Not in Front of the Children

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.

 

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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

2,305 thoughts on “Not in Front of the Children


  1. redlichtie says:
    August 15, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    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.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    It doesn’t but I hope BDO can square it. As for my valuation I can but be guided by the published interim accounts where professional valuers, instructed by RIFC, put a value of more than £7M on the properties.


  2. Bawsman says:
    August 15, 2013 at 2:30 pm
    —————————————
    Yes but the difference is you own your house, the directors don’t own the company, that right belongs to the shareholders.

    The directors would need to be able to prove that selling any asset was in the best interests of the company; the IPO prospectus proclaimed Ibrox as worth >£40M ; to sell it now for the proposed % of £7M would appear to be a sale at gross undervalue for which the directors could be held personally responsible.


  3. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    This 75-25% rule only applies to unsecured creditors. I had thought the holding company would be a secured creditor. I dont know this for sure though.


  4. Who would have guessed it leaseback upon the Ibrox crown jewel’s. I thought it was too simple but in the end it make’s perfect sense for asset stripper’s. This was alway’s going to be the way the money was extracted over a long period of time, just look at the club’s down south stifled with these arrangement’s. Sleeping giant’s some club’s are described, this new entity down Govan way will now where this thorny crown for 20+ year’s.


  5. from FF on mathers trip to london this week
    even they dont believe it 😆
    ________________________

    It will come as no surprise that Mather has been saying everything is all ok and nothing to worry about.

    This is a summary provided to a firm on the investor meeting, nothing earth shattering.

    Quote:
    RANGERS…They have had a few problems in recent years with them going into bankruptcy, demoted to the bottom of the Scottish league and banned from making transfers until 1/14. Charles Green saw the Old firm side listing on AIM in January and raising £22m at 70p with an ex City PM as the here today gone tomorrow Chairman. The new CEO Craig Mather was in London yesterday and shrugged off the latest rumblings from the fan base/shareholders, and stressed he was trying to put an end to the internal battles and bring the club to profitability as well as a decent shot at European football when back in the SPL. The board is suitably equipped for this monetary task. They are overseeing the monetising of the Rangers brand, chipping at costs( inc security), develop the image rights revenue and now own the kit merchandising having done a deal Sports Direct( Ashley owes 4% of Gers). Care has been taken not to affect the infrastructure of the club with overly aggressive cuts. As an example of this new commercialism, Rangers purchased Edmiston House, a site opposite the ground to converting it to a superstore/casino/function room with an added focus going forward making a “game day” atmosphere and keep money within the club rather than at the Horse shoe Bar! The PLC is debt free and has c.£10m in the bank. The management are targeting an increase in revenues towards £30m this year with a goal of £60m pa as they return to European football. While the shares have performed disastrously the muck spreading caused by board members and local press they are a public PLC and need to deal with things correctly. The transfer ban and a shrinking of the players’ wages came about as a result of league demotion has enabled the club to institute a 30% players wage/revenue ratio and focus on building up a squad through free transfers! The shareholder list is worth reviewing for compliance reasons.


  6. Some interesting RIFC/SFA correspondence posted by CF.

    It looks like Regan was both “bemused” and “curious” at some of the shenanighans. I wonder if he will ever get concerned?


  7. “The shareholder list is worth reviewing for compliance reasons.”

    Wonder why? Calling Interpol?

    Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.


  8. Just read the RIFC/SFA correspondence. Can someone more learned in legal matters than I comment on whether Mr Green has potentially placed himself in hot water with his tale of intrigue involving Mr Whyte and the need to make him ‘believe that he was in some way a part of the consortium acquiring the club” with the declared intent in so doing being to secure a benefit from him i.e. the release of his shares?

    Why did Mr Whyte eventually so do without any ‘remuneration or compensation’ for the shares? That does not sound like Mr Whyte at all.

    Interesting to see the SFA pursuing some of the oddities and inconsistencies previously alluded to on this blog! Would like now to see the follow up letters….

    Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.


  9. http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2013/08/why-we-just-dont-like-steven-naismith.html?

    …through administration and delay liquidation of the old company long enough that Green’s consortium could take over and transfer assets….

    …..poor sevconian. Trying to re- write history and says Steven Naismith has committed a CRIME, because he stated the TRUtH and the actual FACTS that Rangers died and he (Naismith) wanted to walk away from Sevco .

    Why did he want to get away from Sevco?
    Because he knew all this carry on was ahead…he couldn’t, TRUST the spins who bought the assets and the titles !!


  10. Two 1,000,000 share trades this afternoon. Someone consolidating, or taking a position ahead of the EGM? ( Incidentally, as soon as a serious trade comes along the price drops back to £0.415)


  11. The links to CtH latest revelations dont appear to have been posted. So…

    Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 25m
    SFA and Rangers – A few documents discovered.

    1. RIFC to SFA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/160457695/…esponse-to-SFA …

    2. SFA to RIFC

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/160457671/SFA-reply-to-RIFC

    Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 20m
    Green and Whyte failed to enter into any dialogue with Pinsent Masons re purchase. Not sure how the SFA could have ‘cleared’ Green.


  12. redlichtie says:
    August 15, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    “Why did Mr Whyte eventually so do without any ‘remuneration or compensation’ for the shares? ”
    —————————–
    There’s the rub.

    Charlie had the opportunity in this correspondence to describe how he cleverly duped Craig Whyte out of his shares and thus overturn the administrators deal with Sevco 5088 in favour of a deal with Sevco Scotland. I’d imagine that such an explanation would quickly have put Mr Regan’s mind at rest. It seems that Regan did not need to be so comprehensively satisfied.

    Maybe its just the light shed by the blog but Green’s letter to Regan reads like a fairy tale. If he’d signed it off ‘and they all lived happily ever after’ it would not have looked out of place.


  13. Paulsatim
    It is not clear where the SFA now stand but it looks like they were far from convinced by Green’s reply.

    How would the current dynamics change if SFA claim they were duped into granting The Rangers membership and suspended them until ownership clarified?

    Just speculating but would that open the door to an entirely new set up with more honest men in charge?


  14. Allegedly an eminent Scottish judge says that the two daft wee lassies caught drug running should be let aff wi it …

    … since it was not proven that any unfair snorting advantage was gained.


