Of Assets and Liabilities

Bystevensanph

Of Assets and Liabilities

Much has been written on this blog, and previously on RangersTaxCase.com regarding the assets and liabilities of the former Rangers football club – however little has been done to look at the rest of the SPL and Scottish Football as a whole.  Was it just Rangers making ridiculous ‘asset’ valuations or is there other clubs in real danger of following RFC to the grave?

Before we get started a quick explanation on the figures.  They were all taken from the latest accounts as appearing on Duedil.com, so some are from 2010’s figures.  I have also ‘tidied’ them up a little so that they are easily understandable, removing things such as minor stock holdings.

The big story in the Rangers case was how over valued their ‘assets’ were, and especially the freehold property.  To remind you Rangers Balance sheet in 2010 was as below:

While on paper the net assets look very healthy, we all now know that the 130m of Fixed assets was in fact worth just 5.5m in the real world.  If we change that 130m to the real life figure their balance sheet would have looked like this…

So, how do the rest of the SPL compare?  This is a list of ‘fixed assets’ for each club as noted in their last accounts.

Predictably, Celtic lead the way, but a quick scout through the notes reveals the freehold properties are valued at 45m.  Dundee prop up the table, but with no freehold properties to their name, this is not so surprising.   One thing to note is the difference in value of the assets held by Aberdeen and Kilmarnock compared to clubs like Dundee Utd and St.Johnstone – this is important when we look at their balance sheets.

As you can see above, I have broken the balance sheet down into a few categories.  We have the fixed assets we just discussed, followed by the cash in bank.  Next is the debtors (money owed to the club within the next year) and then the creditors (money the club owes to others within the next year).  A crude calculation gives us the Net Current assets or liabilities.  A red number means that club owes more money in the next 12 months than they have in the bank, or are owed.

We then move on to long term creditors (money that is owed but not immediately – more than 1 year away) which will constitute loans from banks, or from shareholders.  In the case of Hearts, who have the highest amount of long term debt in the SPL, 98% of this debt is owed to the parent company UAB, controlled by Romanov.  This debt attracts a further 4.5% interest a year, while UAB also hold a floating charge over the clubs assets.

The final column gives us the Net assets or liabilities, taking into account the fixed assets of the company.  As we saw earlier, Rangers had posted Net assets of 70m, only achieved by their ridiculous freehold property valuation.  Are Hearts and Aberdeen doing the same?  In the case of Hearts they include in their fixed assets 159,000 worth of ‘Memorabilia’…  in addition to 15m of freehold property, while Aberdeen state in their accounts that the valuation of Pittodrie is a ‘rebuild’ value rather than a likely realistic sale price.

By declaring such high values on their balance sheets though, it produces a net asset figure, rather than a large liability that, in reality, is the case.  Kilmarnock and Hibs to a lesser extent would also see their figures turn red with asset valuations downgraded.

What is heartening to see though, is two clubs with net current assets, in St.Johnstone and Motherwell.  Saints were rescued from near bankruptcy in the 80’s by Geoff Brown and have lived within their means ever since.  Motherwell likewise have been in financial trouble in recent times, but the club appears to have stabilized and is now living within their means on and off the park.

If another insolvency event hits an SPL club, the MSM will blame it on the demise of Rangers.  What can be clearly seen here though is the damage was done years ago to clubs like Hearts, Dundee Utd and Aberdeen – it will be a battle to get back to the kind of financial position that clubs such as St.Johnstone currently enjoy.  However, the message that Saints are currently sending out is that its possible to have a competitive team without breaking the bank, as long as others aren’t artificially inflating wage demands.

The accounts I used to get the above figures are downloadable here:  I was unable to find for Inverness – if anyone can find please let me know and I can add them to the table.  When time permits I will extend this to include SFL clubs as well.

Aberdeen Celtic  | Dundee Utd | Hearts  | Hibs | Kilmarnock | Ross County | St.Mirren | St.Johnstone

About the author

stevensanph author

1,119 Comments so far

scapaflow14Posted on11:37 am - Nov 1, 2012


wottpi says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 11:27

And, on top of all that, would any local councillor vote to approve the necessary planning permissions?

Absent a challenge from any wronged potential bidder, the asset sale looks like a dead issue for now. Gratuitous Alienation remains a dim prospect, but it will be months before we get anywhere close to that scenario.

