence before the £5M loan was taken up.  However, the conditions of the loan did have a bearing on the Retail deal with the transfer of RRL shares and IP rights.  Had the £5M actually been paid off as was claimed on Thursday, it would have demonstrated “good faith” on Rangers part and it was also well directed in putting the SD Counsel on the back foot.

Friday’s revelations however, undid all the smoke and mirrors that so epitomises DCK’s and Rangers’ PR.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:57 pm - Dec 12, 2015


armchairsupporter 12th December 2015 at 7:56 pm #http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-third-punic-war-and-other-expensive-excursions/According to Phil, it looks like, due to default, Rangers now have to find £6m. I wonder how frequent the increments of 1m are? Or is that just a one-off hike? I would doubt that, knowing what we do about MA.
__________________

I tend to find a hardening of the  ‘provenance’ in Phil’s latest blog, with an invitation to the SMSM hacks to ask questions of real Real Rangers Man, Malcom Murray, who if he denies the knowledge Phil imparts that he has, would be rather embarrassing for our leading investigative journalist in all matters TRFC related.

Malcolm Murray is someone even Glasgow based hacks can surely find and encourage to speak to them.

Not only must Phil be certain of the facts he’s been given, he must also be confident that, if asked, Malcom Murray will confirm this revelation.

Six million and rising. We now have, I think, the answer to ‘why try to pay the loan back now?’
 

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:57 am - Dec 13, 2015


The £5M loan, what if by Thursday, £5M was going to be paid but because of delay/penalties (which is guesswork), a penalty of 10% was due (£500,000) and therefor a shortfall of that amount, but now because the next 10% on original amount (ie not compound) is applicable, an additional £500,000 (total £6M is due?) as per PMCG.
Of course one might say this is all guesswork,  I on the other hand could not possibly comment.22

View Comment

RayCharlezPosted on3:49 am - Dec 13, 2015


I think it is worth re-reading this article from when Ashley called for the EGM which asked shareholders to vote to repay the £5m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33106081
“Another asked whether it would be better to repay the £5m loan and thus free up the securities granted against it. Gilligan replied that was “not in the best interests of the business” and added: “We’re asking for the trust of shareholders on this.”
Surely the Ibrox board took extensive legal advice well before the EGM on the terms of the loan and potential punitive charges?
How could they suddenly find themselves in default six moths later without knowing this was a possibility that was “not in the best interests of the business” given there are now, apparently, accumulating punitive charges?
The volte-face makes no sense to me.
I can’t believe RIFC was so badly advised on the terms of the loan that they would suddenly capitulate without even taking it to court.
Perhaps aspects of the loan have been discussed in the present case but the details have not been aired due to reporting restrictions?
As it is, I get the feeling there is an important variable in action that we are all missing.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on8:17 am - Dec 13, 2015


I see the pop up shop has been reported as a success and one interviewed customer stated that he walked by the official shop and that it was empty ,is the deal not that the club has to buy back any unsold tops etc.

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on8:33 am - Dec 13, 2015


If my fellow bampots will indulge me in some personal off topicness, I’ve just opened my birthday present from son and heir in Oz. 
What did I find?
An SFM mug!
Great stuff and well done BP and Tris with such a great mug. 
If I’m not mistaken, even my coffee tastes better in it!!
02

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on8:50 am - Dec 13, 2015


PS forgot to add:
Scottish Fitba needs mair mugs!
12

View Comment

EddiegoldtopPosted on8:50 am - Dec 13, 2015


Allyjambo…..
Scottc……….

The Twitter account of moo_ted has this morning tweeted a link to an extract of the Rangers Retail agreement with Sports Direct which shows that SDI have the right to purchase all shares at 50% of the last years profits should there be an Insolvency event . Does that mean that Big Mike doesn’t care whether they go burst or not ? A win win clause ? 

Ps.
Feel free to copy the link onto here ( if mods approve ) . I can’t seem to get the link to copy onto here ? 