  15. Auldheid says:
    August 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    The fact that nothing has happened to TRFC in the near 4 months since the letter was sent would suggest the SFA received assurances large enough to cover their backsides.


  16. Carl31 says:
    August 15, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    This 75-25% rule only applies to unsecured creditors. I had thought the holding company would be a secured creditor. I dont know this for sure though.
    ============================================================

    That’s the problem I’m having as it’s one thing to say that they are separate legal entities but another when TRFCL is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of RIFC Plc especially when the accounts of TRFCL were consolidated into the first 6 months interim accounts of RIFCL.

    Then we have the question of shareholding in TRFCL because we obviously know that the original – I think it was 2 x £1 subscriber shares held by Green – were sub-divided to create the millions of shares created for the original investors pre-flotation.

    We know these were swapped 1-for-1 with RIFC Plc shares but an interesting point is that there hasn’t been a SHO1 form issued for TRFCL since the holding company was floated and the Annual Return is now overdue as well. RFCL have a history of not filing SHO1 forms within the I think it’s 30 days according to the regulations.

    So I now wonder what shareholding has been left in TRFCL – there has to be at least 1 share – and who holds it. It’s impossible to answer that because the returns haven’t been made. So I suppose that it’s possible that RIFC Plc doesn’t have any shareholding in TRFCL and if that’s the case is it actually a subsidiary company?

    Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I might be able to provides the answers to the points I have raised as they could be important ones or perhaps nothing at all. But I think we all know that every little thing in this saga needs to be looked at through a microscope and nothing taken for granted.


  17. Good Afternoon,
    More of a lurker than a poster nowadays but have just noticed the reply fromTRFC ltd to the SFA and the letterheading which states founded 1872. Surely not?
    If they profess to be the same club can they indicate when the creditors will be paid?
    It may take a long time but truth will out in the end;I can’t wait.

    Corruption is a three letter word -“SFA”


  18. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    Shaeholding info doesn’t appear to have been filed, from a cursory glance. However, Messers Easdale, Mather and Stockbridge are the directors, I wasn’t aware that the Youth development company was a subsidiary of TRFCL, rather than RIFC.


  19. Peter A Smith ‏@PeterAdamSmith 2m
    STV News understands Sandy Easdale bought 1.2million shares in Rangers today and Imran Ahmad is the seller. More on STV News at 6 next.


  20. taxman cometh says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    4 0 Rate This

    Peter A Smith ‏@PeterAdamSmith 2m
    STV News understands Sandy Easdale bought 1.2million shares in Rangers today and Imran Ahmad is the seller. More on STV News at 6 next.
    ————

    So, no such thing as a share lock-in (or is it ‘lock up’?). How can IA do this? Is Peter wrong?


  21. scapaflow says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:13 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    Shaeholding info doesn’t appear to have been filed, from a cursory glance. However, Messers Easdale, Mather and Stockbridge are the directors, I wasn’t aware that the Youth development company was a subsidiary of TRFCL, rather than RIFC.
    =============================================================
    There was a SHO1 form for TRFCL filed just before the RIFC Plc flotation in December 2012 but it referred back to the subdivision of the TRFCL shares in May/June 2012. As I mentioned in my posts we don’t have any idea what happened to the TRFCL shareholding after the swap for RIFC Plc shares and that should have happened within 30 days and now the Annual Return is overdue.

    But you’re right that TRFCL is head of its own little group and TRFCL holds the shareholding in the joint venture company with SportsDirect viz Rangers Retail Ltd. Possibly Garrion Security fits into the TRFCL group as well. And of course Green is still a director of Garrion and Rangers Retail.

    I think that’s the problem that Mather didn’t appreciate when he made his promise to the fans about Green as it seems to me that it is important in the planning that Green retains these directorships. FFS why is he still a director of these companies?


  22. Danish Pastry says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    taxman cometh says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Peter A Smith ‏@PeterAdamSmith 2m
    STV News understands Sandy Easdale bought 1.2million shares in Rangers today and Imran Ahmad is the seller. More on STV News at 6 next.
    ————
    So, no such thing as a share lock-in (or is it ‘lock up’?). How can IA do this? Is Peter wrong?
    ——————————————–

    The only reason that Ahmad was subject to the 12 month lock-in was because he was one of two key employees – the other being McCoist. Once he was no longer an employee he would have had an argument that he shouldn’t be subject to the lock-in.

    I have the feeling that if Cenkos had still been Nomad and broker they might not have agreed to the dissolution of the agreement they had him sign. However RFC now has a separate broker and Nomad and it would appear that they may have a more relaxed view – I wonder why?


  23. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    As I recall, Mr Green did not relinquish his directorship of TRFCL as quickly as RIFC. its funny that the, how shall I put it, more interesting actors seem to want to be directors of TRFCL. On the face of it you’d think the only assets would be the playing staff. Like Mr Regan, I wouldn’t mind seeing an updated org chart…..


  24. Sugar Daddy
    Then why not say?

    Alternative is rabbit caught in headlights.


  25. Maestro McCall ‏@MaestroMcCall72 7m
    @GarryCarmody @vanderhogg @AdamskiFF Then we’ll be thoroughly cleansed and ready for #StageThree
    Retweeted by Mather’s Faither

    Maestro McCall ‏@MaestroMcCall72 8m
    @GarryCarmody @vanderhogg @AdamskiFF What is it, 15 point hit? We’ll still win that league no problem. Admin will cut wheat from chaff
    Retweeted by Mather’s Faither
    View conversation
    Maestro McCall ‏@MaestroMcCall72 9m
    @GarryCarmody @vanderhogg @AdamskiFF At least we don’ty have a big creditor like HMRC this time. Reckon we’ll be out of admin in no time.

    😆


  26. Auldheid says:
    August 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Maybe that’s always been the plan?


  27. Drew Peacock

    Some interesting RIFC/SFA correspondence posted by CF.

    It looks like Regan was both “bemused” and “curious” at some of the shenanighans. I wonder if he will ever get concerned?
    ……………………..?..
    I wonder if he’ll ever get motivated.