Still no sign of the FTT decision, the holding pattern continues, but we are running out of drinks and peanuts, aerial refuelling anyone? 😉

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:38 am - Nov 1, 2012


doontheslope says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 11:16

I have no doubt that for some small creditors there may have indeed been a fear factor in relation to challenging the administration.
However at the same time if creditors were following this blog and others they know that trying to get money from a football club is hard work.

As businesses they will also know that the economic climate is one which anyone with cash to burn would be, if they were at all interested, trying to buy up assests in an open sale at rock bottom prices.

At the end of the day given the time taken to resolve this many creditors may have just decided it wasn’t worth the time and effort to make a fuss. When you have already lost money why then give more away to lawyers just to get told your are still getting nothing?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:46 am - Nov 1, 2012


scapaflow14 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 11:37

Still no sign of the FTT decision, the holding pattern continues, but we are running out of drinks and peanuts, aerial refuelling anyone?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That was going to be my next point.

The FTT was mentioned in dispatches yesterday as if it was still floating in the either. (Did D&D say they did not know the outcome as yet?)

However elsewhere people have made specific references to certain pages being devastating.

Therefore, as our sources are rarely wrong, a document ( a hefty tome I believe some say) must now surely exist.

It is just a matter of time?

Bonfire night would be a nice time to see the whole thing explode.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on11:52 am - Nov 1, 2012


Regilives (@regilives) says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 11:36

“Remember, Charlie’s SEVCO apparently have money in the bank, no external debt and are unable to buy players for some time yet so why is a cash injection needed now?”

I wonder if the late and unlamented Charles Ponzi, was a fan of Charles Dickens’ Litttle Dorrit?

That’s two Charles’ wonder who the third could be….

View Comment

goosyPosted on11:57 am - Nov 1, 2012


140 yrs of mostly disgraceful history gone forever and ever and ever

And on Halloween to boot

Thanks for the memory

View Comment

bluPosted on11:59 am - Nov 1, 2012


doontheslope says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 11:19
3 0 i
Rate This

Blu

I was thinking that “slamming his league cup flops in Halloween horror show” is a bit of a complaint. No?

===================================================================
Doon, apologies for the distracting pedantry, but It’s a complaint about his team. What it’s not is a complaint about the result in a Chelsea sort of way – it’s no fair, Torres shouldn’t have been sent off and Hernadez was offside. There are many examples of the Daily Record’s failure to report properly on the Rangers debacle that we’d agree on.

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on12:06 pm - Nov 1, 2012


As I see it HMRC are more interested in the actions of Mr Murray, Mr Whyte et al than they are in the club itself. They were never going to get anything directly from the club anyway as it was so far into the mire by the time administration started that nothing could be done.

So what we have now is BDO in charge of the business and both liquidating what is left and investigating what happened. Who was responsible for what, and how that affected the business and other people.

The prospect of assets being seized and criminal charges being made is a very real one. BDO will in effect be working for HMRC now and anything they find will be reported to them, and to the relevant Police.

This is far from over, liquidation is simply dealing with the body corporate. The individuals have a really hard time ahead of them. Some of them will have the choice of witness or alleged offender. Not all though.

View Comment

timtimPosted on12:17 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Charles is a 2nd hand car salesman
he only has one motor on the lot and its a cut and shunt job
full service history til 2001
fully restored in 2012 after minor collision
ignore weld marks on floorpan , very low mileage, only runs on 5* petrol
one forward gear -4 reverse
Chauffeur included with provisional licence
cash deal only -no trade ins accepted -sold as seen
Bargain!

View Comment

bobferrisPosted on12:21 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Wouldn’t it be great if match programme editors across the land decided to stand up for what is right and whenever The Sevco Franchise come to town, say in the visitors page – Year of Formation 2012…Honours – None.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on12:28 pm - Nov 1, 2012


bobferris70 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 12:21

Aye, and see their toilets trashed, seats smashed and staff threatened, don’t think so

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on12:47 pm - Nov 1, 2012


With respect to the legal people who give us the benefit of their wisdom on here and other sites, laws are only words, subject to interpretation by people. We pay lawyers from bottom to top huge amounts of money for creatively interpreting these words. Very often it appears that interpretations are made to suit the policies of the moment.

So we have Lord Carloway saying one thing, Lord Glennie disagrees, reading the same words. Lord Hodge instals a suspiciously conflicted administrator. Several months later he calls for that confliction to be investigated. Lord Nimmo Smith says a club which becomes a company does not become a company. Alice’s wonderland is Sevcovia.