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:53 am - Dec 13, 2015


I am sure I read (perhaps on Phil’s site) around the EGM timeframe, that SD already had RIFC in default with a due amount north of £5.5m at that time. RIFC must know that they have been in default since the day they kicked Llambias et al off the board and did not invite replacements. There may well have been other breaches of the T’s & C’s since but one, if not corrected, is enough.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on8:59 am - Dec 13, 2015


Morning all.
WRT Dave Kings now discredited statement to shareholders at the AGM,coupled with the lie regarding repayment of the £5m loan in court,where does this leave the other directors?.
Park has only recently returned to the board,Bennett is,as far as I know a senior figure in an Investment trust,governed by the FCA.Surely they would act to protect themselves by distancing themselves from Kings actions.
Are we really to believe that these guys are actively colluding with King & support his decision to lie to shareholders & in court?.
Not just reputations are at stake(I discount Paul murray as it seems he’d back anyone who gives him access to the Blue Room & a blazer).Bennett,in particular,could see his city career on a shaky nail.
Not one of them,though,has issued a statement decrying Kings actions.I can only assume that they’re OK with the situation.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:16 am - Dec 13, 2015


RayCharlez 13th December 2015 at 3:49 am # I think it is worth re-reading this article from when Ashley called for the EGM which asked shareholders to vote to repay the £5m.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33106081“Another asked whether it would be better to repay the £5m loan and thus free up the securities granted against it. Gilligan replied that was “not in the best interests of the business” and added: “We’re asking for the trust of shareholders on this.”Surely the Ibrox board took extensive legal advice well before the EGM on the terms of the loan and potential punitive charges? I can’t believe RIFC was so badly advised on the terms of the loan that they would suddenly capitulate without even taking it to court. Perhaps aspects of the loan have been discussed in the present case but the details have not been aired due to reporting restrictions? As it is, I get the feeling there is an important variable in action that we are all missing.

__________________________________________

Could it be as simple as they didn’t have the money and knew they had no prospect of getting the money, at that time, so used it as a battle call to the bears and, perhaps, a ‘get it right up you’, to MA? At the time they probably/perhaps thought that King’s plans for a share issue would work and so kicked the can down the road a bit. Also, at the time of the EGM the 3bears probably still believed in King, and that he could raise the £5m (plus charges), eventually, if their plans to raise the money with a share issue failed. 

They probably realised they had lost the Resolution 10 vote on the night before the AGM – they would have been able to get this information from the registrars, and it’s perfectly proper to do so – and, so again, decided to go in all guns blazing and announce, without justification, that they’d decided to repay the five million, by way of further soft loans, hoping, perhaps, that MA would accept the £5m repayment and wait for any penalty payment or even waive it in exchange for a bout of ‘forgiveness’ towards SD and encouragement for the supporters to buy, buy, buy SD merchandise.

This seems to be King’s, and Green’s before him, way of dealing with a crisis – make the announcement a moment of triumph (even if it’s actually a moment of disaster) to lift your audience and put your opponent on the back foot! Works great with your audience if/when they want to believe you, and your opponent if he’s smaller and less well advised than you; but Big Mike is neither of these!

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on9:29 am - Dec 13, 2015


Allyjambo
And therein is the problem,the audience they are playing to,time after time they have been fed manure,and not even quality manure,and they lap it up each time,and they will continue to do so,big hands knew how to play them but at least had the patter to spell bind them,as for the G&SL ,there can be no excuse to fall for what’s going down now,hell mend them.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:31 am - Dec 13, 2015


Eddiegoldtop 13th December 2015 at 8:50 am # Allyjambo…..Scottc……….
The Twitter account of moo_ted has this morning tweeted a link to an extract of the Rangers Retail agreement with Sports Direct which shows that SDI have the right to purchase all shares at 50% of the last years profits should there be an Insolvency event . Does that mean that Big Mike doesn’t care whether they go burst or not ? A win win clause ? 
Ps. Feel free to copy the link onto here ( if mods approve ) . I can’t seem to get the link to copy onto here ? 
_________________________________________________-

Eddie, this is exactly the part of the agreement I was referring to, and on which I was basing my thoughts on MA’s end game; though I couldn’t remember the precise details. The upshot of that clause in the agreement would mean SD would effectively own Rangers IP, through owning RRL outright, forever (I think the loan agreement is even more onerous, in that a default leads to SD owning the IP that is already held by them until such times as the loan is repaid), regardless of who runs a club with ‘Rangers’ in it’s name. The fact that he would be paying for it in the event of an insolvency event might well mean it is unchallengeable by administrators/liquidators, and is perhaps something he has learned from previous deals!

