Make our Mind Up Time


The questions asked by Paul mcconville on his blog the …

Comment on Make our Mind Up Time by taxman cometh.

The questions asked by Paul mcconville on his blog the other day.. Is there any way they could be put to duff and Phelps in such a way that they would be legally obliged to answer

taxman cometh Also Commented

Make our Mind Up Time
Holy fook

The vangaurd zombies are hook line and sinker

“As you may be aware R.T.I.D.N.I invited Rangers F.C C.E.O Charles Green over to Northern Ireland for a meeting with ourselves and Supporters Clubs to meet with the support.

First thing on the agenda was a short meeting with ourselves as a group which included myself, Gary Lenaghan, Jim Wilson and Trevor Maxwell.

Charles thanked us for the outstanding work that we had undertaken in helping to raise funds for the fighting fund.

We then moved Charles and guests to lunch with Senior representatives of Linfield F.C, which included discussions for a return match between Rangers and Linfield at Ibrox.

In attendance were Rangers Reps, Linfield Reps, and R.T.I.D.N.I Reps, Myself, Gary Lenagahan, Jim Wilson, Graeme Barr, Mark Rice and Trevor Maxwell.

A number of dates have been mooted and will be given out after further discussions.

A meeting was then planned in Castle Buildings with First Minister Of Northern Ireland Peter Robinson.

In attendance at an introductory meeting with The First Minister were Charles Green and guests, R.T.I.D.N.I Committee members, Myself, Gary Lenaghan, Jim Wilson and Sammy Douglas.

The purpose of this meeting was to explain to The First Minister, the disgraceful way that Politicians in Scotland have shown absolutely NO support for Rangers Football Club.

The words that Mr Green used were “If it was a Pie company going bust with the loss of Revenue to the local Economy and Job losses, Scottish M.Ps and Government Ministers would be bending over backwards to help”

Political backing for investment i.e Shops in Northern Ireland was also brought to the table and discussed,and after a lengthy discussion programme Mr Green informed us that he was extremely happy with the meeting and had found it very productive.

Mr Green and Peter Robinson then gave interviews to U.T.V Live.

Next stop was to to Stormont buildings where Mr Green and ourselves had a meeting with Ulster Unionist Party Leader Mike Nesbitt and M.L.A Danny Kennedy.

This was also a very Productive meeting.

R.T.I.D.N.I and guests then headed to The Hilton, Templepatrick to meet other Reps from Rangers Clubs throughout Northern Ireland.

After thanking everyone for attending, I explained our future plans for R.T.I.D.N.I.

This included getting ALL Clubs, Fan Groups and Fans in Northern Ireland to work together for a N.A.R.S.A type Convention in Northern Ireland.

First thing on the Agenda after introductions and thanks for Support etc, was for Mr Green and Imran to give a Presentation on current affairs at the Club and their outlook for the future.

Everyone was in agreement that our Clubs future was looking extremely good with plans of Hotels, Cancer Centre, New Shop, New Ticket office and renovations to Edmiston Club along with Football Academies in America, Asia and widespread Global Marketing.

Key Points

1: Charles Green stated quite categorically that although it was not ALL Clubs in the S.P.L that he had a problem with, his main problem was with The Leadership and running of the S.P.L.

He said the Agenda from the S.P.L against Rangers F.C and their fans and their constant attacks upon our Club will not be forgotten.

He then stated that whilst things are the way they are, the onslaught continues AND as long as he is C.E.O of Rangers F.C, Rangers will NEVER play in the S.P.L again.

This was met with a round of applause from the Audience.

2: Charles then brought up the question of Rangers Shares.

He explained that Rangers Shares will ONLY be available direct from Rangers F.C.

They will be sold at first to Rangers Fans and Rangers Fans only, as in Season Ticket Holders registered Supporters Clubs and Members of the Rangers Family.

No other option for buying shares will be available.

A shortened Q&A then took place and was as follows.

Q1: What is happening about the money that is owed to Rangers by the S.P.L etc ?

C.G: “The S.P.L are refusing to hand what is due to Rangers and the fight against these disgraceful decisions was still ongoing”

Q2: Would Rangers Consider putting a Team back into the N.I Milk Cup ?

C.G: “This had already been raised by the Youth Team Coach and would definitely be looked at in the future”

Q3: Would Rangers consider bringing out an Orange Top?

C.G: “Yes, they have a number of designs and are coming near agreement with Adidas”

Q4: Will you continue with the fight against all Rangers enemies out there as you have been doing ?

