Mr Green and Opportunity Knocks— For Aberdeen?

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Mr Green and Opportunity Knocks— For Aberdeen?

Good Morning,

In the last week, we have seen a number of strange occurrences in Scottish Football, which if taken together might just point to a very different land than the one we were lead to believe we live in just two short years ago.

First of all there was the report from a firm of well known accountants which pronounced that a significant number of Scottish Football Clubs had, in fact, sold more season tickets for this coming season than they had in the course of the last several years.

Then we had the spectacle of the National team travelling to Wembley and playing very well AND being cheered on by a very large travelling support who appear to have been full of fun and who acquitted themselves well in the big smoke.

This morning I read that today’s match at Pittodrie is a sell out — with the old stadium being packed to the rafters for the visit of Celtic. This is the first time that Aberdeen have been able to sell out the fixture for some 6 years!

Not only that, various Celtic supporting websites have lead with articles saying that the return of a strong Aberdeen and Dundee United are to be welcomed– in fact not only welcomed but positively wished for.

In contrast, stories abound about the in fighting on the Ibrox Board. There are surreptitious share dealings and all sorts of company jockeying being deployed by the rival factions who are trying to gain control of The Rangers. Further, there is the suggestion from some well informed parties that not only will Ibrox and the Albion be sold and leased back to the club to generate much needed immediate cash, but that Murray Park has been sold off completely and will no longer be available to The Rangers for any purpose whatsoever!

Clearly, there are big troubles at the club which will not assist in the stated intention of rising to the very top in Scottish Football.

In between all of this, the debate goes on about Campbell Ogilvie, Press manipulation, the correspondence  between Media House and the SFA, and between The SFA and Ibrox re the relationship between Charlie Green and Craig Whyte and so on.

Standing with my business hat on, I looked at all of this and wondered what it all meant, and pretty quickly reached the conclusion that we are now in a time of supreme opportunity for some of the clubs in Scottish Football—- particularly Aberdeen FC.

There is a view abroad, that in the absence of the “Strong Rangers” that Celtic Football Club will win the SPFL title for almost evermore — or at least until they are toppled from the top spot by the rise of a strong Rangers club somewhere towards the end of this decade or early in the next– because we are assured that they will be back– in one form or another– in a rather Arnold Schwarzenegger  like fashion.

That return or initial rise if you like– its timing and its manner— is dependent on a number of things– not least the exit strategy of Charlie Green and his cohorts.

If it is true that The Rangers are going to part company with Ibrox and the Albion, that they have taken on a loan of funds which attract a rate of interest that amounts to 15% per annum, and that there are set figures for buying the old ( and decaying ) stadium back any time soon, and that they have yet again hawked the season ticket money, then the already flawed Ibrox business plan is burdened even more by interest and rent payments of an additional £3M per annum and rising!

It should also be noted that the accounts for old co from the mid naughties onwards boasted that season ticket sales, merchandising, corporate hospitality and so on had reached unprecedented levels—- but—- the club still did not make an operating profit without strange internals transactions such as the repurchase of media rights which added £15M on to the P&L’s AND the sale of Jean Alain Boomsong!

Accordingly, the current position will not make for good financial reading.

So– let’s presume that in the current climate Celtic are out of sight and will always be champions for ever and a day. What do the rest of the clubs say in the absence of the Ibrox club without whom they have been told they will perish?

Well, If I were in charge of Aberdeen FC I would look out across a city with an inherent population of some 220,000 souls sitting in a county which takes the population up by another 40,000 or so. I would note that the compact city also houses two universities and a number of colleges — all of which attract visitors to the city— and that its position as the oil capital of Europe also draws in a substantial number of itinerant workers.

Further, personal knowledge shows that many who studied at Aberdeen University or Robert Gordon’s in the 80’s left the city as Aberdeen FC fans and no matter where they have ended up in life they still make the journey back to Pittodrie when they can– especially in good times!

Alas, however, Aberdeen has not enjoyed ” Good Times” of late— in fact not really since ……….. the arrival of David Murray at Ibrox!

If you cast your mind back to the pre Murray era, Aberdeen were a force not only in Scotland but Europe as the recent nostalgia re Gothenburg has reminded us.

The city has an economic micro climate which suggests that it can ride economic hardship better than most and so all things considered this current period provides a great opportunity for the Dons.

Unlike Dundee United, Hearts, and Hibs, Aberdeen FC sits in a large one team conurbation and should be on the doorstep of a populace which can fill Pittodrie every single week …… IF that fan base can be motivated.

And there lies the rub– how do you get a notoriously fickle fan base out of the armchair and into the stadium?

The late Bob Crampsey once described Pittodrie by saying ” And there are the masses of Aberdeen fans, masquerading as rows and rows of Empty seats!” yet in their heydey an Aberdeen crowd on a visit to Glasgow were among the noisiest– and to this football fans eyes — the scariest ( in a good sense ) supports to be seen.

Well, at this juncture, Derek McInnes and team need only look at every other football club in the land ( bar Celtic ) and determine that come next May those others will be below them in the league. If Aberdeen maintain a strong league run keeping everyone behind them then there is the possibility of a huge revenue swing in favour of the Dons– such a swing that would put them in an even stronger position for the following year.

Further, Aberdeen are a European name. Perhaps a European name from yesteryear and not the recent past, but the pedigree is there and as such there will be those who remember the heady European Nights both home and away. Reviving those memories and that reputation– at least to an extent– is not beyond the club, and with no disrespect to Motherwell and St Johnstone both of whom are liable to lose key players or even a manager between seasons, Aberdeen may just be of a size to consolidate each year rather than scramble to maintain the momentum of one good season which comes along every now and then.

Financial management and football rewards can go hand in hand when combined properly, and of all the clubs in Scotland who can benefit from a level playing field in terms of proper football governance, Aberdeen FC are uniquely placed in my opinion.

That is not so say that The Arabs, or the Hibees or anyone else cannot benefit– on the contrary— but the Dons are the most obvious candidates in terms of potential structure to really motor forward and regain a by gone status.

Such a situation, and the recognition of that potential, should be borne in mind by all at Celtic Football Club, as last year they struggled for a period in the league while they concentrated on their European exploits. If Celtic want to go further and further in Europe ( and why shouldn’t they ) they will have to be wary of any club which is capable of reigniting its fortunes from a lowly position or a position of having to look back at glory and potential glory rather than looking forward.

Further, with the way things are being organised at Ibrox, there is absolutely no guarantee ( some would say likelihood ) that an eventual challenge to a perceived dominance by Celtic will come from that quarter, and life in the top flight for any returning Rangers could prove very difficult if the likes of Aberdeen get their act together and start to produce the type of home grown team of old.

For now, I sense a degree of optimism about the Dons– not just on the playing front either.  They have a fan base, they have a business model and a good young manager, and any comparative business exercise must conclude that they have every chance of rising above most of their rivals in the league, in terms of revenue, in terms of brand development and business expansion.

If I were an Aberdeen fan I would like to think positive and be ambitious in this climate, whilst at the same time casting an eye back to the days when they were top of the tree.