Whatever happens to TRFC, Ashley and SD don’t lose, and perhaps win very big (in normal terms, but just a wee bit in their own terms)!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:44 am - Dec 13, 2015


The link to the tweet referred to by Eddiegoldtop (if it works):

https://twitter.com/moo_ted/status/675952701084196865

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:16 am - Dec 13, 2015


Allyjambo 13th December 2015 at 9:31 am
Eddie, this is exactly the part of the agreement I was referring to, and on which I was basing my thoughts on MA’s end game; though I couldn’t remember the precise details. The upshot of that clause in the agreement would mean SD would effectively own Rangers IP, through owning RRL outright, forever

I may have got this wrong, but doesn’t the IP revert to TRFC once the £5m is repaid? My understanding was that Rangers Retail hold an exclusive worldwide licence to use the IP, but do not own it. I assume that the license is at 7 years notice along with the rest of the retail deal, but I’m not sure on that.
So if the £5m loan is repaid, then in the event of subsequent  insolvency, SD have the right to acquire the whole of RR, includng the IP license. The administrators or liquidators of TRFC would still own the IP itself, which could either be sold off in a fire sale, or go with everything else if somebody buys the company out of administration.
However if the loan has not been repaid before insolvency, then SD become absolute owners of the IP, unless an administrator or liquidator pays back the £5m, which seems very unlikely.
I’m now more confused than I was before.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:22 am - Dec 13, 2015


Corrupt official 12th December 2015 at 10:31 pm
=================================

Again, this is only as I understand it.

The £5m loan and the retail agreement are actually linked if the reports in the SMSM are to be believed. The newspapers have revealed that the 7 year notice period can only start when the £5m loan is repaid.

Revealing that in and of itself may be a breach of the “gagging order”. So if the papers knew it and it is true then who told them.

In addition, whether or not it has actually been repaid may be a factor in deciding whether or not SD have suffered any damage.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:38 am - Dec 13, 2015


yourhavingalaugh 12th December 2015 at 5:01 pm Was Dave at Ibrox today
———

The Willie Vass image of the director’s box shows PM in discussion with what looks like Gilligan. No sign of you know who, but he may have been down buying a pie before the rush. All others appear to have eyes fixed on an effective Morton team running on a shoestring budget, compared other teams.
But what a week just gone. Jings. And James Doleman, after all the colourful comments he received, gets the scoop of the week on day two regarding the flip-flop on the paid/unpaid £5m, now going on £6.
And that judge, “I have never been a mason!” he cried in best Eccles voice. You could almost hear someone retort, ‘I don’t wish to know that!” And comedy moment of the week when judge advises against blabbing to the press — immediately after the half-time break where Dave King had just… blabbed to the press 21

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:41 am - Dec 13, 2015


As each day rolls on I keep thinking back to some of the comments from King and it doesn’t auger well for him,I keep coming back with the thought that Ashley and co are allowing King to hang himself,some of his denials about what he knew or didn’t know will be exposed as ,well,untruths,to believe he didn’t know about the conditions of any contracts when over the years he has probably used the same content when asset stripping in South Africa is just another pork pie of the shelf that seems to have an endless stock of said pies,I just hope Ashley does not call Paul Murray to the witness box in January,as Kings Luitenant in the Blue Room I would be very concerned about the possibility of this,squeaky bum time Paul.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:49 am - Dec 13, 2015


Allyjambo 13th December 2015 at 9:31 am
=============================

RRL is a limited company which currently holds the licence to use the Rangers IP, however it doesn’t actually own that IP. SD own the IP, but it will be returned to Rangers on repayment of the £5m loan.

So, as long as the loan is repaid Rangers can licence it out to anyone they want (after the 7 year notice period has finished).