Then there was Dickens’ old character who said “..the law is a’ ass”. In the circumstances, who could argue with that?

I agree with Neepheid and others who have grave doubts about where all this is going.

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on12:59 pm - Nov 1, 2012


To Senior @ 11.07

No, simply the demands of grandweans, etc. I read once on here, I think it was Easy Jambo who apologised for taking time to reply to a query from somebody, citing his duties as grandpa. He had taken one single hour to respond. If only!

View Comment

angus1983Posted on1:03 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Althetim says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 10:53

angus1983 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 09:29

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

And when did LNS make this particulare interpretation of the rules angus? Was this prior to 14th Feb 2012, which, to remind you was Administration Day?

Thought not.

Keep digging.
——

No need to dig any further, Al.

It doesn’t matter a bit what date LNS published that interpretation. That’s what the Rules say. LNS merely summarised them, and I’ve heard no debate over this matter.

I will quote LNS, rather than the SPL Rules, as he summarises them quite nicely in this respect:


Para 46 states:-

It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.

Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.

While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.

In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.

This is according to the SPL Rules. Rangers FC, the “Club”, continue to exist in the eyes of the SPL and for the purpose of SPL proceedings – even if no-one else except the Bears think so. If you don’t accept that, and want to quibble about dates, fill yer boots.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on1:06 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Al – to clarify: the SPL Rules were there for anyone to look at and come to the same conclusions prior to 14 Feb.

That LNS pointed it out after that date is kind of irrelevant. The Rules were always there that said a Club continues to exist even if its ownership changes.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on1:09 pm - Nov 1, 2012


I suspect Alex Thomson has hit the nail on the head when he talks about the culture of fear and intimidation:

It was fear of consequences, I believe which meant HMRC was “happy” to allow Rangers to continue playing

It was fear of consequences which precipitated Alex Salmond’s ill judged foray into this territory

It was fear of consequences which meant that any potential purchaser of Rangers’ assets would not object to the sale to Sevco

It was fear of consequences which meant that no creditor dared object to the liquidation

It was fear of consequences which meant that LH allowed the delay of liquidation of the club until such time as a replacement had been put in place

It was fear of consequence which drove the now infamous and unseen 5 way agreement to create the monster.

If you oppose or stand up to this intimidation , not only will you face dangers and threats, you will not have the support of the police, nor the football authorities nor the judiciary in this country.

The lessons have been learnt. Intimidation, hints of carnage, and actual and threatened violence work in Scotland. Use these tactics and you get what you want.

It is a country without a spine!

View Comment

rabPosted on1:09 pm - Nov 1, 2012


It was mentioned yesterday that D&P had accessed £2m that they where not yet entitled to. Was this money used to fund the prolonged administration, would D&P have had to move to liquidation sooner if they had not procured these funds.

What exactly were these funds, who did they belong to, why did D&P use them and what were they used on. Have the funds been replaced and who replaced them.

Is there any relevance to the above questions.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on1:11 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Can i just note how disappointed I am that RM is down again today?

I was really looking forward to, firstly, their considered and insightful views on liquidation and, secondly, getting humped at home off Caley.

Mind you, being out of two cups by the end of October isn’t unknown to them. Usually it’s the CL and UEFA rather than Ramsdens and League, though. 🙂

View Comment

Lamp Post SanniesPosted on1:13 pm - Nov 1, 2012


I e-mailed STV complaining about there coverage of the lower league results.
Copy of my complaint and thier response below. (think they missed a word or two in their first sentence). I don’t know what sort of response I was after but here you go anyway.

I’m still waiting on replies from Rapid Vienna to my query as to whether they’d been paid anything yet and Vincent Lunny asking if Charles Green’s recent claims of theft by the SPL should result in a charge of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’, either for Charles for the accusation or for the SPL for stealing a club’s money (depending on the truth of the allegation). I’m not holding my breath waiting on replies

My e-mail:-
Hi there,

I would like to register a complaint about the early evening news bulletin you transmitted on Saturday, 20 October 2012.

When presenting the afternoon’s football results you gave out the SPL scores, skipped the First and Second Divisions and then for Division 3 the only score you gave out was for the Rangers v Queens Park game. If this had just been someone reading the scores then I wouldn’t have minded but you actually had a graphic prepared for the Division 3 scores but only showed one result on it.