  28. What really fascinates me about the RIFC/SFA correspondence is the total absence of any mention of Rizvi.

    The SFA knew about Rizvi in May/June 2012 and then there was the more recent CF tapes/emails confirming his involvement. Seems to me the SFA are terrified to go anywhere near it because they accepted the due diligence supposedly carried out on behalf of Green on the original consortium investors.


  29. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Shhh! You weren’t supposed to notice, Campbell’s blood pressure has just spiked…. 😳


  30. helpmaboab says:
    August 15, 2013 at 7:06 pm
    1 1 Rate This

    Drew Peacock

    Some interesting RIFC/SFA correspondence posted by CF.

    It looks like Regan was both “bemused” and “curious” at some of the shenanighans. I wonder if he will ever get concerned?
    ……………………..?..
    I wonder if he’ll ever get motivated
    ——————————————————————

    I wonder if he will get aff his arse and apologize to Campbell for sending the letter.


  31. I am surprised to be typing this but I thought Regan’s letter was less pusillanimous than I expected. Can he redeem himself yet? (And, first time I have used the word on paper: had to check spelling … It has a nice ring though.)


  32. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    6 0 Rate This

    Danish Pastry says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    taxman cometh says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Peter A Smith ‏@PeterAdamSmith 2m
    STV News understands Sandy Easdale bought 1.2million shares in Rangers today and Imran Ahmad is the seller. More on STV News at 6 next.
    ————
    So, no such thing as a share lock-in (or is it ‘lock up’?). How can IA do this? Is Peter wrong?
    ——————————————–

    Thanks for your various responses ecobhoy. To the untrained eye, it looks as though IA is desperately trying to grab all the cash he can, and Charles is backing him. I wonder if they both think they’ve probably milked this for as much as they’ll get. Perhaps the outstandng debts to the people in the background have been paid and they are now vulturing in on what’s they can get? It’s looking very messy in any case.


  33. Slightly off topic, but nevertheless interesting exchange between @CelticResearch and @Auldheid on Twitter just now

    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 22m

    Had another look at the hagiographic piece written by Graham Spiers on our beloved President Mr Ogilvie. Some things just didn’t add up.
    —————————————————————————————————
    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 22m

    Ogilvie ” It (EBT) seemed the most beneficial thing for me to do, for me & my family, given that I was leaving Rangers with no job to go to.
    —————————————————————————————————-
    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 21m

    Ogilvie did indeed leave his job at RFC in Sep2005 but that’s not the whole story. He remained a non Exec Director until moving to Hearts.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 20m

    In fact not only did Ogilvie remain a Director until Nov 2005 (and presumably recompensed) but he was retained at Rangers as a “consultant”
    —————————————————————————————————–
    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 18m

    So perhaps his tale of being forced into taking the EBT in order to put food on the table for his family isn’t entirely true
    —————————————————————————————————–
    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 18m

    As a VP of the SFA he would also have had some assistance in job hunting with the free office at Hampden given to men of his standing
    ——————————————————————————————————
    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 15m

    He was of course unpaid as SFA VP. That is an SFA Vice President who had just received the best part of a £90K EBT. All legal of course.
    ——————————————————————————————————-
    Auldheid ‏@Auldheid 14m

    @CelticResearch And he knew nothing about HMRC enquiries in same year about De Boer/ Flo side letters? A guy from MIH goes through their

    @CelticResearch personal files presumably at Ibrox and CO knows nothing about it? But maybe search never took place since letter were there

    @CelticResearch but you would think the MIH man would have discussed the problem with someone at Rangers.
    ——————————————————————————————-

    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 9m

    @Auldheid He was still a director until he was forced to resign by dint of taking a post on the Hearts board. Strange he retained that role.
    ———————————————————————————————
    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 37s

    Ogilvie also curiously added,”I’m not a financial man.” Wonder if he held that same humble view of himself when he was made SFA Treasurer?
    ———————————————-
    ———————————————-
    Ogilvie’s – “Me Manuel, me know nothing” routine is looking more and more flimsy


  34. Auldheid

    Ever since that first investigation panel was subjected to the entreaties of McCoist, the SFA has found the nearest couch to hide behind, venturing out only when it had to and for the briefest time possible, hoping everyone would forget they were there.

    They are an organisation full of cowards, sycophants, dissemblers and incompetents.


  35. http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

    Piece on Imran ahmad (his maw not even mentioned)

    ——————————-

    Could it be possible
    …Chico verde and Imran are getting the cash in ASAP…for an attempt to ‘buy’ hertz ?
    (Tynecastle must be worth a few bob)?


  36. Auldheid ‏@Auldheid 7m

    @CelticResearch I believe he had a role at SFA too that year. Side letters were used BEFORE the ebt scheme on the DOS scheme from 2000 to 03
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Auldheid ‏@Auldheid 6m

    @CelticResearch Questions have only related to EBT loan base scheme not DOS share based on ruled illegal by an FTT and later UTT.
    ————————————————————————————————–
    Auldheid ‏@Auldheid 4m

    @CelticResearch Both rolled into one to obsfuscate and justify nonpayt of wee tax bill. An illegal scheme not open to competing clubs.
    ————————————————————————————————–
    Auldheid ‏@Auldheid 4m

    @CelticResearch I suppose that gave no sporting advantage either? You cannot see where SFA end and Rangers begin.
    ————————————————————————————————–
    ————————————————————————————————–

    Great stuff from both – unearthing and dissecting the blatant corruption that is there for everyone to see


  37. A more descriptive acronym ?
    =======================
    We have plenty of alternative acronyms / names for the main players of the TRFC shambles, e.g. (S)DM, MBB, etc…

    Suggested alternative acronym for the SFA ?
    How about the ‘iSFA’ ?

    The inert Scottish Football Association.
    Definition: “inert is to be in a state of doing little or nothing”

    Go to the iSFA when you want SFA done ! [Their new Mission Statement ?]

    🙂


  38. StevieBC says:

    I’ve just noticed that if you re-order my earlier description of the SFA you get D I C S


  39. alexander276 says:
    August 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    I am surprised to be typing this but I thought Regan’s letter was less pusillanimous than I expected. Can he redeem himself yet? (And, first time I have used the word on paper: had to check spelling … It has a nice ring though.)
    ================================
    “Pusillanimous” – not the kind of word that usually crops up on football blogs though I suppose a shortened version may be wielded on RM. As in “Shut yer….”.