C.G: “Absolutely and with everything in my body, I wasn’t a Rangers Supporter when I came here but I am now”

Q5: Would Rangers Consider flying the 4 Home Nations Flags alongside the flags already above Ibrox ?

C.G “I dont see why Not as the contribution and dedication of Rangers Fans throughout the U.K and the world is second to none and should be recognised”

After a massive thanks to Mr Green from myself on behalf of the Committee, 6-year-old Rangers Season Ticket Holder Joshua Wilson, made a Presentation of a Crystal Clock with the words, ”To Charles Green, from R.T.I.D.N.I.”

Mr Green then stayed behind to sign Autographs and pose for photos before retiring to bed.

We met up with Charles Green today, Fri 28th and took him into Belfast City Centre to look at a proposed building to open a New Rangers Store.

Greg Mcafee had arranged a number of premises for Mr Green to look at and hopefully this will be concluded soon.

We then run Mr Green and guests to the Airport and thanked them for visiting Northern Ireland.

All in all we found Mr Green to be very honest and upfront and along with all the other Supporters thought his plans were excellent.

Therefore on behalf of Myself and R.T.I.D.N.I We would like to give our FULL backing to Mr Green and his plans for Rangers F.C.

WE Support fully, his stance with regards to the hatred towards our club and the Agenda by The S.P.L/S.F.A and fully back him every step of the way in his fight against the haters of Rangers F.C and their Fans.

We also Support fully the plans on the way forward for Rangers F.C and we would urge ALL Fans, Fan Groups Clubs etc etc to Support The Share Scheme (I.P.O) which will be put forward by Rangers F.C. and to buy Shares when available.

R.T.I.D.N.I has taken great steps and have worked tirelessly to get the Opportunity of actually getting a Rangers C.E.O to come to Northern Ireland, something that has never been done before by ANYBODY.

Mr Green was so impressed that he has promised to visit us again, such is the connections that are there.

I would like to thank everyone involved, from Ourselves, Friends in Scotland, The Leaders of both Unionist Parties and eveyone who helped make this happen.

We believe that Mr Green is the real deal and has the Full Backing of R.T.I.D.N.I and we would urge ALL fans to do the same.

We would also urge ALL Northern Ireland Fans, Groups and Clubs to join with us to form a new gouping more representative of N.I. Rangers Fans to not only have a big say at Rangers, but to organise a good convention every year.

Together We Are Better!

Thomas Mathers.



Make our Mind Up Time
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:52
0 32 Rate This
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:45

How is it impossible? If the tax tribunal finds there is no case to answer, IE it was not contractual payments, then why would there be a necessity to lodge “contracts” that did not legally exist.


It doesn’t matter for the SPL whether the payments are deemed contractual or not and this is why RFC are fecked and it’s yet another example of spin.

The investigation is into the proper registration of players – for a player to be properly registered ALL payments made to that player have to be declared on the documents submitted to the SPL and SFA – if you make ANY payments that are not detailed on those documents then the player has not been properly registered and any game that said player plays in is a 3-0 defeat to the offending club

Now RFC are double fecked because IF they had declared these payments THEY would have blown THEIR TAX SCAM straight out of the water on day one

Someone asked why Sevco Scotland were not seeded in the league cup draw – IF you want a look into the mind of the deluded zombies read this

It has not dawned on them that the fact they weren’t seeded is because the SFL and SFA quite rightly in line with UEFA definitions see them as a completely different club from RFC

The way they see it … well read the thread and expect to laugh

Make our Mind Up Time
Would be nice for anyone to actually ask the players/managers

How could you not know about the scam given that YOU had to apply for a loan for your agreed wages?

How much have you repaid? – If nothing, why?

SSB was just a long list of apologists, the lie of “the same would have been done if it were Celtic” was dusted off again – well we saw how the establishment and MSM reacted in 1994 didn’t we

I have to say that I have the very strong sense a stitch up is on the way, all the players are positioned

Has anyone figured out why 11 or 12th October could be a good news day for RFC(IA)/Sevco?

Recent Comments by taxman cometh

Reflections on Goalposts
SFA unconcerned about sevco winning the division through financial doping, only team not living within it’s means?

