The outbreak of internecine warfare at RIFC is being acted out through a real pea-soup fog right now. The war is being fought on so many fronts that it is difficult to see just exactly how many armies are involved, and how the alliances are shaping up.
Craig Mather would appear to be in the Charles Green camp, but it is difficult to imagine that he would be happy to hear old blunderbuss-mouth peppering Ally McCoist with shot. McCoist’s in-character but inelegant riposte, whilst a valiant attempt at deflection and self-preservation, put his mentor and chairman, Walter Smith in a rather awkward position. It gives Mather a double headache as he tries to head off Clyde Blowers boss Jim McColl – and his blowhard ally Paul Murray – at the EGM-pass.
If Mather stands by Green, and Smith does the same for McCoist, then the two main officers of the company will be in opposite, and hostile, camps.
As I say, making sense of it is difficult, but one thing is as clear as an empty window frame: the acrimony, which has been in existence for months, is only now being aired in public because the season ticket drive is over. The one policy that the warring factions have been in agreement with is “Not in Front of the Children”.
Now that the fans have been compelled to buy season tickets in substantial numbers through a mixture of fear, loyalty and a never-ending stream of press spin telling them that “Rangers are on the cusp of greatness if only the supporters cough up”, it seems acceptable that the real war can begin – but what is the prize?
There can be little doubt that all of the factions are aware that a conservative business model is necessary if Rangers are to establish themselves in Scottish football – certainly a more conservative one than that followed by RFC (IL). I infer therefore that the war is not over a Murray vs McCann approach. My best guess is that the war is one of ideals – between one faction which aims to make as much money in the short term as possible, and another which, whilst not averse to a bit of nest-feathering, sees the health of the club and the notion of a continuity Rangers as paramount.
The trouble for Rangers fans is that it is the former faction which holds all the cards – all the shares in fact. I think that all fans of the game of football would hope that people with football at heart would win out here, irrespective of what their partisan loyalties dictate on a day to day basis.
The problem for either warring faction is that the loyalty of the Rangers fans is finite. The “long road (back)” to the top is one which might engage them for while. It is a great journey which is not without its rewards and adventure, but expectations will be massive if and when they get to the top league. When the acceleration of progress meets the buffers of premier championship aspiration, gate money will be in the front passenger seat. Managing unrealistic expectations is extremely difficult, and evidenced by the use of McCoist’s recruitment sledgehammer to crack the nut of the bottom two divisions.
But here are some questions to which I honestly do not know the answer;
- How does the Rangersness faction wrest control away from these spivs?
- How will the spivs attempt to ensure that the Rangersness faction fails in their objective?
- Can the people in the Rangersness camp REALLY be trusted to act in the best interests of the club even if it is at odds with their own? This, given the close association with the terminal decline of the club they all profess to love.
- Is there any realistic scenario which allows this club to prosper and challenge for honours within a ten to fifteen year period?
My belief is that the key to the new club being able to establish itself is managing the expectations of the fans. Despite the MSM willingness to cut and paste RFC and RIFC press releases unadulterated, the ability of that same MSM to impress a message of realism into Rangers fans is zero. Not in front of the children in fact.
Is it really a sociological bridge too far to expect Rangers fans to turn down the expectation-ometer? I don’t believe it is. In the eighties, if I recall correctly, a seriously underachieving Rangers team were not met with demands for big spending. There was pressure on them to get better managers who could pick better players, but no demands for Fort Knox to be breached. If Rangers fans really want a club called Rangers playing in blue at Ibrox, and competing fully in the game, they need to find leaders who can sell the long-termism of such an aspiration. Many will hope, including the spivs and the MSM, that no such leader emerges.
fergussingstheblues:
As I said in my earlier post mate, I think we’re past the point where asking them to wake up will help. Let’s face it, we’ve been trying to get them to pay attention for the last two years, and in my view the Doomsday Clock started ticking the moment the season ticket money was in. That was their last chance to influence events, and now, as I said in my OFOG article, we’re waiting for the boom.
James Forrest says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:16 am
fergussingstheblues:
As I said in my earlier post mate, I think we’re past the point where asking them to wake up will help. Let’s face it, we’ve been trying to get them to pay attention for the last two years, and in my view the Doomsday Clock started ticking the moment the season ticket money was in. That was their last chance to influence events, and now, as I said in my OFOG article, we’re waiting for the boom now.
======================================================
I agree James, I think the Turkey’s have already voted for Xmas !
Quite a coincidence that Chas came back after 34,000 ST’s had been sold !
fergussingstheblues says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:02 am
“The only reason I ask is because it just occurred to me that there must be RFC Supporters out there asking the same questions ? Only trouble is, I can’t find them anywhere !”
————————–
My old Maw used to use a phrase “What you don’t know can’t harm you”. It was utterly misplaced. It came from the same stable as “Ignorance is bliss”. These phrases only become operative when impending disaster is unavoidable. Maybe in their hearts they know they’re sunk. No doubt whispers get around the terracing. Its a poker face put on to give the impression to the other players that you are holding a good hand. Credibility is now stretched to the point of absurdity.
The news blackout was the initial strategy. Perhaps now we’re in a phase where some information will be published to take the comedy out of the situation in the hope that a few scraps will satisfy the greedy bloggers. Their problem is now however that there are potentially thousands of people taking a keen interest in this farce. In fact it is possibly the best entertainment an inquiring mind could hope for. Each twist rather than throwing people off the scent just provides even more fascinating detail. I don’t know about anyone else but this is the best movie I’ve seen for ages and I aint leaving my seat even if my popcorn runs out.
An unnamed overseas investor speaks:
“I have never been involved with a company when somebody brings it onto the market and in six months you replace the stock-broker. You have to ask the question why.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-rangers-company-has-been-disaster-from-day-one.21878624
From The Herald
Cloud hangs over former Celtic coach
Alan Campbell
Saturday 10 August 2013
THE former head coach of the Celtic women’s team, Peter Caulfield, is likely to be issued with a notice of complaint by Vincent Lunny, the Scottish Football Association’s compliance officer, if he returns to football.