    Another interesting fact – it also cropped up in The Rutles song “Another Day” (Nasty/McQuickly) from the Rutles’ LP “The Rutles” with lead vocal by Stig O’Hara :

    “You’re so pusillanimous, oh, yeah….”

    Sheer kulture this blog is….

    PS Has CG perhaps taken Leggy Mountbatten as his model?

    Scottish football needs a Ron Nasty to get intae thees peepul.


  40. TSFM
    well that was a short-lived blog:
    “cairney67.wordpress.com is no longer available.
    The authors have deleted this site.” ❓


  41. redlichtie says:
    August 15, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    Another interesting fact – it also cropped up in The Rutles …
    ——

    Who also sang the anthem, ‘All You Need Is Cash’ … 🙂


  42. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    ====================================

    Does that mean if CG has no links to the PLC as a director or employee then he will be able to sell his shares as well.

    I did conjecture thusly not long ago.


  43. I have asked this before and Allyjambo I think replied but can somebody remind me and give me a serious answer as to why CO left his post at Rangers ! Was he a victim of restructuring and made redundant, was he forced out due personal performance, a fallout with Murray, didn’t like what he was seeing and left of his own accord. Was he unemployed for a length of time ( I cant recall this) I thought he went straight to heartsand did going to Hearts help him get where he is today as it widened his experience. I myself was made redundant recently and was given a payment that went through the proper channels, no tax free loan that I have to pay back when I die. Maybe the recipients of EBT’s are a bit like the Zombie club, they never die or somebody else slips into their clothing when they do 🙂


  44. Well if the news today that the ‘sale and leaseback’ of Ibrox, Murray Park, and the Albion car park are true then the financial noose is indeed tightening.
    Still they cling to the ‘we’re a big club’ mentality however without someone else spending their own money to grant ‘The Rangers’ fans their wishes they are simply a club with a huge ego bigger than their bank balance.

    Still the deception by the MSM continues. By focusing on the possible removal of Green at a board meeting next week no one mentions the clear shortfall in funding. Since I’m writing about Green is this the same board that brought him back that is now going to dismiss him?
    Since I’m writing about the board what board brings someone in as a ‘consultant’ and allow him to spout forth on the airwaves as if he was in a position of power?
    Unless of course he is in a position of power!!!

    Meanwhile the Chairman seems to be writing emails asking if they are going to appoint a new commercial director.
    It is like an episode of ‘Soap’ from the early eighties. Confused you won’t be after the next episode.
    All we need is the mad guy who thinks he’s invisible. Step forward Walter Smith.


  45. andy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    from FF on mathers trip to london this week even they dont believe it 😆

    The PLC is debt free and has c.£10m in the bank.
    ===========================================================
    Interesting what Mather is saying – If the PLC is debt free then that means TRFC is carrying the £1.5 debt for the Rangers Retail draw down from SportsDirect although the £1.5 million is shown as ‘income’ in the Plc £10 million kitty. Wheeling and dealing doesn’t have a look in with this bunch 👿


  46. justshatered says:
    August 15, 2013 at 8:37 pm
    —————————————————–
    But Walter is invisible – even CSI couldn’t find his fingerprints on anything as the teflon deflector shields have done a fine job 😎


  47. CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 7m
    OK. Last year the SFA was pushing club licensing in a big way and in the Handbook or Club directory they included everyone’s license status.

    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 6m
    At the time of printing their directory last year one club’s licence status was somewhat unknown and this was the entry
    “Rangers F.C – tbc”

    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 5m
    Now rather than publish the licence status of the New Club they have simply removed all references to club licences for every Scottish club.

    CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 26s
    An example of last year’s handbook alongside this years. No embarrassing licence information now. pic.twitter.com/m2aVrJ7zZR


  48. Been working in Englandshire, not had time to catch up. By the way, when discussing football with colleagues, I noticed a distinct lack of interest in anything to do with Scottish Football. We really are perceived as a backwater.
    In CF’s release of RIFC response to SFA I noticed the following from Chuckles. ‘Sevco 5088 Ltd was the original vehicle to acquire his (CW) shares. It did not remain so.’ Then some of the old waffle about acquiring the club using a Scottish company, hence the incorporation of Sevco Scotland.
    He then categorically states that ‘at no time has CW been a director, owner or shareholder’ ……. etc of Sevco Scotland.
    We know that Charles but was he a director of Sevco 5088? (You are Sevco!!) This was the essence of the old switcheroo!! This guy has gone on record stating that he duped CW to acquire his shares!!
    Shameless fraud, perpetrated by a passel of rogues. Yet they are given credence by the MSM and SFA.
    Then, CF states that neither CW or CG co-operated with Pinsent Mason. We all knew that!
    Words fail me. The sooner the whole lot of them fade away, pockets bulging, the better for all concerned. Then, cue hand wringing and all that malarkey, let’s do the right thing for Scottish football. My ar**!!
    I have changed my position WRT the ‘ordinary’ RFC fan. I no longer feel any sympathy. Hell mend them.


  49. Tif Finn says:
    August 15, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    ====================================
    Does that mean if CG has no links to the PLC as a director or employee then he will be able to sell his shares as well. I did conjecture thusy not long ago.
    ======================================

    I think the crucial difference is that Ahmad was never a director of RIFC Plc and that Green was CEO and also the biggest shareholder.

    But if Ahmad’s sale doesn’t cause any lack of orderly market trading that Green might use that as an argument to be able to sell his shares and again if he is away from RIFC Plc for say 6 months then that might be another argument in favour.

    Again I think that Cenkos might not have been happy with the lock-in being lifted but who knows what the new guys might think. But with all the shenanigans I think AIM might be very leery of allowing it in case everything goes t*ts up.


  50. alexander276 says:
    August 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    I am surprised to be typing this but I thought Regan’s letter was less pusillanimous than I expected. Can he redeem himself yet? (And, first time I have used the word on paper: had to check spelling … It has a nice ring though.)
    ______________________________________________________

    I think it rather depends on whether Regan wants a straight answer, or whether he wants to cover his own back.