As one Aberdeen supporting ( but now Edinburgh based ) friend put it to me:

” Ah, those were the days my friend, those were the days……………”

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

2,310 Comments so far

Matteo GalyPosted on12:08 am - Sep 4, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 3, 2013 at 11:50 pm

You’re right.
Unfortunately, El Presidente has already said that the SFA will turn a blind eye to Murray being a member of Sevco’s board, despite the rules saying he can’t. ‘Discretion’ I think they call it.
Effectively they can do what they like.

View Comment

James ForrestPosted on12:13 am - Sep 4, 2013


http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/opportunity-knocks/

Well, Peter Lawwell’s first test will be whether or not to enforce the fit and proper person’s criteria as it is clearly set down in the SFA constitution.

Let’s see how he handles it. I will regard these men being allowed to return to the boardroom a disastrous start, from which I think he’ll struggle to recover.

View Comment

JagsmanPosted on12:17 am - Sep 4, 2013


Matteo: it does say “discretion” (see below) and that is indeed so that they can do what they like. Same in the SFL and SPL and now the SPFL. In Scottish football, “rules” are as flexible as those calling the shots wish them to be. As a Thistle fan, I saw my club stiffed big time just about a decade ago. “Rules” are a moveable feast in Scottish football. Murray and McLelland will be on the BoD at Ibrox if they want to be.

“The Board must be satisfied that any such person is fit and proper to hold such position within Association Football. The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge…. “

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:36 am - Sep 4, 2013


Shocked at the suggested ‘return’ of McLelland in particular.

Over an 11 year period from 2000 to 2011 – in various board roles including Chairman – McLelland was in a position of authority as Rangers effectively went down the toilet.
Of all the senior people at Rangers in modern times – IMO – McLelland was the one person who could and should have done the right thing wrt supporting a sustainable business. He had the business knowledge and pedigree.

For him to now become Chairman of TRFC?
Has he no shame? Obviously not – so he will probably fit in well with the spivs…

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:55 am - Sep 4, 2013


Obviously Lawwell is a shrewd operator and will have his own ideas / reasons for joining the SFA board.

But if I was asked to join the SFA board, (well you never know 😉 ), I would find it incredibly difficult to be civil towards Ogilvie. Or I would insist – discretely – that Ogilvie slung his hook before I joined.

…or mibbees PL wants the satisfaction of kicking Ogilvie’s backside down the Hampden steps?
(I know – but at the very least it provides a rather pleasing mental picture! )

View Comment

The GlenPosted on1:29 am - Sep 4, 2013


Interesting times indeed.

It will be even more interesting to see how the new chap deals with

1. Mr. Ogilvie
2. The rumoured changes in the boardroom at Ibrox

If he is happy for 1. to stay in post and 2. to allow those changes to go ahead, he may well find himself accused of supporting a corrupt regime and suffer the backlash of supporters of his own team.

As said previously here, the matter at 2. will be decided the “Board” as per their rule book. Made up on the spot or not.

If it comes to a vote, I wonder who will vote for what.

View Comment

ExiledceltPosted on3:09 am - Sep 4, 2013


So in order to save the IPO money, the plan is to ADD 5 large salaries to the boardroom (perhaps with 100% bonuses should they get promotion etc). Not only do they want to bring 2 folks back who watched for years while SDM ran RFC into the ground and did nothing, they also want to keep the very ones they wanted rid off to work alongside them. Plus no one can find any shares belonging to McColl, Mini Murray nor Blin so they could call an EGM anyway – and additionally Sandy (who has a prior conviction) will hardly vote against his brother, so is this board not already divided?

Makes perfect sense to this financial wizard.

I go back to what Bill Millar’s financial advisor said…..

The club can’t afford to pay directors annual fees to simply attend matches, socialize and run up a large food and beverage tab.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2012/10/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-financial-meltdown-of-glasgow-rangers-fc/

I think Neepheid and Ecobhoy probably need to redo those spreadsheets now and see if they can make it past Xmas with 5 large salaries and expense accounts added to the mix….

View Comment

Babylon BeachboyPosted on5:08 am - Sep 4, 2013


This ‘’compromise’’ to appoint Paul Murray and Frank Blin (and John McLelland…where did that come from?) appears very odd and smacks of desperation on behalf of the current spiv board. Why on earth are they so determined to avoid/delay the EGM vote? A vote will still take place at the AGM… so why is there a pressing need to delay the vote for some six weeks or so?
I just don’t buy the line that this is an attempt to save the (alleged £80,000) cost of an EGM. When have these characters ever demonstrated frugality when it comes to spending The Rangers’ money? And anyway, as Exiledcelt points out at 3.09am, the costs of appointing additional Directors would negate any savings.
No, I think it more likely that this is simply another delaying tactic to cling on to power for as long as possible to allow the spivs to extract further value out of the businesses before they are, inevitably, run out of town. We may even see the AGM delayed some weeks… and will we ever see a set of audited accounts? There does seem to be a determined effort to string this out for as long as possible (perhaps to end of December)?
Clearly, the current spiv board are fearful that the McColl faction may well have the voting power to force the removal of Stockbridge, Mather and Smart and they need to factor this eventuality into their plans. Should the rebel resolution be successful, it appears that the spivs are playing for time to allow them to, both, cover their tracks and get past the December share lock-in date.

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:12 am - Sep 4, 2013


Babylon Beachboy says:
September 4, 2013 at 5:08 am
2 0 Rate This

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would imagine, BB, that there will now be no resolution put to the AGM. That will be the quid pro quo for the two appointments that were requested. If McColl/Murray were still intent on removing Stockbridge et al, the current board would not have agreed to the new appointments.

[Edit] Perhaps they now intend to work from the ‘inside’

View Comment

loamfeetPosted on6:19 am - Sep 4, 2013


I am no tax expert, but won’t HMRC become interested if the directors of a liquidated company that had outstanding NIC and VAT liabilities join the board of a new company that has purchased the assets of the old company and is ostensibly trading as the same entity:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/nimmanual/nim12204.htm

“NIM12204 – Class 1: Personal Liability Notices: What is a Phoenix company?
Phoenixism is a term used to describe the practice where directors carry on the same business or trade successively though a series of two or more companies. Each of the companies in turn becomes insolvent, leaving large unpaid Income Tax PAYE and NIC debts. A company will typically transfer its business, minus its debts, to the next company. Only essential trade suppliers will be paid in full before the transfer, so that Income Tax PAYE and NIC often remain deliberately outstanding.

The above example is typical of the type of case that HMRC is particularly interested in but it must be remembered that not all phoenix companies are ‘rogue companies’.

A Personal Liability Notice can be considered in situations where the directors attempt to ‘walk away’ from the debts of a failed company and resume management with a new company, sometimes indirectly as a ‘shadow director’ (see NIM12205). The new successor company will often trade from the same premises, using a similar name and with the same assets as the failed company.

Whilst not conclusive the following may indicate phoenixism and a potential Personal Liability Notice enquiry:

Rapid build up of NIC debts
Payment of selected debts e.g. trade creditors at the expense of HMRC liabilities
Transfer of assets, or sale of the assets by the liquidator to a new company or connected officer of the company, possibly at a lower than expected value. This may include transfer of work in progress.”