Caulfield resigned suddenly from his post at the end of last month, with Celtic claiming it was for work and family reasons. But it emerged after a Scottish Women’s Football disciplinary meeting on Thursday that the club held him responsible for an attempt to cup-tie their former player Emily Thomson.
The 19-year-old Scotland midfielder left Celtic for Glasgow City in May, but Celtic held on to her registration for a further 28 days. There is dispute as to whether the four-week period had run out when Celtic travelled to Forfar Farmington for a Scottish Cup second round match on June 23, when Caulfield listed her as a substitute even though it was known that she was training with Glasgow City and was going to sign for them the following day.
Forfar complained and, if found guilty of listing an ineligible player, Celtic, who won 5-2, could be eliminated from the Cup in controversial circumstances for a second successive year.
As Caulfield is no longer at the club, the SWA disciplinary committee concluded that Celtic had not been in breach of the rules, yet cleared Thomson to play for her new club in the Scottish Cup. “We are delighted that Emily will not be cup-tied,” said Laura Montgomery, City’s general manager. “Thankfully, commonsense has prevailed and Emily can concentrate on playing for Glasgow City.”
While the disciplinary meeting was going on, Thomson was celebrating with her new team-mates after the 7-0 Champions League qualifying group win over Osijek of Croatia.
Her fellow Scotland midfielder Jo Love stole the show, scoring three goals in 15 first-half minutes before being rested at half-time. “It was obviously great to score a hat-trick in Europe but the result was the most important thing,” she said.
Mr Lunny wake up there’s a squirrel!
ecobhoy says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:34 pm
10 4 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 5m
Share Highlights Pre IPO. McCoist 1m at 1p each. Hughes 2.2m at 1p each, Ahmad 2.2m at 1p each. Green 5 million at 1p each
—————————————————————–
That’s very stale news indeed and I begin to wonder whether CF has run out of interesting material or whether a decision has been taken not to release anything further for whatever reason. Time will tell.
———-
That last tweeted doc was news to me ecobhoy. Not that I am expert on every detail. But was it already common knowledge that the terms of those loans were agreed orally only? Sort of leaves the door open to any interest rate you fancy 🙂
No disrespect to women’s football,but one would think throwing incendiaries onto a football pitch would have warranted Vincent Lunny’s attention.
Cloud hangs over former Celtic coach
Alan Campbell
Saturday 10 August 2013
THE former head coach of the Celtic women’s team, Peter Caulfield, is likely to be issued with a notice of complaint by Vincent Lunny, the Scottish Football Association’s compliance officer, if he returns to football.
So that’s it. Mr Lunny is away from football!
Danish Pastry says:
August 15, 2013 at 6:50 am
Jack Irvine, Easdale family spokesman!?!?!?!?!?
helpmaboab says:
August 15, 2013 at 8:04 am
===============================
How does it get brought to Lunny’s attention, and who decides whether it is to be taken further? I suppose as long as none of them were heard swearing on TV Lunny won’t be bothered. It appears to me that even in 2013, the SFA still operate an arbitrary system when it comes to disciplinary matters.
ecobhoy says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:16 pm
That is a terrific post, ecobhoy. Detailed argument and clear-eyed rebuttal of another poster’s comments is what I would like to see more of here and elsewhere when crowd-pleasing rhetorical flourish is used to obscure a reasonable argument.
I particularly enjoyed how you illustrated where NTHM’s opinions muddied what the original post on a Rangers website actually said. It’s not OK to misrepresent the opinions of others, even if you disagree with them, and I hope your post is a salutary lesson to all.
Are people genuinely getting upset that the SFA have taken action against a coach who behaved in an apparently disgraceful way?
If all justice must be suspended until the most important injustice (in your opinion) is resolved, we are in real trouble.
This is not a defence of the SFA’s handling of any other issues. It is a defence of dealing correctly with this issue and not holding justice hostage.
upthehoops says:
August 15, 2013 at 8:13 am
helpmaboab says:
August 15, 2013 at 8:04 am
===============================
How does it get brought to Lunny’s attention, and who decides whether it is to be taken further? I suppose as long as none of them were heard swearing on TV Lunny won’t be bothered. It appears to me that even in 2013, the SFA still operate an arbitrary system when it comes to disciplinary matters.
=============================
I don’t know why you two are bringing up this old story but, as it’s told in The Herald, it looks like proper administration. Team A’s team coach listed a player who had left the club on the team lines for a cup tie against Team B, who Team A defeated. Team B know that said player has signed for Team C and brought this to the SFA’s attention. Team A and coach parted company. Team A is still in the cup. The player is available to play for new team C in the cup. SFA are to investigate the actions of former coach of Team A. Everyone says commonsense has been applied.
You infer conspiracy in relation to something completely different.
Not in the article: Team A used to dominate this league but Team C have been top dogs for a few years now and are miles ahead of the competition.
blu says:
August 15, 2013 at 8:59 am
==========================
My point is the SFA disciplinary system is arbitrary. It is – some people get charges for what others get away with. Some people can say what they like while others can’t. Some managers get done for swearing while others get away with wrecking dug outs. Some people can manhandle referees and refuse to leave the pitch after a red card and walk away from Hampden grinning with almost zero punishment. Others from the same game get six match punishments.
Clearly it all depends on who, or what you are.
Blu
You have completely missed the point.It’s not about Celtic or Glasgow City women’s football.It about why Vincent Lunney has not seen fit to take action regarding flares being thrown on to a field of play when he jumps to attention when,for example ‘a member of the public’ reports a manager for swearing,something which happens every week.Even in women’s football too I’m sure.
upthehoops says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:10 am
0 0 i
Rate This
blu says:
August 15, 2013 at 8:59 am
==========================
My point is the SFA disciplinary system is arbitrary. It is – some people get charges for what others get away with. Some people can say what they like while others can’t. Some managers get done for swearing while others get away with wrecking dug outs. Some people can manhandle referees and refuse to leave the pitch after a red card and walk away from Hampden grinning with almost zero punishment. Others from the same game get six match punishments.
Clearly it all depends on who, or what you are.