    Scottish Football needs less pusillanimousness (if that’s even a word)


  51. Scottish Football needs less pusillanimousness

    it must be pusillanimousnessless
    it must not display pusillanimousnesslessness


  52. The stinking, rancid, reeking mess that is Scottish football gets just a little bit dirtier regan doncaster ogilvie OUT NOW for starters anyway 😉


  53. Noun 1. pusillanimousness – contemptible fearfulness
    pusillanimity
    fearfulness – the trait of being afraid
    poltroonery – abject pusillanimity

    😳


  54. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    “We know these were swapped 1-for-1 with RIFC Plc shares but an interesting point is that there hasn’t been a SHO1 form issued for TRFCL since the holding company was floated”
    ——————————–
    This link posted earlier (sorry, I can’t remember by whom) is interesting if you want to delve into the detail. Have a look at the ‘Person(s) Interested’ panel on the right hand side. It lists pre IPO holding in TRFCL and the anticipated post IPO holding in RIFC:

    http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816

    I popped these numbers into a wee spreadsheet to see if there were any patterns that might give a clue to recent share transactions. Nothing struck me but there were a number of apparent anomalies.

    TRFCL limited shares pre-IPO : 22,000,200
    Anticipated RIFC shares post-IPO: 30,756,629

    There are a number of holders anticipated for RIFC that are not listed under TRFCL:

    Hargreave Hale Limited : 4,949,000
    Artemis Investment Management LLP: 4,286,000
    Cazenove Capital Management Limited: 2,450,000

    There are also two shareholdings in TRFCL that do not appear as anticipated RIFC:

    Margarita Funds Holding Trust: 2,600,000
    Norne Anstalt: 1,200,000

    When you add up all the TRFCL shares (they are given as a %age as well as a total) it indicates that total TRFCL shares should be: 33,419,717.

    Similarly when you add up the percentages anticipated in RIFC you get total shares of: 65,120,959.

    Just to clarify what I’ve done here, if you add up all the percentages for TRFCL you get 65.83% which equates to (as stated) 22,000,200 shares. So 100% should be 33,419,717. I’ve done the same calculation with the RIFC anticipated post IPO holding.

    Just to complicate matters further the IPO document states that 71,943,771 are up for grabs.

    Smaller shareholdings may not be listed (supporters?) which may account for the discrepancy.

    These numbers probably tell a story and if I get the time or inclination I might have a look further. Perhaps there is a statistician or mathematician out there who fancies a challenge and can make sense of the pattern, assuming there is one.


  55. CelticResearch ‏@CelticResearch 5m
    The tale of the disappearing licence in Three Acts from the Official SFA Club Directory. Going, Going… GONE! pic.twitter.com/vj1wvxnzdn


  56. alexander276 says:
    August 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    “I am surprised to be typing this but I thought Regan’s letter was less pusillanimous than I expected. ”
    ——————————–
    Yes Alexander, I should perhaps have been a little less excoriating about him earlier. At least he was asking the right kind of questions and may not have been entirely satisfied with the response, although the press statement issued on the matter indicated otherwise.

    Pusillanimous does have a lovely sound to it. I’m not sure what it means but I get your drift.


  57. verselijkfc says:
    August 15, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    TSFM
    well that was a short-lived blog:
    “cairney67.wordpress.com is no longer available.
    The authors have deleted this site.” ❓
    ________________________________________________________

    No he hasn’t. I am an idiot. The address is
    http://cairney2.wordpress.com

    Spoke to the man himself. It was developed using the 67 thing, but some guy has that name on Twitter, so he went for his shorts number instead 🙂


  58. TSFM says:
    August 15, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    ” I am an idiot”
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Is that you CG? 😀


  59. iamacant says:

    August 15, 2013 at 9:49 pm (Edit)

    TSFM says:
    August 15, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    ” I am an idiot”
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Is that you CG? 😀
    ___________________________________________________________

    Outed!
    Damn you Bampots 👿 !


  60. Looking at some of the @Celticresearch tweets tonight raises the question of whether oldco licence was actually transferred to newco as we were told.


  61. Castofthousands says:
    August 15, 2013 at 9:18 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    ==========================================
    The best list of pre-flotation shares in TRFCL is one I compiled in October 2012 which is at: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/the-rangers-shareholder-list/ and indentifies the holders of 19.8 million shares out of 22 million although I knew it was a bit out-of-date but it was hard getting confirmed figures.

    But there were at least 2/3 investors who didn’t want their names – not even proxies – known so they probably account for the balance of shares between the 19.8 million and the 25,340,200 TRFCL shares in existence on 31/08/2012.

    It has to be remembered is that when RIFC Plc floated then additional shares were created and this had the effect of diluting the percentage actually held by every TRFCL shareholder so some names appear to ‘disappear’ because they fall below the AIM 3 or 5% reporting requirement – I’m having a memory block and can’t remember which percentage applied.

    That’s why your percentages don’t appear to work out because all those sub 3 or 5% shareholders add up and throw-out the figures.

    You also have to remember that the fan offer allocation wasn’t fully subscribed and that is another factor which is affecting your percentage calculation. Green said pre-flotation he would make-up any shortfall but it was just another Green moonbeam when the time came to cough-up the cash.

    I reckon that there is only just over 7 million shares still locked-in if Ahmad sold his today mainly made up of Green (5 million); McCoist (1 million); Hart (490k). An interesting point is that Mather probably isn’t locked-in for his 900k shareholding even though he is CEO and that could be another wedge for Green to argue that his lock-in should be lifted. If the current CEO isn’t locked-in then why should the ex-CEO be locked-in. It actually sounds like a reasonable argument if I’m being honest and I feel Green wants away asap.

    I hope that helps sort out what looks like disparities in the percentages.


  62. Just came across this article on the Celtic website talking about 110 years of the team wearing the hoops:

    ” However, the goal-machine that was Jimmy Quinn came to the fore, and netted a Hampden Hoops hat-trick to give Celtic a Scottish Cup triumph. Remarkably, that remained the last hat-trick scored by a Celtic player against Rangers in a Scottish Cup final.”

    Notice ‘remained’ and not ‘remains’.

    I can feel a charge from Mr Lunny coming on!!


  63. Castofthousands says:
    August 15, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    Its not a ‘rewriting of history’ more of a denying of history.
    Even if it was bought (tee hee).