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:31 am - Sep 4, 2013


Is it just me or have CF’s most recent tweets been rather more pro-current regime than previously? ❓

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:14 am - Sep 4, 2013


I must admit I find the mild storm about Peter Lawwell’s appointment rather bewildering. Eric Reilly of Celtic (who reports to Lawwell) was on the SFA board for years, and it did not prevent some bewildering judgements by the SFA. Such as Lennon being banned for the ‘shame game’ while McCoist walked scot-free from Hampden laughing, along with Diouf and Bougherra. It also did not stop the Referee Committee trying to brush aside a grade 1 official deliberately lying to the Celtic Manager, with the lie backed up by the Head of Referees. I will finish by saying if Walter Smith had been appointed to the same role, it would have been a cause for wild celebration.

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on7:53 am - Sep 4, 2013


Seems those lovely folks on ff have taken paranoia to new levels. I had to re-read some parts to check I understood the claims properly.

It all reminds me of the 1980’s Robbie Coltrane character ‘Mason Boyne.’
As ‘Mason’ lies in bed, he explains to his wife Morag the reasons why RCs are a danger. “Well, you see Morag,
Pope spelled backwards is ‘Epop’, right? 4 letter word beginning with E? Yes Morag, evil. I rest my case!”

I know I shouldn’t mock as the mood is starting to sound desperate again. Who knows what some peepil
have in mind when the big complex Timmy web gets spelled out to them? I hope not, but I remember not so long ago several items in the mail, the CFC boss being attacked, etc. And, lets not forget Lawwell had the audacity to actually mock them regards the big Jelavic ‘bid.’ Does he not know who they are?? Entitlement, chosen peepil, etc, etc…

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on8:11 am - Sep 4, 2013


NTHM @5:06pm
Maybe Scotzine could condense the salient points in their document into a readable leaflet for distribution to Joe Public.I’d distribute it no problem.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on8:35 am - Sep 4, 2013


loamfeet says:
September 4, 2013 at 6:19 am
============================================
I RIFC a phoenix company?.
I’m sure TRFC should be.
WRT the SFA and the “fit & proper” criteria,Hitler would be considered F & P if he could help Rangers.To me it’s not important that Peter Lawell blocks these appointments,it’s whether he objects or not.If he does and the commitee vote them as acceptable then that tells its own story.
Once again I’n no expert but is there not a law that prevents Murray and McLelland joining the board?.

View Comment

JLeeHookerPosted on8:59 am - Sep 4, 2013


I am hearing rumours on Twitter that Celtic will have to play their CL qualifiers at Murryfield next year and not at Parkhead. Does anybody have any idea what this is all about?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:15 am - Sep 4, 2013


JLeeHooker on September 4, 2013 at 8:59 am
2 0 Rate This

I am hearing rumours on Twitter that Celtic will have to play their CL qualifiers at Murryfield next year and not at Parkhead. Does anybody have any idea what this is all about?
———
According to the papers, something to do with the state of the pitch after the Commonwealth Games.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:32 am - Sep 4, 2013


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2013 at 8:35 am
8 0 Rate This

loamfeet says:
September 4, 2013 at 6:19 am
============================================
I RIFC a phoenix company?.
I’m sure TRFC should be.
WRT the SFA and the “fit & proper” criteria,Hitler would be considered F & P if he could help Rangers.To me it’s not important that Peter Lawell blocks these appointments,it’s whether he objects or not.If he does and the commitee vote them as acceptable then that tells its own story.
Once again I’n no expert but is there not a law that prevents Murray and McLelland joining the board?.
============================================================
Rangers were liquidated on 31st October 2012.

For anyone who was a director of Rangers FC in the 12 months prior to liquidation, the name “Rangers” becomes a prohibited name. So for example, Craig Whyte – who left the Rangers board on 1st June 2012 – would be prohibited from joining the board of the new club or any other company (including RIFC) that was using the recently purchased Rangers brand.

John McLelland left the board on 16th October 2011 and Paul Murray on the 23rd May 2011. Neither face a legal impediment to becoming board members of the new club or of its holding company RIFC plc.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:35 am - Sep 4, 2013


Thanks,HP.
I wasn’t sure.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:38 am - Sep 4, 2013


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:35 am
0 0 Rate This

Thanks,HP.
I wasn’t sure.
==================
No worries. I had to check the dates last night because I thought Mr McLelland would have been caught by the 12 months rule. Turns out that he just made it.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:40 am - Sep 4, 2013


JLeeHooker says:
September 4, 2013 at 8:59 am
=====================================
An old story.
CP is rented to the Commonwealth Games committee for 8 weeks next year.The pitch will haveto be relaid and probably won’t be ready in time for the CL qualifiers.The only stadium available that could accommodate the size of crowd CFC normally get for these games is Murrayfield,unless you move outside Scotland.All expenses,new pitch,upgrades etc are being met by the Games Committee.

View Comment

EeramacaroonbarPosted on9:54 am - Sep 4, 2013


CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 15m

Look at the difference in the report Massone report rightly highlights his past failings. But Paul Murray? McLelland? https://twitter.com/CelticResearch/status/375176208066945024/photo/1/large
——————————————————————————————————————————————-

Check out the difference in reporting 2 very similar potential scenarios. Great spot from CelticResearch. Surely the only question is what is the reason for such bias ? Is it to gain future exclusives ? or is it just outright Sevco propaganda ?

The mind truly boggles when you hear that the Sevconites actually regard this as a pro-Celtic, anti-Sevco rag

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on10:04 am - Sep 4, 2013


Sevco fan’s “web of unseen fenian hand”, http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4172/cfcweb1nujcm8r.jpg

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:15 am - Sep 4, 2013


The BBC report says the warring factions control roughly 30% each of RIFC.
Now,if McColl and Co are serious,why don’t they offer the spivs,say £10m for their 30%.
That would mean spending their own money though and that doesn’t seem to be part of their plan.
Therefore,maybe Murray,McLelland etc are joining up to eventually take control of TRFC.
that,of course,may or may not include the assets owned by RIFC.
Sale of the club for a nominal fee and a leaseback of the stadium might be on the cards,as suggested before.
I suppose both sides would like everything settled before the accounts are published and the AGM is held?.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:24 am - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:32 am
6 0 Rate This

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2013 at 8:35 am
8 0 Rate This

loamfeet says:
September 4, 2013 at 6:19 am
============================================
I RIFC a phoenix company?.
I’m sure TRFC should be.
WRT the SFA and the “fit & proper” criteria,Hitler would be considered F & P if he could help Rangers.To me it’s not important that Peter Lawell blocks these appointments,it’s whether he objects or not.If he does and the commitee vote them as acceptable then that tells its own story.
Once again I’n no expert but is there not a law that prevents Murray and McLelland joining the board?.
============================================================
Rangers were liquidated on 31st October 2012.

For anyone who was a director of Rangers FC in the 12 months prior to liquidation, the name “Rangers” becomes a prohibited name. So for example, Craig Whyte – who left the Rangers board on 1st June 2012 – would be prohibited from joining the board of the new club or any other company (including RIFC) that was using the recently purchased Rangers brand.