Same old same old

FPP – don’t make me laugh

Reflections on Goalposts
Charlotte back with this

““NewCo” in the Context of an Insolvency Event


The SPFL Articles and Rules both contain a definition of Insolvency Event. The definition is identical. The possibility of an insolvent owner and operator of a Club applying to effectively exit insolvency by means of a share transfer of the SPFL share from the insolvent owner and operator to a new solvent owner and operator of a Club is not expressly referenced as an Insolvency Event.
A CVA is referenced as an Insolvency Event but would not typically of itself attract a 15 point deduction in accordance with section E of the SPFL Rules because, except in exceptional cases, a CVA would be part of an Insolvency Process and each stage of one Insolvency Process does not attract individual 15 point penalties.

The traditional exit route of an owner and operator of a Club from insolvency is by means of a CVA and it has been tacitly accepted by Clubs, both in the SPL and SFL, that a single sporting sanction of a one off deduction in points is appropriate for a single Insolvency Process where a CVA is used as an exit method providing that the whole Insolvency Process is completed within the same Season and the immediately succeeding close Season.

In effect, the SPFL Rules provide that if the Insolvency Process as a whole is not completed for the start of the following Season then a further 15 point penalty results.

There are instances in England where, for whatever reason, a CVA route has not been possible to implement in order to exit an Insolvency Process and in Scotland, to date, we have the one example of Rangers FC where a CVA could not achieve the requisite 75% vote of creditors in favour of the CVA proposal.

In such circumstances, if “a Club” is to be “saved” and not to suffer the fate of Third Lanark and Clydebank then the only solution is what has become known as the NewCo solution.

In contradistinction to football the NewCo means of exiting an insolvency situation with the business continuing, albeit with new owners, is the norm. Often this is accomplished by a “pre-pack”. Whilst CVAs have become slightly more popular in general business in the course of the last few years, the great majority of Insolvency Processes which involve the “saving” of the business are implemented by means of a NewCo typically as a component of a pre-pack.

For whatever reasons a NewCo solution to an Insolvency Process is regarded negatively in football and the widely held view is that additional sporting sanctions, over and above any sporting sanctions that might have been imposed at the time of administration (15 or 25 point penalty and registration restrictions in the case of the SPFL) ought to result from a NewCo solution being adopted to secure an exit from insolvency.

SPFL Articles

The possibility of the transfer of the business assets and undertaking of a Club between one owner and operator and a new owner and operator has always been envisaged in the Articles of Association of the SPL. The relevant current SPFL Articles are 31 to 43 (inclusive).

These Articles apply whether the context of the proposed NewCo is one which involves an Insolvency Event or otherwise.

So far as SPFL Limited is concerned the critical component of a NewCo Transaction is the transfer of the one SPFL Limited share held by the existing owner and operator of the Club (“OldCo”) to the proposed new owner and operator of the Club (“NewCo”).

Subject to a series of mandatory requirements where to consent to the registration of the transfer of the SPFL Limited share must be refused, the Board of the SPFL Limited has absolute discretion, unfettered by any express criteria, to approve or otherwise the registration of the transfer of an SPL share between owners except in the context of relegation and promotion.
The discretion is not limited by any express criteria becausethe discretion must be exercised in the best interests of SPFL Limited and the members of SPFL Limited. In short, the members of the Board cannot either refuse to approve the registration or decline to approve the registration for reasons which are not reasons having regard to the interests of SPFL Limited and its shareholders.
Rangers FC

It is important to bear in mind that whilst Rangers FC spent Season 2011/2012 playing in the SPL and Season 2012/2013 playing in Division 3 of the SFL, that was not as a consequence of any sanction or penalty imposed either by the SPL, SFL or, for that matter SFA. Rather, what some argue effectively amounted to a relegation of three divisions was the result of the then shareholders in SPL Limited not agreeing to register the transfer of the Rangers OldCo share in SPL Limited from Rangers OldCo to Rangers NewCo and then Rangers NewCo only being able to secure associate membership of the SFL on the basis that Rangers FC, owned and operated by NewCo, would enter the SFL in Division 3.

There are many, and to some extent, conflicting analysis and rationales as to why the result was as it came to be of that process and, in the present context, there is unlikely to be any benefit in further examination of the events which led to it.

NewCo Arrangements in Insolvency Contexts – for discussion

It is understood that there is a view held by a number of SPFL Clubs that explicit provision should be made for a specific sporting sanction to be imposed in the event of “a Club” seeking to emerge from an Insolvency Process by use of a NewCo procedure. Whilst SPFL Article 33 entitles the Board to attach whatever conditions that it thinks fit to the approval of the transfer of an SPFL Limited share between an Oldco and a Newco, it is considered by some not to be appropriate to leave decision making on such conditions to the unfettered discretion of the Board.