  64. Still waiting for the following defence to an SFA charge, as issued via the Scarlet Pimpernel, aka Vincent Lunny…
    ============
    “I refuse to answer the SFA charge as I believe I am being discriminated against.
    I refer you to the prior, relevant action(s) in relation to TRFC – and the absence of any follow up by the SFA.
    I believe that the SFA rules have been – and continue to be – applied on a selective and inconsistent basis.
    I also question the impartiality of the ‘SFA Compliance process’, and I therefore refuse to co-operate with this process.
    Any penalty imposed by the SFA will not be accepted, and if necessary referred to the Court of Session for an independent ruling.”
    ====================

    Admittedly, this robust defence might be worth a punt only for those managers / players who are knowingly approaching the end of their careers…and are about to leave the country… 🙄


  65. ecobhoy says:
    August 15, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/the-rangers-shareholder-list/
    —————————
    I’ve added your numbers to my spreadsheet for comparison. It doesn’t clear up all the anomalies. A few morsels for thought that you might like to chew on.

    Most strikingly you have Green’s TRFCL pre IPO shareholding as nil whereas the LSE link I provided gives him 5,000,200.

    Total shares for your list is 19,890,000. My extrapolation of the LSE information indicates the total to be 33,419,717 (as said previously, based on percentages of listed shareholders) although LSE only lists holders of 22,000,200.

    The 3 to 5% limit for holder to be listed is likely to be 3% since all the shareholdings for TRFCL and anticipated for RIFC hold more than 3%.

    Share dilution from TRFCL to RIFC is in the order of half (or double depending on which way you calculate the product). So there are twice as many shares in RIFC (pretty much) than there were in TRFCL. This results in the percentage holding being halved when a 1:1 swap is executed from TRFCL to RIFC.

    Norne Anstalt had 3.59% holding in TRFCL so the dilution would see them fall to ~1.8% which would explain their dropping off the list if only holdings above 3% appear.

    Margarita Funds Holding Trust however had 7.78% according to LSE. When you halve this you get ~3.9%. They have dropped off the RIFC anticipated list despite others with a lesser holding (Cazenove, Richard Hughes, Imran Ahmad) being registered.

    So the share dilution and cut off margin do not explain the absence of Margarita from the anticipated RIFC list if they enjoyed a 1:1 swap of their TRFCL shares.

    I’m not providing any answers here just suggesting there are a few questions kicking around unresolved.


  66. So who owns the assets ……

    Part I – SFA Concerns (From reply to RFC)

    Some final comments on the Sevco 5088 aspects:

    With reference to Clause lA.2 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into with the Administrators, I note that Sevco 5088 Limited assigned to Sevco Scotland Limited “its whole right title and interest in and to the Offer Letter”. Could you please explain why Sevco 5088 effected that Assignation and the financial and other arrangements which related to it? It is clearly important for us to be completely satisfied about the provenance of RFC’s title to the Club.
    ———————————————————

    Part II – Craig Whytes Claim
    (In Full …. apologies)

    The Assets Claims

    We understand that Charles Green was a director of Sevco 5088 at all relevant times as well as being a director of Sevco Scotland at the relevant time. This latter fact is important as Green’s knowledge would be imputed to Sevco Scotland as a result.

    We have seen a copy of the signed agreement (dated 12 May 2012) (“the CVA Agreement”) between Sevco 5088 and RFC 2012 and its administrators pursuant to which it was agreed that Sevco 5088 and RFC 2012 would enter into an agreed form SPA to acquire the Club Assets if the proposed CVA failed. Pursuant to that SPA Sevco 5088 had the right and obligation to purchase the Club Assets. Similarly, RFC 2012 had the right and obligation to sell those assets to Sevco 5088. We have also seen transcripts of texts and copies of emails which support (a) the allegation that Green and Ahmad were effectively acting in accordance with the instructions of Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley and (b) the assertion that it was agreed between the four of them that the acquisition was to be carried out in the name of Sevco 5088.

    The CVA subsequently failed to receive approval and the purchase of the Club Assets went ahead.
    There seems to be some doubt as to whether the purchase was completed by Sevco 5088 or by Sevco Scotland. There is some hearsay evidence (press reports of statements made by the Club) that the acquisition was completed by Sevco 5088 and that a transfer of the Club Assets was subsequently made to Sevco Scotland. However, the prospectus issued by Sevco Scotland’s holding company, Rangers International Football Club PLC, states that the Club Assets were acquired by Sevco Scotland directly from RFC 2012. It also states that Sevco Scotland raised £7,719,000 by the issue of 25,340,000 shares in the period to 31 August 2012. Sevco Scotland’s filings with Companies House on the other hand show share issues took place between 29 May 2012 and 17 August 2012 involving the issue of some 29,340,000 shares at an aggregate subscription amount of £9,545,975.

    The prospectus also states that Imran Ahmad made a loan of £200,000 to Sevco 5088 on 11 May 2012, which is consistent with Aidan Earley’s contention that Sevco 5088 made the initial payment to RFC 2012 required pursuant to the CVA Agreement.

    The prospectus does not deal with the circumstances in which Sevco Scotland came to be a party to the acquisition of these assets.

    The CVA proposal produced by Duff and Phelps, the administrators, and dated 29 May 2012 (“the CVA Proposal”) refers to the CVA Agreement and to Sevco 5088 as being a party to it. It also makes no mention of any breach of that agreement by Sevco 5088 which would seem to indicate that Sevco 5088 had by that date complied with their obligation to pay at least £2.3m into the administrators’ lawyers’ client account. In fact we have heard a recording of a conversation which took place on 31 May 2012 between Craig Whyte and David Grier of Duff and Phelps which appears to confirm that a payment of £2.2m had been already been made – the implication being that it was by Sevco 5088.

    It would appear therefore that:

    (a) at some point between 29 May 2012 and 14 June 2012, when the acquisition of the Club Assets is reported to have been completed, the CVA Agreement was terminated and an agreement for the acquisition of the Club Assets entered into between Sevco Scotland and RFC 2012; or

    (b) at some point between 29 May 2012 and 14 June 2012 the benefit of the CVA Agreement was transferred (or novated) to Sevco Scotland; or

    (c) the acquisition of the Club Assets was completed by Sevco 5088 on June 14 2012 pursuant to the CVA Agreement and those assets were subsequently transferred to Sevco Scotland

    We have been given no indication as to the existence of any reason for the termination of the CVA Agreement and no announcement appears to have been made by the Administrators or RFC 2012 in that regard.