John McLelland left the board on 16th October 2011 and Paul Murray on the 23rd May 2011. Neither face a legal impediment to becoming board members of the new club or of its holding company RIFC plc.

————————————-

for HMRC purposes, this is the case, nothing stopping them – but the SFA rules are different and the cut off is 5 years.

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on10:25 am - Sep 4, 2013


See how the sense of entitlement emanating from Ibrox fans is ridiculed here? What’s this I’m reading about Celtic already being in the CL Qualifiers (after they’ve played just four games this season) and having to play at Murrayfield next season? 😈 👿

😛

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on10:42 am - Sep 4, 2013


borussiabeefburg says:

September 4, 2013 at 10:25 am

See how the sense of entitlement emanating from Ibrox fans is ridiculed here? What’s this I’m reading about Celtic already being in the CL Qualifiers (after they’ve played just four games this season) and having to play at Murrayfield next season?
——————————-
Shirley to God they won’t make us play a qualifier after we win the Big Cup in Lisbon again. 🙂

View Comment

BrendaPosted on10:50 am - Sep 4, 2013


paulsatim @ 10.04

And they say we are obsessed 😉

View Comment

nickmcguinnessPosted on10:54 am - Sep 4, 2013


What a dangerous message is being sent out to Scottish society by the board of Rangers International Football Club, the SFA and their assorted media lapdogs:
That law-breaking, tax avoidance, financial crime, the ripping-off of creditors, massive fraud and outright gangsterism is not only to be tolerated but encouraged and even applauded, with a blind eye turned to every transgression and the rulebooks ignored or rewritten.
Sic a parcel of rogues . . . in brogues.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:08 am - Sep 4, 2013


I’m going to take the unpopular view here.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2013-14/Articles%20of%20Association.pdf


The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive:-

(j) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event;

As I read this…
The SFA have listed a number of circumstances under which they would raise the question (no more than that) of whether a person would be a “fit & proper person” to hold a position in Scottish football.

As Paul Murray & John McLelland were both directors of Rangers FC in the 5 years preceding its demise, the SFA (by its Article 10) are bound to look into those circumstances.

Article 10 to be absolutely clear, does not a list examples of automatically disqualifying circumstances. It simply lists some circumstances that will automatically merit consideration.

After “due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge” the board will come to a decision.

Now, if the SFA board find that either Mr Murray or Mr McLelland (by their actions or inactions) were a significant factor in the former club’s “insolvency event”, it would certainly be within their power to insist that the “guilty” party be removed from the RIFC plc board.

However, a decision to use Article 10(j) against the pair without establishing culpability could be appealed and (in my opinion) would most likely be overturned.

[Edit: incorrectly referenced Article 14 when it should be Article 10]

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:21 am - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:08 am

Now, if the SFA board find that either Mr Murray or Mr McLelland (by their actions or inactions) were a significant factor in the former club’s “insolvency event”, it would certainly be within their power to insist that the “guilty” party be removed from the RIFC plc board.
—————————————–

but would they? it is TRFC Ltd that holds SFA membership, they will be joining RIFC PLC board. the “holding” company!

I can’t imagine the SFA rules (or the will to implement them) stretch that far.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on11:25 am - Sep 4, 2013


If I was a supporter of a company / club / holding company who were driven to liquidation, I would have serious reservations on allowing the self same people drive the brand spanking new, debt free business bus.

Not only have the Pheonix club picked up and run with the failed business template of trying to buy success they plainly cannot afford, they want the self same board in charge……..these people really are stupid. 🙄

They have previous with busses though to be fair. 😉

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:35 am - Sep 4, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:21 am
================================
Without getting too technical…
Article 10 (not 14 as I originally quoted) references the provisions within Article 13 (and specifically 13.5).

Article 10 provides that “associates” of the club are listed in the official return.

The definitions in Article 13.5 would, in my opinion, mean that directors of RIFC have to be listed in the club’s official return.

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on11:42 am - Sep 4, 2013


borussiabeefburg says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:25 am

See how the sense of entitlement emanating from Ibrox fans is ridiculed here? What’s this I’m reading about Celtic already being in the CL Qualifiers (after they’ve played just four games this season) and having to play at Murrayfield next season?
———————————————————-

To be fair to the Celtic fans, it’s the media who have come up with this story. I don’t read the rags but I assume the article will be couched in terms of “should Celtic qualify ….”.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on11:54 am - Sep 4, 2013


paulsatim says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:04 am

“Sevco fan’s “web of unseen fenian hand”,”
—————————
Its a very pretty picture. A fine example of post-modern surrealism. I might print off a copy and have it framed for my living room!

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on12:01 pm - Sep 4, 2013


It’s a funny old world, planet fitba. the sense of jubilee among some normally sane and sober posters that Mr Lawwell is now on the SFA professional game board, had me, frankly, in hysterics, almost as much as the reaction from the more dim witted of the Ranger’s fraternity.

Just so I am clear, we are talking about the same Mr Lawwell who had a similar position of great responsibility at the SPL? Who carried out that responsibility with precisely the same level of supine, cowardly inaction as the rest of the bums, stiffs and wasters? If only PL had approached his duties at the SPL with the same sort of rigour he demonstrates at Celtic, there might indeed be cause for celebration. Sadly, all the evidence so far suggests the Brother Lawwell, will do not a jot to interfere with the operations of the Rangers Protection Society.

Maybe Mr Ogilvy puts something in the water down Hampden way….

View Comment

andypandimoniumPosted on12:19 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Good to hear that Mr Lunny is alive and at least has a pulse. He has today charged daft Gavin Gunning with the heinous crime of aiming a petulant wee kick at a Celtic player on Saturday. An advocate of the devil may be minded to observe that a 3 match ban for such an offence is a tad draconian when so many on field assaults are allowed to go unpunished or by the brandishing of yellow; but if Mr Lunny is about to bring the same level of scrutiny and punishment to the rest of the contents of his inbox, the Govan gangsters should be in for some interesting reading in the days and weeks ahead.

Or maybe it is all the doing of that awful Mr Lawwell!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:27 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Exiledcelt says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:09 am

I think Neepheid and Ecobhoy probably need to redo those spreadsheets now and see if they can make it past Xmas with 5 large salaries and expense accounts added to the mix….
=====================================================================
I have to make it clear that I have not produced any spreadsheet and don’t haver the ability or psatience to do what Neepheid has done. I have only made the odd suggestion to help with fine tuning.

On the question of the expense of extra directors the average rate for NEDS on Rangers board is only roughly £50k each plus exes with no bonus. It’s not a huge amount and I would expect that some might do it for nothing as part of a PR coup to prove they are Rangers Men.

However it’s worth remembering that the source for the Board peace deal and the names of the proposed new directors was first revealed – afaik – by McMurdo yesterday and was rubbished on Bear sites. It’s obviously been picked-up by SMSM from there or possibly from a PR whispering in their ears.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on12:35 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:21 am

Exactly – does anyone expect anything other than ‘Well, they’re not actually on the board of the club – they’re on the board of the company that owns the company that owns the club’?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on12:39 pm - Sep 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:

September 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Agreed, assuming that these appointments actually happen, nothing will really change. The civil war over the corpse will continue unabated!