==========================================================
Sorry, I think you’ve missed the target and I don’t think that you can add the case you’ve cited to the litany of injustice that you’re looking to build. It seems the right thing has been done. You’re not suggesting the coach shouldn’t have a case to answer just because some Rangers player should’ve been sent off and banned for trying to stop a referee take a card out – years ago? That leads to tit-for-tattery and anarchy rather than equality for all.
SPFL to investigate claims of secret bonus payments to SFL chief David Longmuir
15 Aug 2013 08:08
THE former chief executive of the now-defunct Scottish Football League has been accused of receiving secret six-figure sums by angered lower league clubs.
SFL’s David Longmuir
SNS Group/Rob Casey
THE SPFL have launched an investigation into claims that secret bonus payments were made to former SFL chief David Longmuir.
Furious lower league clubs called for an enquiry into why Longmuir received almost £400,000 in financial enhancements during his six years in office at Hampden.
Accountants for the SFL, as well as former board members Ewen Cameron of Alloa and Arbroath’s Anne McKeown, are examining the detail behind the payments as part of a winding down of the old league body.
Record Sport understands the possibility of Longmuir’s payments being clawed back in court has not been ruled out if the investigation decide there is cause to question the legalities of the payments.
This process was triggered by our revelation that the merger between the SPL and SFL was delayed when it became clear Longmuir was due to receive a £100,000 bonus for last season.
When SPL representatives refused to cough up, it was agreed the payment would be met from SFL funds. That effectively ended any hopes Longmuir had of beating the SPL’s Neil Doncaster to the new chief executive role – but it’s understood he received a £200,000 severance payment.
When 37 of the 42 SPFL clubs met at Hampden on Monday it emerged that Longmuir had received roughly £400,000 in bonuses – allegedly for bringing in fresh sponsorship.
Since most of the cash received came from the SPL’s TV deal – the SFL received £1m from the top tier for rights to Rangers’ games in the Third Division – the feeling at the meeting was Longmuir had not justified his bonus.
That the only other SFL board member aware of them was James Ballantyne also provoked fury. The SPFL board will now attempt to discover whether a proper process had been followed.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/spfl-investigate-claims-secret-bonus-2169597
helpmaboab says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:13 am
Blu
You have completely missed the point.It’s not about Celtic or Glasgow City women’s football.It about why Vincent Lunney has not seen fit to take action regarding flares being thrown on to a field of play when he jumps to attention when,for example ‘a member of the public’ reports a manager for swearing,something which happens every week.Even in women’s football too I’m sure.
============================================================================
Boab, as noted above I thought the point raised was plain wrong. I do agree though that the SFA has allowed itself to get itself into a mess with the ‘members of the public’ complaints issue. It would seem to be too easily manipulated by mischief makers or fans all too ready to give abuse to players but who feign outrage and hurt at getting some stick back. I confess that I don’t know – can it be anonymous complaints?
Danish Pastry says:
August 15, 2013 at 7:59 am
“But was it already common knowledge that the terms of those loans were agreed orally only?”
———————–
I’ve seen detailed information on the shareholding but Charlotte’s latter information illustrates the considerations concerned. It suggests a range of break points where it would be advantageous for shareholders to jump ship.
McCoist, Hughes Ahmad and Green got their shares for 1p so they can hang around until the price hits near rock bottom and not be out of pocket.
Mather, Murray and Ashley paid an average of 50p so the current share price may give them cause for concern.
Hart paid an average of around 80p.
These were the values prior to the IPO after which these shares were converted to equivalent holdings in the new publicly listed company. I’ve had a look at the AIM prospectus and the share numbers don’t immediately tie up so I’ll work on the assumption that pre and post IPO numbers were roughly equivalent to avoid getting bogged down in numbing detail.
So I’d say the price paid by individual investors is an indication of when they might get (have got) the jitters.
As you say the Laxey deal is vague. Others may well have always appreciated the following observation but I was under the impression that Laxey were buying circa 3/4 million of Green’s shares but this document indicates that they are owed them.
Castofthousands says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:43 am
“Mather, Murray and Ashley paid an average of 50p so the current share price may give them cause for concern.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
It depends on their circumstances. A capital loss on the sale of the shares can be used to reduce capital gains tax on other share deals.
helpmaboab says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:13 am
“when he jumps to attention when,for example ‘a member of the public’ reports a manager for swearing”
————————-
The absurdity of this ruling grows, not diminishes, with every passing day. The phrase ‘hide in plain sight’ has been used previously and this is an example. On the surface a manager using offensive language might be a disciplinary matter depending on context. In the context of a dugout during a fiercely competitive football game it is clearly misplaced.
It is a measure of how conditioned we have all become to accept such nonsense. All and sundry muttered at the time that the charge was preposterous but no-one significant raised their voices. We have grown acclimatised to blatant bias to the point where it is normality. We have seen that such bias in the end results in catastrophe. It needs to be rooted out.
Danish Pastry says:
August 15, 2013 at 7:59 am
That last tweeted doc was news to me ecobhoy. Not that I am expert on every detail. But was it already common knowledge that the terms of those loans were agreed orally only? Sort of leaves the door open to any interest rate you fancy 🙂
============================================================
Well it is spivs we are talking about so where they can have the wiggle room of non documented deals they will have when it suits. Obviously some will be well and legally documented when it also suits.
However the agreement re Ahmad’s commission has been publicly known since the AIM Flotation document was issued in Nov/Dec last year.
2.5 Key Employees (a) Imran Ahmad
‘Under an employment agreement dated 7 December 2012 (but effective as at 1 June 2012) RFCL shall employ Imran Ahmad as Commercial Director of RFCL with a salary of £350,000 per annum plus all reasonable expenses properly incurred plus a bonus to be approved by the Chairman or Chief Executive based on commercial contracts negotiated by Mr Ahmad. The agreement is terminable by RFCL for cause or on 12 months’ notice and by Mr Ahmad on 3 months’ notice.’
A number of issues arise out of the wording and firstly it was public knowledge and therefore the directors can’t claim ignorance so the likes of Smith and Murray were, or should have been, well aware of the agreement.