I would like to know why your News/Sports team chose to ignore all of the lower league games with the exception of the Rangers game. If you take the time and trouble to have a graphic made for division 3 then why not show all the scores on it? And if you show third division scores, why not first and second division? There is more than one lower league team based in central Scotland, are their fans not all worthy of finding out their team’s score from STV?

I look forward to your reply.

The reply:-
STV News are aware that Rangers matches in the public interest as the attendance at these matches can be over 40 thousand people, as such we feel it is important that our viewers are informed of the score. Unfortunately due to time restraints in our weekend bulletins we are unable to show all of the match scores.
I have recorded your comments and, in addition, your comments shall be included in a report that is viewed by our senior management.
We thank you for taking the time to get in touch; viewer feedback of any kind is always welcome here at STV.

View Comment

SeniorPosted on1:14 pm - Nov 1, 2012


To Senior @ 11.07

No, simply the demands of grandweans, etc. I read once on here, I think it was Easy Jambo who apologised for taking time to reply to a query from somebody, citing his duties as grandpa. He had taken one single hour to respond. If only!
_______________________________
Totally tongue in cheek Willmac.
I read retired as in retired retired if you know what I mean.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on1:14 pm - Nov 1, 2012


angus1983 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:06

Indeed Angus, and as much as Mr Green may not like it, the rules don’t draw a distinction between the good and the toxic. Rangers are liable for their previous misdeeds, no matter who the owners of the club are or were.

The interesting point will come when LNS produces his report, will the SPL board and the SPL clubs have the balls to apply the appropriate sanctions, because, they will have nowhere left to hide.

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on1:15 pm - Nov 1, 2012


“Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”

And that undertaking can be a collection of members, a limited company, or a PLC. In Rangers instance the undertaking took the form of a members club, then a limited company, then a PLC.

It was the same undertaking all along. Right up to the point of it being liquidated.

View Comment

SeniorPosted on1:21 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Scapaflow.

Still no sign of the FTT decision, the holding pattern continues, but we are running out of drinks and peanuts, aerial refuelling anyone?
__________________________________________

No aerial refuelling I’m afraid, will have be by mule. RAF budget cut by 100 million.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on1:21 pm - Nov 1, 2012


iceman63 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:09

Up to a point Iceman, you wouldn’t walk into the Louden Tavern and start singing the men behind the wire. Shouting fire in a cinema is never a good idea.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on1:24 pm - Nov 1, 2012


And when did LNS make this particulare interpretation of the rules angus? Was this prior to 14th Feb 2012, which, to remind you was Administration Day?

Thought not.

Keep digging.
——

No need to dig any further, Al.

It doesn’t matter a bit what date LNS published that interpretation. That’s what the Rules say. LNS merely summarised them, and I’ve heard no debate over this matter.

I will quote LNS, rather than the SPL Rules, as he summarises them quite nicely in this respect:


Para 46 states:-

It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.

Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.

While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.

In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.

This is according to the SPL Rules. Rangers FC, the “Club”, continue to exist in the eyes of the SPL and for the purpose of SPL proceedings – even if no-one else except the Bears think so. If you don’t accept that, and want to quibble about dates, fill yer boots.

The difficulty with the SPL’s interpretation of the rule is this. In all other cases when the club is liquidated or fails to exit administration it folds. Up to that point the ownwership can indeed change. Whjat happened with rangers was that the club folded. Sevco bought the assets and not the club – and that is where the interpretation in the 5 way agreement is bogus. The club was not sold. the club folded. What they did in thisa case was invent an entity called the club ( distinct from the company) and hand this share on to SEVCO. The need for transfer shows that it was not the same club. The licence had the club been purchased would already have belonged to SEVCO. They did not buy the club so the licence had to be transferred ( that is itself illegal under SFA rules which state that no licence can be transferred to another legal entity).

They are a different club with the same licence and footballing history. That is a logical and regulkatory fallacy. They have all simply abandoned the rules of their own organisation. No interpretation of Rulke 46 can actually allow this transfer to happen. We have an owner of separately sold assets claiming that he has bought the club which in reality still existed until yesterday.

Only fear of consequences allowed this nonsense to happen.

In essence SEVCO are playing illegally under the constitutions of the SFL and SFA – just no-one is prepared to challenge that – for fear of consequences.

The entire edifice of their existence within the game is bogus. Those who allowed it know this. Those who operate rangers know this. All fans know this. All other clubs know this. LNS knows this ; The Rangers fans know this. Ths cat and his mother know this.

It is only the culture of fear and intimidation that allows them to continue.

It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes – with chibs for the unbelievers!