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:02 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:15 am

JLeeHooker on September 4, 2013 at 8:59 am
2 0 Rate This

I am hearing rumours on Twitter that Celtic will have to play their CL qualifiers at Murryfield next year and not at Parkhead. Does anybody have any idea what this is all about?
———
According to the papers, something to do with the state of the pitch after the Commonwealth Games.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m hearing another rumour that they would have to win the SPFL or the Champions League to even qualify for next years pork barrel entitlement.

In other news – I’m pleased to see Lawell appointed to the SFA Board – he is of a different calibre to Eric Riley and could be the catalyst for change – after all Celtic have been at odds with the SFA hierarchy for years. I’m expecting action. Shame Turnbull couldn’t join him on the Board – maybe next year.

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on1:10 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Those knowledgeable in corporate governance will put me right, but it seems to me that we’re overblowing Peter Lawwell’s importance as the SPFL rep on the SFA Board. We’re talking on here as if he’s the great panjandrum. He’ll have one vote like every SFA Board member, just like on the SPL Board, and that’s how it should be.

We’re struggling to cleanse the system of one hegemony. Some, and not apparently Celtic supporters in the main, seem to want it replaced by another. I agree with those who say no to this. I can’t understand those, including some Celtic fans, who seem to want it repeated.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:15 pm - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:08 am

Now, if the SFA board find that either Mr Murray or Mr McLelland (by their actions or inactions) were a significant factor in the former club’s “insolvency event”, it would certainly be within their power to insist that the “guilty” party be removed from the RIFC plc board.

However, a decision to use Article 10(j) against the pair without establishing culpability could be appealed and (in my opinion) would most likely be overturned.
_______________________________________________________________________

Didn’t the SFA already comment on the failure of the Directors of the Auld Deid Club to act properly and stand up to SDM?

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:21 pm - Sep 4, 2013


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:15 am
The BBC report says the warring factions control roughly 30% each of RIFC.
Now,if McColl and Co are serious,why don’t they offer the spivs,say £10m for their 30%.
That would mean spending their own money though and that doesn’t seem to be part of their plan.
Therefore,maybe Murray,McLelland etc are joining up to eventually take control of TRFC.
that,of course,may or may not include the assets owned by RIFC.
Sale of the club for a nominal fee and a leaseback of the stadium might be on the cards,as suggested before.
I suppose both sides would like everything settled before the accounts are published and the AGM is held?.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m thinking there will be “differences of opinion” with the auditors around various issues but the main one will be whether they can sign off the accounts on a “going concern basis”. This will drag on until December and there will be no EGM or AGM.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:28 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Castofthousands says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:54 am

paulsatim says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:04 am

“Sevco fan’s “web of unseen fenian hand”,”
—————————
Its a very pretty picture. A fine example of post-modern surrealism. I might print off a copy and have it framed for my living room!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the subject of surrealism a friend of mine was listening to SSB the other night (Honest – I’ve told him to stop) and says he can’t help smirking at the likes of Guidi trying to paint a bright future for TRFC and more or less ignoring everything that is really going on at the club. It’s as if he lives in a different world – there really is an official line that the DR and SSB follow – no matter how uncomfortable the facts get.

I suspect the official line is in place partly to avoid legal problems but it gives the show that surreal quality that my friend likes.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:48 pm - Sep 4, 2013


“FROM 9am today (Wednesday, September 4) we will once more be allowing readers of the Daily Record and Sunday Mail web and mobile sites to comment on football stories…”
================
These rags have delusions about their value – and must be desperate.

For balance;
“TSFM will continue to allow the sports journalists of the Daily Record and Sunday Mail to plagiarise the website content – and to claim ‘Exclusives’ without recognition of the source.”

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:12 pm - Sep 4, 2013


On Peter Lawwell’s appointment to SFA Board.

My main concern has been about an uncorrected, unprofessional and unaccountable SFA being free to make decisions that have Greatly undermined the integrity of our game with Celtic probably the first in the queue of clubs harmed but not the only club.

Peter Lawell at least understands the issues and has had plenty of messages on what needs to be done, the following for example

http://celticunderground.net/sfa-reform-one-down-three-to-go/

But a start would be the appointment of an SLO equivalent to the SFA.

If it’s good enough for UEFA to insist on for clubs then why not for national associations? We might even get letters answered.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:16 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Drew Peacock says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:21 pm

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:15 am
The BBC report says the warring factions control roughly 30% each of RIFC.
Now,if McColl and Co are serious,why don’t they offer the spivs,say £10m for their 30%.
That would mean spending their own money though and that doesn’t seem to be part of their plan.
Therefore,maybe Murray,McLelland etc are joining up to eventually take control of TRFC.
that,of course,may or may not include the assets owned by RIFC.
Sale of the club for a nominal fee and a leaseback of the stadium might be on the cards,as suggested before.
I suppose both sides would like everything settled before the accounts are published and the AGM is held?.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m thinking there will be “differences of opinion” with the auditors around various issues but the main one will be whether they can sign off the accounts on a “going concern basis”. This will drag on until December and there will be no EGM or AGM.
============================================================
Obviously if the accounts can’t be signed-off on a ‘going concern’ basis then it a very rapid goodnight Vienna 😉

However there could be lots of other issues thrown-up by the accounts which could affect non-emotional investors and fans in different ways. As we don’t know whether these problems exist or not or even what they might be then I don’y intend to speculate too deeply.

However I can’t see anyone in the McColl camp or any new investor putting any significant money into buying existing shares until they get to see the accounts. An addendum to this is they have to know what the plan is for the major property assets as it would be madness to proceed without them being definitely tied-up.

Any potential investor has to weigh-up the pros and cons of the financial cost of keeping these assets – particularly the stadium – in the ownership of the ‘club’ or leasing it from say RIFC Plc on a long-term basis. But that decision obviously isn’t simply about financial costs but about the reaction of the Bears if their ‘club’ no longer owned the stadium and how that negative reaction might translate into a financial ‘cost’ to future income. There is no easy answer to any to this conundrum.

But McColl has made it clear that he won’t be paying-off Green or fellow spivs to walk-away with easy money from their penny shares and I believe he is totally correct in that. Dave King has made the same noises. In the longer term I think if the likes of the Easdales actually buiy Green out then Bears will eventually ‘GET IT’ that they didn’t put that money into the club – not many seem to presently understand that.

So if the McColl camp and King – who might be a member of the McColl camp – are only prepared to put money into a fresh share issue then there is the problem that it will dilute the value of shares presently held. This doesn’t affect the newcomers.

However it does affect the Institutional Investors and they become an important ‘key’. Do they put more money in and see existing share price diluted or do they take a loss from 70p a share to say 50p and get out or do they sit tight and see where things take them. But remember these Institutional Investors have clients who have purchased Rangers shares from them and a lot depends on the make-up of these clients. Are they just investors or have they other motives in keeping their identity hidden within Institutional shareholdings?