The agreement of course is with his employer TRFCL and not RIFC Plc via the Chair or CEO of the company and of course I think most of us think that TRFCL hasn’t a bean so how does Ahmad ever get paid even if he was successful in court.
The bonus (commission) is only on ‘commercial contracts’ and is also terminable by TRFCL which, of course, has already been done 😀
Blu
Clearly there are more than ‘us two’ unhappy at Mister Lunny’s inconsintent performance. If the Celtic coach has broken the rules then it should be dealt with. As I say it’s about consistency.Or lack of it.
Incidentally,I have watched both women’s teams and very good they are too.Good luck to them.
Boab, the relevant clause in the SFA’s disciplinary rules below. In its wording it’s a fair effort to cover all eventualities but its application is clearly open to the kind of interpretation applied by you and others.
“Where alleged Misconduct by a member of Team Staff or official is not reported by a match official, but the alleged Misconduct is brought to the attention of the Compliance Officer by whatever means, and he is satisfied that, if established, it would amount to Misconduct, he may issue a Notice of Complaint to that person. The complaint shall be dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal under the Judicial Panel Protocol, except as where otherwise provided in these Disciplinary Procedures.”
PS. I haven’t seen much of Glasgow City but the Celtic Girls Academy is extremely well run, great football ethos and focus on personal development of players as individuals as well as footballers.
Davie B says:
August 14, 2013 at 10:55 pm
10 1 Rate This
East Dunbartonshire to buy Murray Park, sell existing Allander site for house building, West sell their ground for housebuilding – funding in place for new facility, everybody happy.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
An interesting view. Couple of points to be made. EDC dont have the money to re-build Allander, hence why they want Cala to fund it in return for planning permission on the rugby ground. Cala are unhappy as a supermarket trumped their offer for part of the land at the rugby club, thus reducing their likely profit and so in turn reduced their offer to EDC re the Allander. EDC said that revised offer was unacceptable. Stalemate.
In short EDC don’t have the cash to buy MP let alone re-develop it. This has been going on for nearly 7 years and not a brick has been laid. Somebody commented on this yesterday describing this WoS/MP sale/leaseback as taxi driver talk.
On the reliable info available I agree with that sentiment.
Been watching rather than contributing for a while there, but one thing has puzzled me and continues to do so (reinforced by one of CF’s tweets yesterday).
Why did the spivs give McCoist the opportunity to get a huge amount of shares at the 1p price, rather than 50p, 80p or 99p?
Is he a spiv as well? 😮 😯
Sugar Daddy says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:07 am
Davie B says:
August 14, 2013 at 10:55 pm
10 1 Rate This
East Dunbartonshire to buy Murray Park, sell existing Allander site for house building, West sell their ground for housebuilding – funding in place for new facility, everybody happy.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
An interesting view. Couple of points to be made. EDC dont have the money to re-build Allander, hence why they want Cala to fund it in return for planning permission on the rugby ground. Cala are unhappy as a supermarket trumped their offer for part of the land at the rugby club, thus reducing their likely profit and so in turn reduced their offer to EDC re the Allander. EDC said that revised offer was unacceptable. Stalemate.
In short EDC don’t have the cash to buy MP let alone re-develop it. This has been going on for nearly 7 years and not a brick has been laid. Somebody commented on this yesterday describing this WoS/MP sale/leaseback as taxi driver talk.
On the reliable info available I agree with that sentiment.
=================================================================================Does this help?.
Harry Brady @HarryBradyCU 16m
Interesting the things you get to read on t’internet. http://ow.ly/219DdZ and http://ow.ly/219DiX . Found by the busy Neil McCallum.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 4m
@Richwilsport Richard, Do you want to do a follow up on this story? He reclaimed his last ‘pay’ cut. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-unravelling-of-rangers.21842437 …
Quid Pro Quo: they gave him the penny shares and he delivered the season tickets.
helpmaboab says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:47 am
6 0 Rate This
Blu
Clearly there are more than ‘us two’ unhappy at Mister Lunny’s inconsintent performance. If the Celtic coach has broken the rules then it should be dealt with. As I say it’s about consistency.Or lack of it.
Incidentally,I have watched both women’s teams and very good they are too.Good luck to them.
=============================================================
For clarification purposes I too have no issue with anyone from Celtic getting punished by the SFA, but I do have an issue with others who get away with similar or worse offences. Terry Butcher for example has been guilty of some incredible statements in radio interviews regarding referees, including one where he said he wouldn’t want a glass of wine because he might smash the bottle over the referee’s head – no action by the SFA. Again Butcher, this time along with Derek Adams was involved in an aggressive touchline incident requiring others to separate the pair – no action by the SFA. The bottom line is Neil Lennon is subject to a different set of disciplinary rules than other managers. Not on paper of course, but the evidence is there for all to see.
In other walks of life there would be a regulatory authority that these imbalances could be highlighted to, and the regulatory authority would have the power to take action. We need regulators to stop organisations behaving inappropriately. Some regulators could probably be more effective, but that’s another argument. The SFA on the other hand are answerable to no-one except themselves, which allows them to do anything they please, and sometimes they do. Their rules don’t even allow clubs to seek legal redress, except one club of course, which did not have the rules applied to it by the SFA when it did just that.
borussiabeefburg says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:13 am
14. y4rmy says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:21 am
A better question is where does Mr McCoist stand with respect to the motion before the EGM?
keep up the good work people, I see rangers are still on track for their appointment in Samerkand…..
Castofthousands says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:43 am
Mather, Murray and Ashley paid an average of 50p so the current share price may give them cause for concern. Hart paid an average of around 80p.
===========================================================
I would be interesting in knowing how firmly based your observations on share price are especially wrt to Hart. Cheers!
y4rmy says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:21 am
Quid Pro Quo: they gave him (McCoist) the penny shares and he delivered the season tickets.
=========================================================
Just like Walter delivered them this year for the Chairmanship 😉
SPECULATION !! …
Developing an idea on who gets voting precedence on a CVA if there is admin…
The vote on acceptance of a pence in pound settlement via CVA during admin is based on the value of unsecured debt.