    If the agreement was not terminated by RFC 2012 for breach, any termination must have been done voluntarily at the request of Sevco 5088. Such a termination by Sevco 5088 would in our view have been a disposal of a valuable asset (the right to purchase the Club Assets) and should only have been done (i) because Sevco 5088 was not in a position to complete the acquisition or (ii) for appropriate consideration.

    We have seen evidence (a draft placing letter) that as late as 30 May 2012 the fundraising for the transaction was been carried out by Sevco 5088. Additionally it would appear that Sevco 5088 had already by that date made a payment of some £2.2m.

    Neither Ahmad or Green in their dealings with Aidan Earley or Craig Whyte prior to completion of the acquisition make any mention of any difficulty with the fund raising or of the CVA Agreement being terminated(whether for breach or otherwise), which it is assumed they would have if there had been an innocent explanation for the turn of events.

    Furthermore, it seems unlikely that inability to raise funds was the issue. It is difficult to envisage a legitimate explanation as to why Sevco Scotland (as far as third parties were concerned was controlled and owned by Green) should have been able to complete the required fund raising whereas Sevco 5088, ostensibly controlled and owned by Green, was not able to do so. Furthermore, when after the transaction had completed, Green was asked by Aidan Earley about the involvement of Sevco Scotland in the transaction Green initially indicated that that company was a subsidiary of Sevco 5088 and that its involvement was to enable the Club Assets to be held by a Scottish registered company. It is clear that Sevco Scotland was not a subsidiary of Sevco 5088 (unless the shares in the former company were being held on trust for the latter) so thay statement is inaccurate. If there were an accurate and innocent explanation (such as inability to raise funds through Sevco 5088) behind the involvement of Sevco Scotland it would seem surprising that such an explanation was not volunteered by Green at that point.

    If there was a novation or transfer of the benefit of the CVA Agreement, then similar considerations would apply.

    Why did that happen?

    Alternatively, if the Club Assets were transferred from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland post acquisition, then what was consideration for the transfer? Where is it? If it were left outstanding as a debt then why has Green applied to the Registrar of Companies to have the holder of such a valuable asset struck off?
    In all three scenarios the absence of consideration (together with the absence of circumstances justifying termination by RFC 2012 or voluntarily by Sevco 5088) would make the transaction void or avoidable (on the application of an administrator or liquidator) – either as an illegal reduction of capital (or unlawful dividend) or as a transfer at an undervalue. The absence of proper consideration and a proper motive for the switch to Sevco Scotland would also indicate that Green was in breach of his fiduciary duties to Sevco 5088, a fact of which Sevco Scotland would have been aware. Moreover Green was not at the relevant time the sole registered shareholder of Sevco 5088 and therefore in a position to “bless” the transaction (and thereby waive any breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders as director in that capacity). Companies associated with Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley had become shareholders Sevco 5088 on 9th and 10th of May 2012 according to extracts from the company’s books that we have been provided with. Even if he had been in a position to bless the arrangements that would not avoid the unlawful reduction of capital/unlawful dividend point or the transaction at an undervalue point.

    The transaction (either disposition of the assets or the benefit of the CVA Agreement) would also appear to have been carried out in breach of s190 of the Companies Act 2006 which requires shareholder approval for a transaction of that value with a company connected with a director. That means the transaction is voidable on the application of Sevco 5088 unless the rights of a bona fide purchaser without notice would be affected. Clearly Sevco Scotland is not a bona fide purchaser without value.

    It would appear, therefore, that the disposal of the Club Assets or the benefit of the CVA Agreement (as the case may be) was made illegally and that Sevco Scotland (through its directors) had sufficient knowledge of the illegality to make it a constructive trustee of the relevant assets. Sevco 5088 should in those circumstances be able to obtain a declaration from the Court that it is the rightful owner of the Club Assets in addition to orders for damages for losses caused to Sevco 5088 and/or damages for the tort of conversion. Alternatively, an administrator or liquidator of Sevco 5088 could make an applica-tion to the court for the return of the Club Assets or an application could be made pursuant to s190 of the Companies Act for their return.

    Despite the fact that the Assets consist of real property and chattels situated in Scotland, senior counsel (John Jarvis QC) is of the preliminary opinion that an action could be commenced by Sevco 5088 in the English courts although ultimately proceedings might be required in Scotland to enforce the judgment of the English courts.

    It is important to note that Green has never provided a proper and accurate explanation of the transaction between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland. He should be asked to provide that explanation and provide a copy of the relevant agreements, which belong to Sevco 5088.

    Indeed we cannot conceive of any innocent explanation which would address all of the points raised by us. We recommend that one of the first actions following the announcement of the transaction with Worthington is to approach the lawyers acting for Sevco 5088, at the relevant time, Field Fisher Water-house and ask them to provide an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the transaction and to supply copies of their files. This would have to be done as part of the process of obtaining litigation funding. In an ideal world that approach would be made at this stage, however it seems unlikely that they would comply with such a request without first discussing the issues with Green which would concede the initiative to Green enabling him to take pre-emptive steps which would undermine the proposed strategy. .

    It should be noted that if Green did as it would appear act in breach of his fiduciary duties to Sevco 5088, he would be susceptible to a claim for damages by that company.
    Green would also appear to have entered into a contract with Craig Whyte to establish and run Sevco 5088 and ensure that it acquired the Club Assets and thereafter to transfer control of Sevco 5088 to him. Similarly, Imran Ahmad entered into a contract with Craig Whyte to raise funds for the acquisition by Sevco 5088. It is clear that there is a prima facie case that both Green and Ahmad are in breach of contract and have committed the torts of conspiracy and deceit and potentially dishonest assistance and, in Scotland, delict. There is possibly also an action against one or both of them for breach of trust.
    Mr Whyte can recover damages for breach of contract on the basis of putting him into the position that he would have been in if that contract had been performed in accordance with its terms. The measure of damages would likely be the value of the shares in Sevco 5088 that Mr Whyte would have held, such shares to be valued on the basis that the company holds the Club Assets.