Again we haven’t a clue as to the answers and I feel speculation takes us nowhere. How do the BBC have a clue that each of the warring factions each have 30% of the shareholding. They don’t and have been told that by one of the protagonists to suit whatever agenda they have. We don’t have a clue as there haven’t been any shareholder notification filing as required by Companies House.

My understanding of AIM Rule 21 is that the documents containing the Annual Accounts for RIFC Plc must be sent to shareholders. Again my understanding is that the financial year for RIFC Plc ends on 30 June so that would mean the accounts need not be released until the end of December.

Whether the current Board could hold a general meeting by the end of September without presenting annual accounts would need to be answered by someone with more knowledge than myself. But if that did happen I reckon the Bears would go Tonto ❗

And of course I keep wondering about the Easdale announcement re the deal with Green to buy shares and think of AIM Rule 21 restricting share deals during close periods. I have undernoted the provisions of Rule 21:

‘An AIM company must ensure that its directors and applicable employees do not deal in any of its AIM securities during a close period. In addition, the purchase or early redemption by an AIM company of its AIM securities or sale of any AIM securities held as treasury shares must not be made during a close period.

‘This rule will not apply, however, where such individuals have entered into a binding commitment prior to the AIM company being in such a close period where it was not reasonably foreseeable at the time such commitment was made that a close period was likely and provided that the commitment was notified at the time it was made.

‘The Exchange may permit a director or applicable employee of an AIM company to sell its AIM securities during a close period to alleviate severe personal hardship.’

The question is has the recent Easdale announcement caused a timing problem with the general meeting or release of accounts especially when Mather told fans he would try and get these out before the end of August but now we seem to be back towards the end of September?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:29 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Doesn’t seem to have been mentioned but it looks like Pat Fenlon’s inconsistent Hibs team defeated the migthy T’Rangers 3-1 in a closed door game last night.

T’Rangers Team looks pretty strong to me.
RANGERS: Simonsen; Foster, Mohsni, Cribari (Gasparotto 70), S Smith; McKay (Crawford 63), Law, Kelly (McAusland 70), Templeton (Walsh 63); Shiels, Daly (Clark 46).

Can’t seem to find a listing for the Hibees.

Still a long way to go if they ever manage to get back into the top flight.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4973-rangers-1-3-hibernian
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/fenlon-hails-hibs-new-boys-after-rangers-victory-1-3074458

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on2:47 pm - Sep 4, 2013


wottpi says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:29 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Continuing with my combined theme of nostalgia and surrealism – why was there no space in that team for Arnold Peralta – who by all accounts (well the DR) will be the new Gatuso!!? The similarities are there. Except of course he isn’t Italian.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on3:13 pm - Sep 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:16 pm

It’s all very well McColl and his allies saying that they don’t intend to pay any of the Spivs for their penny shares, (not that they have the money anyway)
However, I suspect that TRFC “owe” RIFC somewhere north of £10 million, and I can’t see the Spivs walking away from that
To my mind, appointing the new directors to the board, is only going to add fuel to the fires burning inside Ibrox just now
The civil war is only going to get nastier and dirtier I think
================================
Edit Further thoughts

I would think the new members of the board will only be interested in TRFC
If that proves to be the case, they are going to have to come up with a significant amount of cash to repay any debt to RIFC, purchase the “club” from the spivs, and then fund it for several years
Do they have that kind of funding ?

View Comment

JLeeHookerPosted on3:24 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Drew Peacock says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:47 pm

wottpi says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:29 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Arnold Peralta missed out because he’s on international duty with Honduras”

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on3:29 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Drew Peacock says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm
7 0 Rate This

HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:08 am

Now, if the SFA board find that either Mr Murray or Mr McLelland (by their actions or inactions) were a significant factor in the former club’s “insolvency event”, it would certainly be within their power to insist that the “guilty” party be removed from the RIFC plc board.

However, a decision to use Article 10(j) against the pair without establishing culpability could be appealed and (in my opinion) would most likely be overturned.
_______________________________________________________________________

Didn’t the SFA already comment on the failure of the Directors of the Auld Deid Club to act properly and stand up to SDM?
==================================
Any criticism of the Rangers FC directors by the LNS Commission (SPL not SFA) should be part of the evidence that the SFA board would consider.

However, it is doubtful that the general criticism – which (from what I remember) bore no specific censure of the individuals in question – would be sufficient to bar them from involvement with football in Scotland.

The problem with the “fit & proper” rule – as it is written – is that its use must (quite rightly) be tempered with the knowledge that defamation can be an expensive mistake to make.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on3:32 pm - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:29 pm

You could also say, that in the eyes of the SFA, the rules are for guidance only, and then we will ignore them, and do as we please

View Comment

100BJDPosted on3:33 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Having a bit of time today I have had a bit of a look at the latest Rangers situation regarding the rumoured boardroom changes featuring Blin, Mc Clelland and Paul Murray. Regrettably these days I am more lurker than contributor although I was surprised that a small cap AIM company needed so many non executives, always presuming they are non executives. Their salaries will cost nearly as much as the EGM costs wich Mather had plenty of energy about. I also noticed that Mc Clelland and Murray shared a directorship and shareholding in a company called Vicast. This company was interesting to me earlier in the year because of the numbers of ex Rangers management involved with it, including Martin Bain. I have reposted my thoughts on this company in May this year–:

1. 100bjd
May 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm
A bit off topic……Just checked out a company called Vicast for parmahamster. Interesting as it contains some serious ex Rangers directors notably Bain, Mc Clellan and Paul Murray. Professionally I was most interested in RES11 11/02/2013 DISAPPLICATION OF PRE-EMPTION RIGHTS. This is one of the neccessary steps to turn this company into a funded SPV (Special purpose vehicle)……….just like Sevco 5088! Presumably theyare trying to sell shares in the SPV to fund a tilt at Rangers. Maybe The Blue Knights ride again!
What do you make of this?

This was a speculative post back in May because I was specifically drawn to RES11 as this is a pretty normal way to create your fund raising vehicle. They even used an off the shelf company Lemac no 6 in the same way as Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland dependant on who you believe. Nothing incredibly sinister here although I think Rangers are burning cash seriously and will need to raise more soon. A funded Vicast could be a solution, through another share issue although existing shareholders would/could be seriously. diluted.
I just wonder why this enlarged board group is happening? Again as in May……any thoughts?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:42 pm - Sep 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:13 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:16 pm

It’s all very well McColl and his allies saying that they don’t intend to pay any of the Spivs for their penny shares, (not that they have the money anyway) However, I suspect that TRFC “owe” RIFC somewhere north of £10 million, and I can’t see the Spivs walking away from that.

To my mind, appointing the new directors to the board, is only going to add fuel to the fires burning inside Ibrox just now. The civil war is only going to get nastier and dirtier I think.
=====================================================================
I tend to think that it suits all sides perhaps to delay things with McColl’s camp hoping that the spivs want to get out before a financial collapse. But perhaps the spivs thing that collapse isn’t on the immediate horizon so they might think they have time to play with to try and up the ante in terms of pay-off. We just don’t know so it’s all guesswork.