So a coalition of spivs working together (a spivalition?) looking to stiff creditors could arrange to get spurious debt or debts recognised for the purposes of CVA voting rights – with a view to approving a very low pence in pound settlement – thus stiffing real creditors for a sum of money. Who knows – maybe HMRC?
[I dont know what the collective noun for ‘Spivs’ would be but, looking to the animal kingdom for inspiration/analogy, could a shoal of sharks, a hoggery of pigs or a knot of snakes be appropriate?]
As I understand admin, the folk running the company (the board) take no further part and the administrators make the decisions with a view to keeping the company a ‘going concern. So when a CVA vote comes along – to keep the company a going concern – the voting rights by share portion is unimportant … whats important is who is owed what and how much.
The IA claim of £3.4m is in public, but what other debts are kicking about?
CG’s consultancy fees? – for how long a contract? (is the EGM due to make him a substantial unsecured creditor?)
The 5 yr contract with the new PR company?
What else is there that we cant see … any other valuable long term contracts?
If there is any unpaid tax, were there to be administration (I have no idea whether there is or not, I am just thinking out loud), and it amounts to less than 25% of all designated unsecured debt, then the taxman could in theory find himself stiffed for a substantial sum.
y4rmy says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:21 am
borussiabeefburg says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:13 am
Been watching rather than contributing for a while there, but one thing has puzzled me and continues to do so (reinforced by one of CF’s tweets yesterday).
Why did the spivs give McCoist the opportunity to get a huge amount of shares at the 1p price, rather than 50p, 80p or 99p?
Is he a spiv as well?
Quid Pro Quo: they gave him the penny shares and he delivered the season tickets.
=========================================
“…in a heartbeat…”
Scottish football needs more of last night’s attitude and less blazers.
upthehoops says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:28 am
helpmaboab says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:47 am
6 0 Rate This
Blu
================================
upthehoops – let’s assume for the moment that you’re right and there is systemic football authority discrimination in favour of one club, let’s call it Rangers. Let’s also assume that your right again and there’s systemic discrimation against another cub, let’s call it Celtic. What I’m saying is that citing examples of where the rules appear to be properly applied as discriminatory doesn’t support the assertion that there is discrimination.
You moved the discussion on a bit and my opinion would be that a manager smashing a dugout panel would merit an issue of complaint by the SFA’s Compliance Officer just as much as a manager whose swearing at a player is picked up by a pitchside microphone. Two managers aggressively facing up pitchside in Dingwall or Inverness merit intervention by the Compliance Officer just as two managers facing each other up aggressively in Glasgow do.
There is apparent inconsistency in the application of disciplanry procedures by the SFA but some people “knowing” that it’s engineered to favour one club isn’t enough, we could do with some hard evidence that it is abuse of process rather than being simple incompetence. There is an alternative way for individual managers who feel they’ve been wrongly treated, they can follow the Craig Levein route and refuse to pay fines, even as the automatic multiplier kicks in, and offer to meet the authorities in court. Pity the same authorities let Craig loose on the Scotland team though. Maybe he exacted revenge in his time as manager?
IIRC, at a time when it seems everybody was forking out to keep the lights on there was speculation that McCoist could have got the shares at 1p in lieu of wages or part of his £750k deal.
Carl31 says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
An interesting piece of speculation.
I refer you to my post from yesterday evening regarding how Dundee FC managed to achieve a CVA as a result of projected future rental income for Dens Park owed to the owner.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/2013/08/not-in-front-of-the-children/comment-page-34/#comment-60294
My posts are, sadly, struggling to evade the premoderation of TSFM so I can quite understand how you may have missed that post, and indeed this one!
19. Carl31 says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
======================================
Carl, if admin is the route for RIFC there is recent history in Scottish football of debt being managed to enable ‘onside’ creditiors to outweigh HMRC and straightforward business creditors when it comes to CVA time. I think that both Dunfermline, with the Masterton signing over of the club’s debt to his company, and Dundee, maybe with their stadium arrangements, doing something similar. Company law seems to make it pretty easy to stiff the little guy, so it’s probably safe to assume that the penny shareholders at Edmiston Drive, Monaco and somewhere in France will be considering all options to screw the best deal for themselves.
Jack Irvine and his cohorts at Media House have severed their contracts with First and Second Rangers.
They have thrown their hat in the ring with the Easdales as they go about hoovering up shares.
How much of the current Rangers can theEasdales afford to buy?
Irvine will have TONS of dirt to shovel on whoever lines up against the Easdales.
Who are in the Easdale camp on the current crop of Rangers Board members? When shall we see the poison pen being worked………….and on whom?
blu says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:20 pm
19. Carl31 says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
======================================
Carl, if admin is the route for RIFC there is recent history in Scottish football of debt being managed to enable ‘onside’ creditiors to outweigh HMRC and straightforward business creditors when it comes to CVA time. I think that both Dunfermline, with the Masterton signing over of the club’s debt to his company, and Dundee, maybe with their stadium arrangements, doing something similar. Company law seems to make it pretty easy to stiff the little guy, so it’s probably safe to assume that the penny shareholders at Edmiston Drive, Monaco and somewhere in France will be considering all options to screw the best deal for themselves.
============================================================
I think this is why Green,Mather and Stockbridge were/are in London.The spivs consortium,sorry,institutional investors will be planning their next moves.They already know if they have enough support to defeat any challenge at an EGM and they’ve already decided what happens at next weeks board meeting wrt Green.It’s all about them.
From CQN:
Sale and leaseback, Ibrox, Murray Park, Albion
15th August 2013
You’ll remember in October last year I told you I was in receipt of a Heads of Terms for the sale and leaseback of Ibrox, Murray Park and the Albion Car Park. The internet has been full of chatter around this subject for the last week but I didn’t have an update on the subject until last night.
At the time I said the deal would not be signed until after the share issue, which took place in December. Charlie is back in town, and I hear the Sale and Leaseback-ball is in play.