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:51 am - Dec 13, 2015


neepheid 13th December 2015 at 10:16 am # Allyjambo 13th December 2015 at 9:31 am Eddie, this is exactly the part of the agreement I was referring to, and on which I was basing my thoughts on MA’s end game; though I couldn’t remember the precise details. The upshot of that clause in the agreement would mean SD would effectively own Rangers IP, through owning RRL outright, foreverI may have got this wrong, but doesn’t the IP revert to TRFC once the £5m is repaid? My understanding was that Rangers Retail hold an exclusive worldwide licence to use the IP, but do not own it. I assume that the license is at 7 years notice along with the rest of the retail deal, but I’m not sure on that. So if the £5m loan is repaid, then in the event of subsequent  insolvency, SD have the right to acquire the whole of RR, includng the IP license. The administrators or liquidators of TRFC would still own the IP itself, which could either be sold off in a fire sale, or go with everything else if somebody buys the company out of administration. However if the loan has not been repaid before insolvency, then SD become absolute owners of the IP, unless an administrator or liquidator pays back the £5m, which seems very unlikely. I’m now more confused than I was before.
_________________________________

Yes, and that’s the beauty of it, it’s a double whammy. Paying back the loan could be too much and lead to insolvency, at which point SD can buyout TRFC from the RRL partnership and get then control the IP. If TRFC can’t/don’t repay the loan, SD get outright ownership of the IP.

Assuming the collective understanding of the deal(s) is correct.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:56 am - Dec 13, 2015


easyJambo 12th December 2015 at 11:04 pm #

Homunculus 13th December 2015 at 10:22 am #Corrupt official 12th December 2015 at 10:31 pm=================================
Again, this is only as I understand it.
   ——————————————————————————–
   Thanks lads. You both have a better understanding of it than I. For some reason I had it in my head that MASH supplied the loan, and not SD, hence my confusion over how it linked to retail.  My mistake.    

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on12:00 pm - Dec 13, 2015


So there I was doing my usual of a Saturday night falling asleep on the sofa after a drink or two only to wake up in the early hours with sky sports news on the tele and Morton scoring a couple of goals at the home of the SFA’s pet team. 

Now generally I try to avoid viewing any football that is played at that venue and normally dive for the remote if ‘they’ are ever on but as I was half asleep it stayed on. What immediately struck me, was not how could the mighty Rangers concede two at home to Morton, but it was the scrolling advertising hoardings round the entire pitch displaying SportsDirect.com. Are these always on display for supporters at this ground? A constant reminder of who is calling the shots!

I believe Craig Houston and his associates ran a few bootleg stalls around the ground yesterday. Oh how it must seriously irritate them to see big Mike ramming that down their throats every time they want to watch their team.
Money talks I’m afraid boys.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on12:53 pm - Dec 13, 2015


RougvieLTJ
Big Mike is on the ball when it comes to it,they only took on 75% of the advertising,that same 75% at 3 parts of the stadium that are covered by the TVs cameras.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:26 pm - Dec 13, 2015


Perhaps Bad Mike would be better than Big Mike

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on3:10 pm - Dec 13, 2015


Allyjambo 13th December 2015 at 9:44 am
=============================

The contents of the image in that tweet appear in the RIFC PLC Prospectus. It may also form part of the agreement, given it is confidential I haven’t seen it, but it has been in existence since before the PLC was even created. Caveat emptor and so forth

I posted the attached some time ago, the part in the tweet starts about half way down.

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:48 pm - Dec 13, 2015


Isn’t it funny how a few days after 2 days in the High Court in London most people are struggling to come up with anything of real substance on this case?  Plenty of speculation of course – myself included – but it was all a damp squib.  Unlike after the Court of Session delivery of the EBT case, when this site was at it’s best.  The only things of interest that came from the High Court was the £5m repayment/ or not.  And why MAs legal team went in so weak.  Conspiracy theories abound.

Going back to the days in the run up to the First Tier Tribunal, TRC site was compulsive reading, the revelations, it seemed on a daily basis, things we would never have read in the press, at last we were informed.  Thankfully due to the internet bampots that remains to this day and the printed press continues it’s downward spiral.