Even Ahmad’s crazy compensation claim could be part of the ploy to squeeze a bit extra buy-off from the McColl camp to get a guarantee to drop the threat or it might be designed just to stall them a bit.

As to how much money the McColl camp have well even if they don’t have a penny I think they have the ability to persuade investors to put money in – whether that will actually happen who knows?

Even if the McColl camp bought the spiv shares then any debts owed by TRFCL to RIFC Plc would still remain. I also wonder about that ‘debt’ as I reckon TRFCL between the ST and matchday income must be near enough equalling what was raised from the IPO.

But at the moment the proposals for the Board seem to have been initiated from McMurdo and tbh I’ll believe it when I see it because, as you say, it will do nothing to calm the troubled waters engulfing Ibrox and may indeed create more fury after an initial phoney ‘peace’ to sell the fans shirts or a ‘membership’ subscription although I doubt if this time it will be name plaques on seats.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:49 pm - Sep 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Edit Further thoughts

I would think the new members of the board will only be interested in TRFC If that proves to be the case, they are going to have to come up with a significant amount of cash to repay any debt to RIFC, purchase the “club” from the spivs, and then fund it for several years. Do they have that kind of funding ?
——————————————————————————-
Have a look at 100BJD says: September 4, 2013 at 3:33 pm which raises interesting issues. Also did CF not mention the Murray Camp links obliquely the other day?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on4:00 pm - Sep 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:13 pm

However, I suspect that TRFC “owe” RIFC somewhere north of £10 million, and I can’t see the Spivs walking away from that
======================================
Assume that some or all of the Sevco Scotland set-up costs (said to be £10m) PLUS all of the IPO income raised by RIFC plc has been spent by or on behalf of TRFC Ltd and the intercompany debt is likely to be around £25m – it could easily be in excess of £30m.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on4:00 pm - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:29 pm
_________________________________________________________

As well as being mentioned in the LNS whitewash didn’t the failure of the Directors also get a mention in the SFA report that looked at Whyte bringing the game in to disrepute?

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on4:07 pm - Sep 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 3;42 & 3:49 pm

A question I have never seen answered, is who collects the ST and match day income
Is it TRFC or RIFC, bearing in mind RIFC made great play on having the ST money in the bank so to speak
100BJD does indeed raise some interesting points particularly regarding Vicast, who do seem to be an SPV of some sort

In my opinion RIFC set up the company structure to make it easy to offload TRFC for as much cash as they could screw out of the Rangers men
Could be wrong, but I am suspicious by nature 😀

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on4:10 pm - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:00 pm

I was being ultra conservative with that number, looking only at running costs
It TRFC has been saddled with all of the other costs, it could most certainly be in the region of £25 – £30 million

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:14 pm - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:00 pm
campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:13 pm

However, I suspect that TRFC “owe” RIFC somewhere north of £10 million, and I can’t see the Spivs walking away from that
======================================
Assume that some or all of the Sevco Scotland set-up costs (said to be £10m) PLUS all of the IPO income raised by RIFC plc has been spent by or on behalf of TRFC Ltd and the intercompany debt is likely to be around £25m – it could easily be in excess of £30m.
=============================================================
Would that figure not show in the 7 months RIFC Plc accounts presented to 31 December 2012? And what about the property revaluation which took place as the property is said to be in the name of TRFCL apparently. I don’t think this issue is a simplistic one and, indeed, will be designed to be very complex.

Possibly McColl’s plan is to sit back and let it all collapse – the ground at Ibrox has a resale value but that would be comparatively low unless it is used to operate a football club.

If the spivs collapse or are forced-out then do SPIVS Mark ii move in or is McColl the last man standing. I don’t know and tbh I reckon only the current crop of spivs have an end-game pre-planned but that might not be achievable.

And perhaps the Bears can’t be taken again – who knows? I would hope that some of them have learnt lessons but there aren’t many signs of that going from their online comments.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:16 pm - Sep 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:10 pm
HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:00 pm

I was being ultra conservative with that number, looking only at running costs. It TRFC has been saddled with all of the other costs, it could most certainly be in the region of £25 – £30 million.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Any chance of a breakdown for the £25-£30 million?

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on4:17 pm - Sep 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:14 pm

If there is an insolvency event, it will almost certainly not be RIFC who suffer it
They are the ones with the cash, or what remains of it, and will probably be the only creditor of TRFC
The corporate structure was designed for just such a scenario

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on4:24 pm - Sep 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Going from memory, and a bit of extrapolation

12 months loss @ £1 million per month
Green said that they had raised in total £35 million from investors, which means he “borrowed” an additional £13 million which I suspect went to fund the asset purchase, and initial running costs
This I suspect would be short term and would need to be repaid
Add in all of the other hiden costs and the figure of £25 – 30 million is feasible

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:26 pm - Sep 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:07 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 3;42 & 3:49 pm

A question I have never seen answered, is who collects the ST and match day income Is it TRFC or RIFC, bearing in mind RIFC made great play on having the ST money in the bank so to speak
100BJD does indeed raise some interesting points particularly regarding Vicast, who do seem to be an SPV of some sort

In my opinion RIFC set up the company structure to make it easy to offload TRFC for as much cash as they could screw out of the Rangers men. Could be wrong, but I am suspicious by nature 😀
===========================================================================
As the TRFCL accounts have been consolidated into the RIFC Plc accounts then I believe that TRFCL collects all income whether from matchday, advertising, sponsorship or shirt sales. What arrangements exists after that I don’t think anyone knows outside a few people at the core.

The only money I know that RIFC Plc have raised is the flotation cash which was raised 100% on the back of Rangers the club. If RIFC Plc sell the club and/or TRFCL then the public company ends-up as a tiny property company if it rents out the properties and the share price would collapse.

So that’s why I say this is all more complex than it appears – there is complex extricating to be done here to maximise the spiv money and IMO we ain’t seen nothing yet 🙄

View Comment

arabest1Posted on4:31 pm - Sep 4, 2013


andypandimonium says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm
9 0 Rate This

Good to hear that Mr Lunny is alive and at least has a pulse. He has today charged daft Gavin Gunning with the heinous crime of aiming a petulant wee kick at a Celtic player on Saturday. An advocate of the devil may be minded to observe that a 3 match ban for such an offence is a tad draconian when so many on field assaults are allowed to go unpunished or by the brandishing of yellow; but if Mr Lunny is about to bring the same level of scrutiny and punishment to the rest of the contents of his inbox, the Govan gangsters should be in for some interesting reading in the days and weeks ahead.