According to the Heads’ the buyer will pay £7.285m for all three properties and, in addition, will provide a loan to the tenant of £6.9m at an interest rate of 15% p.a.
Rent will be reviewed every five years, on an upwards only basis, either at RPI or 2%, whichever is greater. RPI is currently 3.3%
Say Goodbye to Murray Park
The tenant “will take a lease for the stadium and the car park on a 20 year lease at an initial rent of £1.8, per annum”. Murray Park is offski, gone, no longer available to Rangers International, or any of its successor clubs.
Interest on the loan works out at £985.5k per annum, so rent plus interest would be £2.835m p.a.
Top line figure for both sale and loan is £13.835m, however, the first three years rent (£5.4m) will be held back as no one is prepared to guarantee the rent, so actual cash into the business will be £8.435m.
Murray Park planning permission
If the new owner of the properties attains planning permission for residential properties at Murray Park within three years of the deal being signed, a provision releases the seller from having to repay the outstanding portion of the loan. If planning permission is achieved after three years, no element of the loan is forgiven.
Potatoes
The buyer can do whatever they like with Murray Park. Can you suggest a suitable use? Perhaps they’ll plant potatoes.
Securitisation
“Rents will be guaranteed from ticket receipts and a first charge on the season tickets income will be granted.”
The tenant has the option to buy-back the stadium (only). If the stadium is bought-back in year one the cost will be £10m. Thereafter the purchase price will increase by 12% p.a. until year 10. After year 10 the right to buy-back the stadium will be at “Market Value but no less than £20m”.
Should they buy-back the stadium, the lease will remain in place for Albion Car Park at a rate of £250k p.a. (subject to same rent review arrangements).
So what does this mean? The cash will be welcome and will enable to club to survive until into next season. If they spend the money on lottery tickets, there’s a chance they will get lucky and survive well into the season after next.
Suggestions that some people are preparing to squeeze the last penny out of a busted brand are contemptuous.
http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/european-football/30155-green-looks-set-for-rangers-exit.php
Ah…the ‘club’, the ‘club’, the ‘club’. . .
I thought the board members had to do what is ‘best’ for the shareholders – not – the ‘club’
So there you go. 7million quid for all the property, and a 6.9 million Wonga loan. 😯
This is the sort of deal you get offered when you are on the brink and desperate. (Assuming there’s any truth in it of course. It contradicts the rumour last night that MP would be sold and leased back to both TRFC and some rugby club).
y4rmy says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm
The rugby club have done a nice piece of business with waitrose, in the process pissing off CALA. I’m not sure that using MP as planning gain to allow CALA to build their houses is actually viable, now that Waitrose have acquired a chunk of the land.
Be interesting to see what if anything comes of this particular thread.
If the Sevco properties are sold and leased back I assume the sale transaction will be a traceable matter of public record. The media would therefore have no get out clause for not reporting it.
upthehoops says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:31 pm
If the Sevco properties are sold and leased back I assume the sale transaction will be a traceable matter of public record. The media would therefore have no get out clause for not reporting it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think if the idea is to sell the family silver the hacks will be the first to muster a lynch mob.
A sale for £7M odd is surely a sale at undervalue and to the disadvantage of the shareholders and therefore a breach of the Directors Fiduciary duty. Is it not?
jimlarkin says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:49 pm
3 1 Rate This
http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/european-football/30155-green-looks-set-for-rangers-exit.php
Ah…the ‘club’, the ‘club’, the ‘club’. . .
————
When I read this:
“At a meeting with 200 fans last week, Craig Mather, the Ibrox chief executive, branded Green’s behaviour “immoral and unethical”.”
I thought of the CF audio where the gang were light-heartedly discussing the bad-mouthing of CW, something CW seemed to accept as necessary. At least that’s how I recall it. Would be it be fair to surmise that Mr Mather is not as Green around the ears in all this as he might appear?
blu says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:08 pm
5 8 Rate This
=======================================
Systemic discrimination, or inconsistency in application of the rules? That is the question. Finding a definitive answer is all the more difficult of course. There is much to ponder, especially regarding complaints from members of the public. If these are indeed acted upon then perhaps that is an explanation why Neil Lennon seems to be hauled up for every misdemeanor while others are not. Lennon is loved by the Celtic fans, but clearly there is massive resentment against him among the Rangers support, who numbers wise will be the largest within Scotland. Not every Rangers fan will be lifting the phone to the SFA of course.
Overall though there are too many unanswered questions on disciplinary matters. A couple of years ago Celtic had as many players booked for goal celebrations as every other SPL team put together. There were numerous examples where others should have been booked for the same offence but were not – often by the same Referees that had booked the Celtic players. It simply wasn’t good enough that the media closed ranks with the SFA and ridiculed any complaints. In fact it beggars belief the media did not use their position to demand an explanation why the rule was not equally applied. Do you believe one club’s players being singled out this way in the English Premiership would have been tolerated?
Drew Peacock says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:36 pm
3 0 Rate This
I think if the idea is to sell the family silver the hacks will be the first to muster a lynch mob.
A sale for £7M odd is surely a sale at undervalue and to the disadvantage of the shareholders and therefore a breach of the Directors Fiduciary duty. Is it not?
==================================================
I guess the media will demand the £120M Ibrox was worth on the balance sheet for over a decade. 🙂
ecobhoy says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:42 am
“I would be interesting in knowing how firmly based your observations on share price are especially wrt to Hart. Cheers!”
————————–
As I said in my post, its based on Charlotte’s latter tweets.
Hart 200,000 at 50p
Hart 290,000 at 100p
Off the top of my head that looks an average of around 80p per share.
Sounds like the sale and leaseback which has been speculated as a nice little earner for those who hold the lease (maybe Whyte) is the last piece of the jigsaw in dismantling the rangers… Question who would look after the maintenance of the ground in this case as this would be quite an expensive job which in itself could be a couple of mill per year..?
I cannot believe the rangers fans have effectively done nothing as this carve up unfolds..
–Get some rangers men in to show the fans you have their interest at the forefront, siege mentality, create the ranger haters mentality, get the SB dosh.
–Sell off the main footballing assets, ah that fekin TUPE!!!