    As for the torts, Mr Whyte would be able to recover damages calculated on the basis of putting him into the position he would have been in if the torts had not been committed. Again, it would appear that the measure of damages is likely to be the value of the shares in Sevco 5088 calculated as aforesaid.
    In the absence of being able to show express or implied agreement as to the proper law governing the contractual relationships, the question would fall to be determined under the Rome Regulations as would the law applicable to the torts – see below. Jurisdiction would fall to be determined in accordance with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

    Mr Earley would also appear have an action for breach of contract against Ahmad and Green in relation to the breach of their agreement with him to give him an equal share of the benefit they obtained from the transaction in question.

    Note that junior counsel (James Evans) had some concerns that the nature of the agreement between Craig Whyte and Ahmad and Green (which was to withhold from the administrators the identity of the principal behind the transaction) may cause some issues with regards to pleading the cases on behalf of Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley (as opposed to the Sevco 5088 claims), but senior counsel did not share the same concerns, or at least not to the same degree and felt that they should not prove an obstacle to pursuing the claims successfully. We are also of this view.

    The Security Rights

    The enforcement of the Security Rights should be straightforward if it can be shown that the security was validly granted and that the security and associated debt were validly assigned and in the case of the debt still outstanding. On the assumption that the security documents are expressed to be subject to Scots law, the Scottish Courts would be the appropriate venue for enforcing those rights. Indeed, if the subject matter of the security is situate in Scotland then notwithstanding an express choice of another law, it is likely that Scottish law would be found to be the applicable law (under the principle of lex situs).
    —————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Part III – Clarification on asset ownership …. in law at least …

    An insolvency practitioner familiar with these procedures told me ….

    Even if CW is successful in proving that he has a right to the Rangers assets linked to a bond and floating charge the assets remain with newco and can never be returned …

    He further commented that for CW to litigate against D&P does not make sense, since they (D&P) will have indemnity insurance, and that would be by whoever appointed them …. Catch 22 …. CW (as is his right as the holder of the floating charge security over Rangers assets), ….. would be chasing himself ! ….. Doh !

    But we still have the situation whereby CW claims he owns the Rangers assets ….

    However …

    The land register says different. Whyte may claim to be the owner, but the register lists the current owner as Sevco Scotland and is legally binding…..

    The Registers of Scotland have confirmed “various applications were received by us on the 15th June 2012 transferring interests in property from Rangers Football Club Plc to Sevco Scotland Limited.”
    ————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Part IV – Trying to figure it all out !

    It appears then that Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland were presented to Duff & Phelps as related companies. That’s the only way I can see how Whyte has any claim to the assets. Green is the only shareholder in Sevco 5088 so there must be a written agreement between Green and Whyte that Green, or someone else on the Rangers board, would represent Whyte’s interests. The as yet unpublished documents held by FFW (Patrick Cannon) might shed some light. ….

    The above was before Whyte filed the director appointments for himself and Adrian Earley with Companies House, and might suggest collusion in novating the assets and possibly pushing them further out of the reach of creditors.

    That would mean the assets were ‘novated’ over to Sevco Scotland. The ‘preferred’ buyer (and we now know from the CF revelations that there was never going to be a rival bidder, given D&P are on record on the CF tapes clearly col-luding with Whyte on the sale of the assets) selling this to Duff & Phelps as being necessary to register the assets in Scotland and with the Land Registry.
    From CW claims above …

    The absence of proper consideration and a proper motive for the switch to Sevco Scotland would also indicate that Green may well be in breach of his fiduciary duties to Sevco 5088, and in fact may have imputed his knowledge as a director of Sevco 5088 for the benefit of Sevco Scotland.

    And further from the CW claims …

    Green was not at the relevant time the sole registered shareholder of Sevco 5088 and therefore in a position to “bless” the transaction (and thereby waive any breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders as director in that capacity).

    The transaction (either disposition of the assets or the benefit of the CVA Agreement) would also appear to have been carried out in breach of s190 of the Companies Act 2006 which requires shareholder approval for a transaction of that value with a company connected with a director.

    Continuing …

    Sevco Scotland (through its directors) had sufficient knowledge of the illegality to make it a construc-tive trustee of the relevant assets.

    Sevco 5088 should in those circumstances be able to obtain a declaration from the Court that it is the rightful owner of the Club Assets

    And finally,

    All of this though still doesn’t explain how Malcolm Murray failed in his duties as chairman to ensure Charles Green declared his directorship in Sevco 5088 in the Rangers share prospectus. That might prove very bad news for his professional reputation, but also that of Cenkos Securities, ….. who were advisers to the share issue. !


  67. Castofthousands says:
    August 15, 2013 at 11:43 pm

    Most strikingly you have Green’s TRFCL pre IPO shareholding as nil whereas the LSE link I provided gives him 5,000,200.
    =================================================================
    The reason he is shown as NIL on the list is because he didn’t exercise his option to take shares until 7 December 2012 which was well after I compiled the list on 22 October 2012. If you remember his lock-in comes off on 7 December 2013 which is exactly 12 months after he received his shares

    You have to remember that, at the time, we were getting the usual mouth music from Green who, at one point, was saying he was getting paid his bonus in cash and that he would never actually hold any shares in the new company.

    However I was being told that he wasn’t getting paid in cash and would be getting shares so I marked his shareholding as NIL but put a note on the list which stated: ‘Mr Green is due a 10% bonus for a successful float, as was disclosed in the May presentation seeking investors. This could come in the form of a 10% stake in the company, approximating to 5 million shares.’

    When the list was compiled that was the factual position although I was being told by my sources there just wasn’t enough money to pay him cash so he would have to take shares. As it turned out my sources were proven correct almost two months later.

    But that is something else you have to remember when attempting the exercise you have undertaken – there was a lot of aggro with Green’s original investors who had also expected to be paid in cash who ended up being forced to take shares. A few refused but had the power to be paid in cash as originally agreed and that would also explain why some shareholders seem to ‘disappear’. These, afaik, were members of investment vehicles.

    I’ll have another look at your figures in the morning and see if there are any other bits that can be ironed-out.

Leave a Reply