Of Assets and Liabilities

Avatar By

Dedeideoprofundis says: Sunday, November 4, 2012 at 23:35 1 0 Rate …

Comment on Of Assets and Liabilities by HirsutePursuit.

dedeideoprofundis says:
Sunday, November 4, 2012 at 23:35
1 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, November 4, 2012 at 23:24
Is it possible to use dirty money to buy shares? and surely he’d be losing an aweful lot by buying them back at a much lower price?
I’ll never be a cute hoor!
There are many legitimate offshore companies set up to make bona fide investments (often using nominee companies) in UK companies. Because of the less stringent regulatory regimes in the offshore companies’ countries of origin, the ultimate beneficial owners and their funding sources are often (but not always) impossible to trace by the UK authorities.

There is no reason to think that someone who owns or operates an offshore investment vehicle is doing anything other than exploiting the opportunity of operating in a more beneficial tax regime. However, it is easy to imagine circumstances where that offshore anonymity would provide an opportunity for less than scrupulous individuals to cloak a more nefarious intent.
He/she would not lose anything. In both transactions he/she is effectively buying from himself/herself and selling to himself/herself. All he/she is really doing is transferring “cleansed” cash to the UK by selling assets over-value and buying them back cheaply.

The only way this works though is if he/she knows the company has significant fixed assets; but is going to be trashed through over-optimistic revenue projections.

And, as I say, this is all purely hypothetical. I have no-one and no particular company in mind.

HirsutePursuit Also Commented

Of Assets and Liabilities
neepheid says:
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 09:51
1 0 Rate This
angus1983 says:
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 09:04
3 3 Rate This
Forest Hills (@ForestHills1903) says:
Sunday, November 4, 2012 at 23:00

angus1983 – maybe the descrepencies in attendance figures will be the difference between tickets sold – which is what Celtic quote (including all season ticket sales) and people that actually turn up (i.e. not the missing ST holders) – which is probably what the police care about and probably count?
That would make sense. However, between 6K and 10K not turning up for the game after purchasing a ticket does seem a bit excessive.

I’m genuinely interested as to how these two figures are arrived at – who would be in a position to explain it, I wonder?
I’m interested too. It seems to me that the only accurate figure for match attendance comes from the automatic counters on the turnstiles. Giving a ticket away free, selling a matchday ticket, even a season ticket, none of these guarantee a bum on a seat that day. You only know the attendance by counting the people in the ground.

I have no idea how the police arrive at their figures, but I would be astonished if it came from any physical count made by the police themselves. I’ve just had a thought, though. Maybe the CCTV system could produce a pretty accurate figure?Although even that would miss those temporarily away from their seats at the time of the count it would be pretty accurate. Somebody out there must know where the police figure comes from.
The police have ultimate responsibility to oversee crowd control from the control room within the stadium. For safety reasons they need to know – in real time – how many people have entered the ground via the computerised turnstiles. They will also know (or at least they should) how many hospitality tickets (max circa 1,300 at Ibrox on a match day) have been issued.

The number of people the police think are in the ground should be (within a handful) the exact number in attendance . If Charles is saying that there are another 7,000 people in there that the police know nothing about, I’d imagine they may want a word with him about the terms of Ibrox’s safety certificate.

I’m pretty sure that there will be some flexibility in his language, and when Charlie is talking about “hospitality” tickets, he will be including every free standard ticket printed – whether it is actually used or not.

I’d imagine the breakdown for the “world record” :0 🙂 game with East Fife would be something like:

30,000 – Attendance via Season Tickets
7,000 – Attendance via match-day sales
1,000 – Attendance via hospitality
4,000 – Attendance via free tickets issued


6,000 – No-show Season Ticket holders
1,000 – No-show free ticket holders

Of Assets and Liabilities
exiledcelt says:
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 01:11
0 0 Rate This
On the attendances at Ibrox – one item of note is the upper deck where the debentures own the seats. They as far as the report from D&P in Aug have yet to be dealt with as a creditor and as such CG cannot be selling those seats until such time. In the alst D&P report, they had reported it was not dealt with. Yet I noted form one picture against Queens Park the upper deck was now being filled. So either a deal has been made with Debenture Holders and TRFC can now sell these seats or they have not and they are giving complimentary tickets to the Debentures meantime for those seats.

That could be the gap here – am sure CG would have announced a deal with them as a newfound dyed in the wool Bear – so can only assume the latter……..
The D&P statement on Rangers’ debenture holders was a crock of $h1t.

The debenture holders were deemed unsecured creditors by D&P and have lost their cash in the same way as everyone else.

Perhaps they simply didn’t think they would need it for the first few games; but, it is entirely possible that it is the former debenture holders (who are logically the most likely group for future investment in Sevco) were being softened up for the IPO with the offer of free tickets to their old seats at the recent home matches.

Of Assets and Liabilities
paulmac2 says:
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 00:20
1 1 Rate This
Tommy says:
Sunday, November 4, 2012 at 19:18

Surely, for health and safety reasons, the police must have a record of the numbers in a football stadium. Recently someone lodged a FOI request to Strathclyde Police asking for the actual attendances of two home games at Ibrox in October. The police figures were 6,000 and 9,000 respectively below the published attendances for these two matches.

Last week Charles Green explained that the TRFC figures were correct and that the police had not taken account of the fans in the hospitality areas. The MSM seemed to accept this explanation all too readily.
I think the 2010 accounts showed that RFC had just less than 25,000 people in hospitality over the course of the entire season. This represented around 77% of the stadium’s capacity.

If we assume 25 home games that gives 1,000 on average.
If 1,000 is 77% of capacity, the maximum number of people in hospitality is approximately 1,300.