–Give the main spivs a ton of shares for nowt.
–Float and get some significant shares wedge.
–Give all the spivs huge sals and bonuses based on “night following day” and god knows what other schemes to skim money and move it out offshore. (to be revealed if/when we ever see the audited accounts)
–The main spivs do something to get the bullet and a huge pay off and sal paid up.
–Sell one of the three main assets, set up another company to buy the other assets cheaply and lease them back to the football club ad finitum.
Pure brass-necked genius..!!
JimBhoy says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Pure brass-necked genius..!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And you read it here first, and you’ll read it in the Daily Record when it is all too late.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:46 pm
———————————————
Yes but CQN touted this ‘news exclusive’ last October as “gospel” and nothing happened.
He repeats it today with not an iota of evidence to back it. The plain fact is that you cannot sell assets at an undervalue without the risk of sanctions for the directors.
Ibrox so we are told values at north of £40M so this is just not going to happen. The better play for the Spivs is just to let the trading subsidiary go bust or sell it to McColl & Co and make sure they hold on to the main assets (assuming of course RIFC owns them in the first place) which can then be leased to Rangersness (2013) PLC or whatever the next incarnation
This story is right down there with the asbestos/safety certificate nonsense. Follow the money, that’s all that matters, all the rest is flim flam and doesn’t help the integrity of this blog.
Without wishing to go over old ground in terms of inconsistent SFA disciplinary proceedings, you would think those up before “the beaks” (as they used to be called in the olden days), would use the “whataboutary” defence.
I would also hope that folk called in would be properly briefed by the club’s soliciitor, (if he / she cannot attend) to make reference to past decisions and to lay down markers about what is reasonable or not in the future given the previous decisions.
I’m regularly amazed that folk do not kick up a stushie when ridiculous decisions go against them and that the clubs usually knuckle under to the often amateur or ridiculous decisions from Hampden..
Its likely that, given what we’ve heard from clubs on other issues, they all know the SFA are useless but can’t be bothered challenging stuff.
In my view the clubs should have a zero tolerance approach to stupid or corrupt decisions, its the only way. Win on the smaller issues giving the beaks less room to hide the bigger ones.
Rangers share price going up.Views anyone?
blu says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:08 pm
“There is apparent inconsistency in the application of disciplanry procedures by the SFA but some people “knowing” that it’s engineered to favour one club isn’t enough”
—————————-
I sense your frustration and observe that you have commented in good grace. Intangible concepts like bias are inevitably difficult to tie down. You can’t necessarily log them into a spreadsheet, draw a graph and insert a ‘best fit’ line to prove a hypothesis. It is a decision arrived at through intuition following absorption or a variety of information. The very nature of any true bias would need to cloak its actions to remain effective.
It is valid to look for wider proof of bias than just a few selective opinions. However I think that the wider picture being painted does suggest that the apparent large scale manipulations we have witnessed may be echoed on a smaller stage also.
I have my suspicions that I have recently voiced but for these to remain credible they need to be reigned in when they become too speculative. This is a legitimate attitude for you to adopt and such reality checks are food for thought. However as such perceptions will always be subjective it may be difficult to reach agreement but easier to arrive at a mutual appreciation.
Carl31 says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
Speculation on Admin
====================================
I could be totally wrong here but are you assuming TRFCL going into admin? It’s the one signing a lot of the contracts. But RIFC Plc have provided approx £19 million as a ‘loan’ to TRFCL from the flotation proceeds so would they not have voting preference? There is also the issue of the pre-flotation capital raised from a variety of sources although that was in the name of TRFCL.
I can’t quite get my head around how being a subsidiary of the PLC affects TRFCL’s status as a separate legal entity though so I could be wrong.
The possibility of sell and lease back at The Rangers presents a potential danger to other clubs.
I have set it out on CQN but on reflection perhaps a ( hopefulyl) recovering Hearts and a revitalised Aberdeen will see the danger to them in terms of trophies and all clubs, who on any given day could match a weakened Rangers, will see too that the SFA must make a statement of intent with plans for implementing that intent to reinforce and apply the UEFA standards of fair play they signed up to in 2010 and abandoned at the first hurdle in 2011.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=13517&cpage=2#comment-1899014
I can remember a Hearts spokesman speak last month of lack of probity at the SFA and that issue has grown rather than diminished since.
I’m baffled that the SFA skullduggery has not been the target of the likes of Richard Gordon or Jim Spence or Stewart Cosgrove because the last thing the SFA has done is play fair by Scottish football and that simply has to change.
rantinrobin says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm
1 0 Rate This
Rangers share price going up.Views anyone?
——————-
a fool and their money are soon parted?
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:46 pm
“Sale and leaseback, Ibrox, Murray Park, Albion”
————————–
A cautionary word that this is not a new document. It is dated from last year.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=10730
That doesn’t mean it isn’t valid but thought I should flag up the chronology.
rantinrobin says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Rangers share price going up.Views anyone?
===================================
Two trades about an hour apart, one valued at less than £18, don’t show a trend. December 19th to close of business yesterday shows a trend. Even over the whole period the number of share trades is low and represent a small minority of the total shares in RIFC.
rantinrobin says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Rangers share price going up.Views anyone?
==========================================
I would expect all sorts of movements are going to take place in the shares in coming days and to outsiders the reasons may be impossible to discern.
I have posted a piece from LSE website which may be correct or may not:
‘Now I know people all over planet football or at least Scottish football have been thinking just why are people buying up shares in a football club who are in a serious financial position. The only reason I can foresee as to why Institutions are buying them is that they can see that a sale and lease back of the stadium and training facility and a vast space used as a car park have more value short term. In lay mans terms if you own a load of shares in a club just about to sell there prized assets you will be guaranteed a dividend after the sale. So if you own a lot of shares your dividend will be bigger. Once the sale is complete the Institutions will sell there shares and they have in effect profited on the asset sale (sale dividend) and on the sale of their share, (1p shares at 40 odd p), win-win. So the answer to the question as to why the share are being bought up is quite simple. As i wrote the other day with £10m in the bank, a VAT bill of £1.7M and a claim from a former Director of £3.4m I was surprised to see the wage bill today. Playing staff wages are at £6m per year and the Directors are taking £1.5 per year. Also the Sports Direct deal was included in the £10m banked. The Puma deal is only worth £700k p/a (not received yet). With 10 months to go until the new season ticket sales go up I can only see that a sale and lease back are the only way for the club to avoid an Insolvency event.’