But then came the FTTT.  Oh what a come down.  But at least we got justice eventually, so far, at the COS and I’m sure the Supreme Court will agree.

I think we are in a hiatus at the moment.  I predict (there goes that speculation again) that the landscape will be very different within the next 6 months.  Two very possible scenarios:

An Insolvency event at Ibrox.
And/or, the court cases, which may well be explosive for all sorts of people. 

Hold on to your hats folks you aint seen nothing yet. 21

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on6:10 pm - Dec 13, 2015


Is Roger Mitchell now employed by Level 5?

View Comment

DeldonPosted on6:21 pm - Dec 13, 2015


‘Foreclosure is a legal process in which a lender attempts to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by forcing the sale of the asset used as the collateral for the loan.’
This is a button that SD have with MA’s finger on it. When it will be pressed is when HE chooses. Why wait is the motivation?

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on7:13 pm - Dec 13, 2015


Deldon 13th December 2015 at 6:21 pm #‘Foreclosure is a legal process in which a lender attempts to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by forcing the sale of the asset used as the collateral for the loan.’ This is a button that SD have with MA’s finger on it. When it will be pressed is when HE chooses. Why wait is the motivation?
====================================
MA could get plenty of cash back by suing DK & others for losses incurred by the concert party that forced RIFC PLC off market, and I’m sure we have that to look forward to in due courss.
SD will still have their hands on the TFRC assets when the merry-go-round stops unless DK and his merry men pony up the full whack. 
All MA/SD want long-term is the revenue stream that the blue pound brings through RFC(IL)/Sevco/Third Rangers/Fourth of Clyde etc merchandise sales.
DK may be MA’s personal prey but he wants to keep the money tap of merchandise sales running for SD.
SoS understand that now, and they may also realise that if they turn off the merchandising tap MA will turn off the Sevco life support machine.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:52 pm - Dec 13, 2015


If the King farce in the Royal Courts of Justice is NOT on tomorrow , we nevertheless have a little Court business more locally to look forward to,  which eJ informed us of a few days ago, and which appears still to be on.
(Second) Extra Division
Court of Session
Wednesday 16th December
 Single Bill
at 10.00am
 CA196/15 Reclaiming Motion: Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc
 DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP    Anderson Strathern LLP

______
I have had to look up the glossary to get an idea what this language means: and for others as ignorant as myself, here is what I found:

Reclaiming Motion: An application for review by the Inner House of a decision of a Lord Ordinary. Such appeals are normally heard on the Summar Roll
Summar [not a typo!] Roll:The list of appeals and other business conducted by the Inner House of the Court of Session.
Single Bill: the name given to a motion or other matter which can be dealt with in a short period of time by the Inner House of the Court of Session  Inner House: The Inner House is that part of Court of Session which normally sits in an appellate capacity. It is divided into the First Division (presided over by the Lord President) and the Second Division (presided over by the Lord Justice Clerk). Each Division is of equal standing and normally comprises three judges. In exceptional cases, where important legal principles are considered or it is felt necessary to overturn an earlier decision of a Division, a Court of five judges (or more) can sit to hear the case.  
Makes me wish I had long ago appreciated the intrinsic interest of ‘Law’ and its mechanics.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on7:52 pm - Dec 13, 2015


Fourth of Clyde-say it ain’t so! – at any event Broadwood would be too bigfor them by that time.
perhaps Shieldhall Strangers would be nearer the mark

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:12 pm - Dec 13, 2015


bfbpuzzled 13th December 2015 at 7:52 pm
==============================

Is someone talking about playing at Cumbernauld Colts’ home ground.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on8:12 pm - Dec 13, 2015


bfbpuzzled 13th December 2015 at 7:52 pm #Fourth of Clyde-say it ain’t so! – at any event Broadwood would be too bigfor them by that time. perhaps Shieldhall Strangers would be nearer the mark
========================
Apologies to any fans of the Bully Wee for any inadvertently caused distress.
Given the Ibrox love in with the SMSM, perhaps Fourth Estate would have been more appropriate for their back to the future identity.

View Comment

Comments are closed.