Or maybe it is all the doing of that awful Mr Lawwell!
————————————————————————————————————————————-

….but Andy, there will be no hiding place for ‘fly wee kickers’ when the ‘day of reckoning’ arrives! 😯

Re Gunning I have little sympathy for him in this instance, he really should know better with his experience. The point you make is a good one though Andy, so far this season I have watched as EVERY team I’ve seen set out to clatter Gary McKay-Stevens (I lost count on Saturday, 6? maybe more?), St Johnstone much the same the previous week, and a Caley midfielder could have ended his season/career in the 2nd game with one particularly despicable challenge……among many over 90 minutes. Should this not be an issue for video evidence? I mean one player being targeted week in week out because he has exceptional skills? I watch a lot of football, and over the years what constitutes an illegal challenge has become ever ‘lighter’…..I assume to protect the ball players, unless its in Scotland. High time we caught up with the rest and cherished our skillful footballers rather than boot them all over the pitch, our naivety when facing cute/streetwise international opposition or the faux-machismo demanded from the stands does us no favours in the long run.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on4:35 pm - Sep 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:26 pm

Just as in the old RTC days, we are on the outside looking in, trying to make sense of what is going on
Whilst RIFC could end up a property company, with a very low share value, they will have made their money
Don’t forget, those who bought penny shares will still make a killing even at 5p

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on4:47 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Further to discussions re which oldco directors may, or may not be barred from being directors of newco……

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/how-section-216-of-the-insolvency-act-could-prevent-the-return-of-dave-king-to-rangers/

CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 6h
Same theme. Here are two BBC Paul Murray stories, one from last night,the other last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23953675 … and http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17348313

Eeramacaroonbar ‏@Eeramacaroonbar 6h
@CelticResearch that’s the loophole right there – Murray had already left before they went bust

CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 6h
@Eeramacaroonbar There is no loophole though. Rules/guidelines are clear. 5 year period in which the company suffered an insolvency event.

Ferric ‏@FerricBhoy 3h
@RhebelRhebel @ScottishFA The insolvency service is quite clear on this pic.twitter.com/uE8hkHbi2B

View Comment

TallBoy PoppyPosted on4:50 pm - Sep 4, 2013


100BJD says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:33 pm
——————————————–
Vicast? If I remember correctly there is another interesting name on the former Director’s list – Peter Watson. Another one for the “small world” file.

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on5:12 pm - Sep 4, 2013


arabest1 says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:31 pm

….but Andy, there will be no hiding place for ‘fly wee kickers’ when the ‘day of reckoning’ arrives!
Re Gunning I have little sympathy for him in this instance, he really should know better with his experience. The point you make is a good one though Andy, so far this season I have watched as EVERY team I’ve seen set out to clatter Gary McKay-Stevens (I lost count on Saturday, 6? maybe more?), St Johnstone much the same the previous week, and a Caley midfielder could have ended his season/career in the 2nd game with one particularly despicable challenge……among many over 90 minutes. Should this not be an issue for video evidence? I mean one player being targeted week in week out because he has exceptional skills? I watch a lot of football, and over the years what constitutes an illegal challenge has become ever ‘lighter’…..I assume to protect the ball players, unless its in Scotland. High time we caught up with the rest and cherished our skillful footballers rather than boot them all over the pitch, our naivety when facing cute/streetwise international opposition or the faux-machismo demanded from the stands does us no favours in the long run.
++++

Re Gunning/Lunny/Mackay-Steven

Gunning appears to be a silly big laddie, but I doubt the Celtic player, van Dijk, even noticed what happened: in fact, van Dijk took a lesser flick out to Gunning which connected, which perhaps led to Gunning’s more obvious fresh air kick. Nonetheless, Gunning was the player highlighted on STV’s ‘The Big Call’ http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/238188-the-big-call-why-gunning-should-have-seen-red-for-kicking-van-dijk/

I have huge sympathy with arabest1’s view: Lunny maybe should be concentrating on players being kicked out of games rather than petty stuff which has been highlighted by Andy Coyle and Grant Russell, whoever they are.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on5:29 pm - Sep 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:32 pm
3 0 Rate This

HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:29 pm

You could also say, that in the eyes of the SFA, the rules are for guidance only, and then we will ignore them, and do as we please
===============================================
Some Articles are prescriptive, some will purposely only provide guidance. Article 10 is intended to give general guidance on what types of issues (illustrative not exhaustive) should be considered when assessing whether someone is “fit & proper”.

I think the board will (as the Articles say they must) consider the issue. However, Article 10 leaves it entirely up to the board to decide, on the particular circumstances of each case.

I think what I am really saying is that if it was up to me, (on the facts as I know them) I would not risk potentially costly litigation by declaring the individuals were not “fit & proper” on the simple premise that they were on the Rangers board in the 5 years preceding its demise.

If it can be shown that they have substantially contributed to the old club’s insolvency then they would not pass the “fit & proper” test. Personally, I just don’t think they have anything to worry about – on that score at least!

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on5:31 pm - Sep 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:16 pm
2 0 Rate This

campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:10 pm
HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:00 pm

I was being ultra conservative with that number, looking only at running costs. It TRFC has been saddled with all of the other costs, it could most certainly be in the region of £25 – £30 million.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Any chance of a breakdown for the £25-£30 million?
===================================================================
I had a very, very quick look at the management accounts (dated Dec 2012) before they disappeared. I’m pretty sure I saw what I thought was an intercompany debt of £7m listed (I assume this was loans raised for the Sevco Scotland fundraising; but I could be wrong). There was also another couple of items that I was reasonably suspicious about.

At the time RIFC were holding approx £20m from the IPO and we expect that they received (net) around £6.5m in ST money plus £1.5m retail advance and other bits and pieces that might add up to £2m or so.

If (a month ago) they were down to their last £10m, it means that the IPO money has all but been spent and they are now down to spending money that has come in via STs, matchday sales & commercial contracts.

So it seems reasonably certain that TRFC owe RIFC:
£18m – £20m from the IPO cash
£7m(?) for Sevco Scotland fundraising

Does anyone have a copy of the management accounts?

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on5:49 pm - Sep 4, 2013


Where’s Mark Dickson?

In a lengthy speech, Dyke laid out his vision to address what he called the “frightening trend” of the reduction in the number of English players in the Premier League.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23963416

PS I might be wrong but I thought I heard one of the Sky Sports News presenters (female, brunette, sitting beside “why are you so good?”) say that one English player who won’t be in the Premiership this season is Gareth Bale. Please tell me that I misheard.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on5:52 pm - Sep 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm
0 0 Rate This

ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:16 pm
2 0 Rate This

campsiejoe says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:10 pm
HirsutePursuit says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:00 pm

I was being ultra conservative with that number, looking only at running costs. It TRFC has been saddled with all of the other costs, it could most certainly be in the region of £25 – £30 million.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Any chance of a breakdown for the £25-£30 million?
===================================================================
I had a very, very quick look at the management accounts (dated Dec 2012) before they disappeared. I’m pretty sure I saw what I thought was an intercompany debt of £7m listed (I assume this was loans raised for the Sevco Scotland fundraising; but I could be wrong). There was also another couple of items that I was reasonably suspicious about.

At the time RIFC were holding approx £20m from the IPO and we expect that they received (net) around £6.5m in ST money plus £1.5m retail advance and other bits and pieces that might add up to £2m or so.

If (a month ago) they were down to their last £10m, it means that the IPO money has all but been spent and they are now down to spending money that has come in via STs, matchday sales & commercial contracts.

So it seems reasonably certain that TRFC owe RIFC:
£18m – £20m from the IPO cash
£7m(?) for Sevco Scotland fundraising

Does anyone have a copy of the management accounts?

——————————————-

Imran’s maw ?

View Comment

Comments are closed.