Castofthousands says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:11 pm
bad capt madman says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:01 pm
==================================
Observations appreciated castofthousands.
badcapt – nail on the head.
rantinrobin says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm
With appologies to the Phil the Greek
“Buying shares in a football club is simply standing fully clothed in an ice cold shower ripping up five pound notes”
Dear old Phil was of course, talking about racing yachts, but the principle holds.
Drew Peacock says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:36 pm
upthehoops says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:31 pm
If the Sevco properties are sold and leased back I assume the sale transaction will be a traceable matter of public record. The media would therefore have no get out clause for not reporting it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think if the idea is to sell the family silver the hacks will be the first to muster a lynch mob.
A sale for £7M odd is surely a sale at undervalue and to the disadvantage of the shareholders and therefore a breach of the Directors Fiduciary duty. Is it not?
=============================================
How does that square with paying £5.5M for the whole shooting match including history and the bike?
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
slimshady61 says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm
————————————————
As someone who is currently selling his house, the value of my house is what someone will pay me for it.
Charles Green bought ‘the assets’ for circa £5.5 Million………….They are being sold at above that price if we are to believe the figures touted.
Danish Pastry says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:38 pm
jimlarkin says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:49 pm
3 1 Rate This
http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/european-football/30155-green-looks-set-for-rangers-exit.php
Ah…the ‘club’, the ‘club’, the ‘club’. . .
————
When I read this:
“At a meeting with 200 fans last week, Craig Mather, the Ibrox chief executive, branded Green’s behaviour “immoral and unethical”.”
I thought of the CF audio where the gang were light-heartedly discussing the bad-mouthing of CW, something CW seemed to accept as necessary. At least that’s how I recall it. Would be it be fair to surmise that Mr Mather is not as Green around the ears in all this as he might appear?
==================================
Whilst Mather “branded Green’s behaviour “immoral and unethical”” he didn’t actually condemn it.
A picky point perhaps but you kinda get that way after having heard these guys talk over the past 18 months!
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
The post I included above has the snippet: ‘The Puma deal is only worth £700k p/a (not received yet).’ Anyone know where that appears from and also the poster states that the playing staff wages announced today is £6 million. Where does that come from?
Danish Pastry says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:38 pm
“Would be it be fair to surmise that Mr Mather is not as Green around the ears in all this as he might appear?”
—————————-
Danish, your suspicion brings to mind a poignant piece of prose that I will take the opportunity to selectively quote from :
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages…
Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation…
Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
bad capt madman says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:01 pm
4 0 i
Rate This
Without wishing to go over old ground in terms of inconsistent SFA disciplinary proceedings, you would think those up before “the beaks” (as they used to be called in the olden days), would use the “whataboutary” defence.
————————————————————————–
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13053820
Lawyer Paul McBride blasts SFA’s Rangers verdict
The lawyer who represented Neil Lennon says the Scottish Football Association is “dishonest” and “biased”.
One can only imagine the current football governance landscape if he was still around…….
Slimshady 61 at 1.59
The plain fact is that you cannot sell assets at an undervalue without the risk of sanctions for the directors. Ibrox so we are told values at north of £40M so this is just not going to happen.
______________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps. I don’t think these directors care though. The directors who orchestrated this will be long gone when the merde hits the fan. And the clue is in your ‘so we are told’ as they have not published audited accounts yet. And even when/if they do the accounts will not be up to August 2013. The spivs could have had the property assets revalued at a conveniently lower valuation to suit their purpose- the reverse of what Sur Davie did to suit his purpose.
To be fair to the spivs, the evaluation was ridiculous anyway given Ibrox is below the water table/on a flood plain or whatever it is that makes housing planning unlikely. It would be difficult to argue against a lower, more realistic evaluation.
I think the spivs motto throughout this sorry saga has been ‘where there is a will, there is a way…’. Remember, Charlie was able to buy the same £120m valued assets from the Administrators way undervalue at £5.5m. And that might have included the players too (and the history! How could I forget the history?!?). I realise it is a different scenario in Admin, but I don’t think that will deter Green & Co now that the endgame is firmly in sight of the vultures. Unless these sanctions include imprisonment.
slimshady61 says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree. If he had seen the Heads of Agreement why does he not name the party involved.
Castofthousands
On the Disciplinary system; for some of its faults it had three immediately different results than had gone before and the Diouf and Bougherra red cards were dealt with under the old system. Indeed it was the failings in the old system that delayed the process sufficiently for lobbying to take place and come out with the ridiculous ” the ref did not feel threatened ” line that helped reduce the punishment.
I forget the ref in question but as a member of a disciplinary committee of an amateur league who also appointed referees, I know how angry they would have been had our committee rolled out a punishment based on that excuse. They would have seen it, and quite rightly so, as declaring open season on referees, but such considerations melted away under the old system if Rangers future was stake.
However when the new process was introduced the first “victims” of it were Alan McGregor and later Steven Naismith and Sonny Aluko and boy did Walter Smith not like that. Bemusement and befuddlement at a new game in town was the order of the day.
So whilst not perfect, the new process saw a lot more justice being done than the past.
Now all we need is a new club licensing attitude and the regime to back it up because, as I posted earlier, Scottish football will be worthless without it.
Worthless in every sense of the word.
ecobhoy says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:13 pm
“I can’t quite get my head around how being a subsidiary of the PLC affects TRFCL’s status as a separate legal entity though so I could be wrong.”
————————-
I’d presume that TRFCL and RIFC are both viable and separate legal entities entitled to form contracts for goods and services. If TRFCL became insolvent then I’d imagine RIFC will be a creditor along with all the others that have been mentioned by Carl31 and others.