Recent Comments by HirsutePursuit

Who Is Conning Whom?
I am with you in most of what you say, but there are some important differences.

SFA Article 6.1 & 6.2 say:

Clubs or associations undertaking to promote Association Football according to the Laws of the Game and these Articles and other rules of the Scottish FA may be admitted as registered members, associate members or full members, subject to the provisions of Articles 6.2 to 6.7 (both inclusive).
6.2 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 18, provided it is not already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.

We are in complete agreement, I think, that SFA Article 6.2 made Sevco a registered member of the SFA from the date it was accepted by the SFL – 14th July 2012.

But, and I think this is important, the nearest the SFA get to insisting that a club has associate or full SFA membership is Article 6.2 which simply says, ‘A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.’
Note: no timescale applies… and no consequences (from an SFA perspective) if a club chooses to not make that application.

So I think we are on common ground that Article 6.2 was applicable as far as the registered membership was concerned – and Sevco did not take the opportunity to apply for associate membership by this method.

If we then go back to what the SFL Rules actually said:

6. REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIPA Member or Associate Member who is not already a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association must make application to become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse upon that decision being intimated to the League.

Now, if the SFL was being prescriptive about which SFA Article was to be used (to apply for full or associate membership), and that Article 6 was the only valid route, why mention full membership as an option. If ‘application’ is meant to mean only applications in terms of SFA Article 6, the only relevant option would be to apply as an associate SFA member.

No, the SFL rules are not prescriptive in the manner of that application. I think Rule 16 is clearly written to allow a transfer of associate or full membership from an existing club to a new club or entity under SFA Article 14. 

In fact the only method by which this could be achieved is SFA Article 14

14. Prohibition on Transfer of Membership14.1 It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Scottish FA to another member or to any other entity, and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited, save as otherwise provided in this Article 14. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

…which allows the board to grant an application for transfer of an existing membership on such terms as it sees fit.

Importantly, the discretion only applies to which terms and conditions to a transfer of a membership that already exists.

Having complete  discretion on how or if that transfer (of full membership) took place is completely within the board’s power via Article 14.

What it doesn’t do is empower the board to create a new type of membership. 

And, even if it does claim to have done so, I still don’t understand how the SFA ‘conditional’ membership would satisfy the SFL requirement for an application for associate or full membership?

Remember, this transfer application was an SFL requirement. The SFA had no interest in whether or not Sevco applied for associate or full membership.

It seems to me that the SFA and SFL approached the Sevco scenario in a similar way as they did when Inverness Caledonian were admitted (as a new club) in 1994.

Difference is ICT, the SFL, SPL and SFA all recognise that that club was founded in 1994.

As I said earlier with regard to the birth of Sevco, the deceit is not so much in what they all did, but in what they said and continue to say.

Who Is Conning Whom?
The new club (Sevco) was issued with written permission to use the name of a club in full membership (Rangers).

This was necessary because both existed as SFA member clubs at the time.

Who Is Conning Whom?
This was the nub of the ‘conditional membership’

10.7 Each club in full membership or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full membership or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full membership or associate membership without the prior written consent of the Board.

Who Is Conning Whom?
The 14 day application deadline was an SFL requirement – not something that the SFA had any locus in considering.

As long as Sevco was a member of the SFL it was a member of the SFA.

It would have been up to the SFL management committee to decide if the application for transfer (rather than application for a new associate membership) met its requirements. If it did not, it would have been within its powers to revoke Sevco’s league membership. It is an arguable point, but there is no suggestion, as far as I’m aware, that the SFL league management committee ever met to even discuss the matter.

Nevertheless, I think you are saying that Sevco was no longer a member of the SFL at the time of the SFA statement – therefore needed this ‘new’ SFA membership category to play Brechin.

But how would any type of membership of the SFA help if it was no longer a member of the SFL? If its membership of the league had already lapsed or been revoked, another SFL EGM would have been required to try and vote the club back in. I’m 100% sure that did not happen.

On 29th July, Sevco must still have been a member of the SFL as the Ramsden Cup was only open to members of that league.

There was simply no mechanism for the club to rejoin the league in the available time. If it did not rejoin (and I’m as certain as I can be that it did not) then it cannot ever have been removed as a member of the SFL.

And as I keep saying, as a member of the SFL, it was also a member of the SFA.

The SFA’s deceit was not in its actions – but was in its words.

Don’t forget that the SFA had to consider the use of the Rangers name. The ‘conditional’ membership squirrel has been particularly useful in covering up the SFA board’s approval for Sevco to play Brechin under the Rangers name.

That, in reality, was the big announcement on that day. The rest was sleight of hand.

Smoke and mirrors.

Who Is Conning Whom?
The golf club analogy has been used before.

Dear old dad is a member of St Andrews (other golf clubs are available). To make best use of the facilities new members must apply to a ‘house’ that will give access to their respective lounges and bars. After 15 years of continuous membership Mon pere was awarded the status of ‘Gold Member’.

Gold Members have their own lounge and gain a range of additional benefits. 

Recently poor old dad has become poorly and suggests that l join the golf club and take over his ‘Gold Membership’.

I join the club and, with a letter of agreement from sickly pater, apply for the transfer of his ‘Gold Membership’ status.

The committee meet and decide that I can only take on the enhanced membership status if old pop dies.

I tell them that father is on his last legs and won’t last the weekend.

As an existing member I can enter the club’s Saturday medal competition. On a conditional basis, they tell me I will be eligible to use the ‘Gold Members’ facilities. They issue me with a letter to confirm this arrangement.

They will reconvene in several weeks to confirm the transfer of membership status – assuming that by then papa will be gone. If he makes a miraculous recovery I must then apply to join one of the standard houses.

About the author