The proposal that has been articulated is that whatever other conditions may be attached to the approval of the registration of the transfer of an SPFL Limited share in an insolvency context, the conditions should, as a minimum, require that the Club concerned be relegated by one division if a NewCo solution is implemented (“Sanction Relegation”).

If the Club concerned were to be liable to be relegated in any event, by reason of its position in the relevant division at the end of the Season or by virtue of the result of a Play-Off Competition then the Sanction Relegation should be applied on top of the “Sporting Relegation”.

The proposal is best explained by example.
Assume during a Season that the owner and operator of a Club suffers an Insolvency Event, most likely an administration, the result would be that the Club owned by that owner and operator would immediately suffer the fixed 15 points deduction. Assume that the Club is playing in the Premiership and that at the end of the relevant Season the Club concerned holds tenth place in the Premiership, taking account of the points deduction for the administration. Assume also that the Club is unable to exit its Insolvency Process by any means other than a NewCo solution. In such circumstances the Club concerned would, as part of the conditions attached to the SPFL share transfer, be relegated to play in the Championship in the immediately succeeding Season i.e. a “Sanction Relegation” would automatically be applied.

If the same Club were to finish in twelfth place in the Premiership at the end of the Season in question, taking into account the 15 points sporting sanction, then the Club would be relegated initially to the Championship, being a Sporting Relegation, and would then be subject to the Sanction Regulation taking the Club down to play in Division 1 in the immediately succeeding Season.
Precisely identical principles would be applied in the case of Clubs in the Divisions below the Premiership in the relevant Season.

One anomaly could arise where the Club using the NewCo solution finished in a play-off place at the end of a Season. The proposal in that situation is that the Club in last place in the Division shall participate in the play-off competition and the Club using the NewCo solution would be automatically relegated.

Further detailed provision would need to be made in the Rules for situations in which more than one Club in any one Season in any one Division uses a NewCo solution and/or are in the Divisional play-offs or are compelled to take part in the Pyramid Play-Off Competition from League 2 in which case some kind of pre-play-off competition(s) would need to be included in the Rules. Detailed provision would also require to be made for which Club(s) would be promoted as a consequence of a Sanction Relegation.

Steps Required for Implementation

The above approach to Sanction Relegation by essentially one Division has unanimous support from the Board. The next step is to identify the extent of support for the proposal amongst the Clubs.

Any change in the existing arrangements would require amendment of the Articles which would require (i) 11 Premiership Clubs to vote in favour (i.e. 11 Clubs); (ii) 75% of the Clubs comprised in both The Premiership and The Championship; and (iii) 75% of all the Clubs in membership of the SPFL.

The required changes are to Articles which are not included in SPFL Article 194 and therefore the three year moratorium and the 100% vote in favour do not apply.

One option would be to take the proposal as a discussion matter to Clubs at an All Club Meeting in order to identify the level of support. If the support was at a sufficient level and was sufficiently broad based to indicate likely adoption by the required majorities, then detailed drafting could be undertaken with a view to bringing proposed amendments to the Articles to the General Meeting proposed for 13 January.

SPFL Board
16 September 2013 · Reply
Report post (?)

Reflections on Goalposts
Sevco 5088 have published accounts apparently

Reflections on Goalposts
nickmcguinness says: (158)
January 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm
24 0 Rate This

Just managed to find the full ruling on Craig Whyte’s appeal against an earlier judgment that he should pay Ticketus £17million for lying to them about his business past.
His Defence case seems to have been, at best, half-hearted, with no request for documents and an unspecific mention of other “dodgy” characters that he alleged Ticketus (or Octopus Investments) had done business with in the past.
There seems to have been a bit of “going through the motions” about the whole case, which now won’t go to a full trial. Something that will suit a lot of people.
But how can Whyte hope to pay back that sum? Why are Octopus Investments not panicking?
Here’s the judgment:


It’s more smoke n mirrors, ticketus will have known all about Whyte as all the players in this farce are in on it, how much have they spent taking a guy to court that they know they will not get a penny from.

What’s the other angle, there is method in this madness

Smoke n Mirrors

Reflections on Goalposts
auchinstarry says: (127)
December 29, 2013 at 9:41 pm
1 1 Rate This

Oh dear, its beginning to look like Charles was actually lying! Did he sell the players, who would have been classed as assets, pocket the dosh, possibly via several bank accounts , make sure the players got a sweetener or a John Brown style threat (or both).
The permutations of it are multiple, a bit like Charlie’s tongues.


Don’t think that would have been possible he never “bought/owned” the players is the first place

About the author