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on1:24 pm - Nov 1, 2012


scapaflow14 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:21
0 0 i
Rate This

iceman63 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:09

Up to a point Iceman, you wouldn’t walk into the Louden Tavern and start singing the men behind the wire. Shouting fire in a cinema is never a good idea.

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

What if the cinema is on fire.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on1:28 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Agrajag says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:24

Yeah, ok could have worded that a wee bit better lol

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on1:37 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Undertaking is actually a very useful word in explaining the difference between what the Rangers fans are claiming and reality. They seem to be under the impression that Rangers were somehow taken over, or operated by a separate limited company, and as such could survive the death of that company. Unfortunately, for them, that is not how it worked.

Rangers was an undertaking. It started life as a members club, but later chose to become a limited company (presumably to protect the members and limit their liability). However the point is it was still the same undertaking, it had just changed the type of entity it was. The same goes for floating on the stock market. Still the same undertaking, just a different type of business.

So, it was the same undertaking all along, it just changed it’s nature a couple of times. When the PLC was liquidated it was the original undertaking whichwas lost to the World.

There is now a new undertaking, which is currently a limited company. If and when it floats no-one will say it is a new Rangers. It will be the same undertaking, it will just have changed into a different type of company.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on2:05 pm - Nov 1, 2012


beatipacificiscotia says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:15

“Haven’t seen any footage from Zombieland … Enjoy!

I could do without this sort of gloating on here. Plenty of other places you can do it.

View Comment

timtimPosted on2:21 pm - Nov 1, 2012


I always wondered why players like Sandaza Sheils Black etc decided to sign up with
Charlies Angels. A decent wage and a quick stroll on the park every Saturday knocking up 5-0 wins week in week out while playing in front of big adoring crowds .Their reputations in the market place may not have been enhanced greatly but neither would they be damaged .
Pity it hasnt all gone to plan
These SPL quality players are showing themselves up regularly to be no better than their
Div 3 opponents , the adoring fans are giving them pelters and their values on the market
must be questionable.
By January we will know if Charlies IPO has been a failure or as I suspect a non starter
If finances are once again at critical level then Charles will have little options available to
raise capital ,in fact only one option will remain – sell sell sell .
Will the players jump at the opportunity to get outta Dodge ?
Will they submit transfer requests in a vain attempt to rescue their careers at a higher level?
Last year these players with 2-3 yrs remaining on their contracts may have netted up to £5m
but now £100k would seem like a gamble for a player that struggles against Annan Peterhead
or Berwick
The IPO/private share issue is make or break time for Charles , Ally the Ringmaster has lost his whip and their are few replacements that can fill his boots with the loyal .
Only one man remains that could step into the breach -Sir Walter of Cardigan
Pity he took that EBT years after leaving Rfc* as he may want to keep his head down when
the FTT is finally delivered .
Poor Charles ,one could almost feel sorry for him .
Almost !

View Comment

doontheslopePosted on2:24 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Iceman

It was fear of consequences….
————————————–

I ‘fear’ it is much more complex than that. We are dealing with a large group of people who are at the lower end of the moral spectrum. i.e. fear of consequences, but also blind assent, self interest, etc… Lawrence Kholberg gives a pretty good description of their thinking processes in his Theory of Moral Development, stages one and two – precognitive.

(Cognitive stages are where people begin to perceive that there are other people trying to have a life on the planet and we should respect that – rules them out, and post – cognitive stages are where we find people of the morality of Ghandi – rules most of the rest of us out with its emphasis on values of justice and interpersonal love.)

Fear is only a small part of the picture.

Jeezo, never thought I’d find myself talking like this about Rangers. They were not a metaphysical club.

View Comment

shield2012Posted on2:29 pm - Nov 1, 2012


gie’s a gonk says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:13

Please tell me that was just another reaction from a bitter and twisted soul………..and not a serious complaint to the STV?

View Comment

angus1983Posted on2:31 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Agrajag says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:37

When the PLC was liquidated it was the original undertaking which was lost to the World.
——

Correct. In the eyes of everyone except the SPL …

… who I believe had a secretary type up their rules from a few scribbled-on napkins borrowed from the Light of Bengal after a night on the piss.

I’m not sure how else they can justify their rules regarding the definition of a “club” not concurring with every other football authority in the world.

Nevertheless, it remains that they are STILL the same club for SPL purposes. Whatever happened to the PLC is of no relevance at all. Rangers FC “the Club” will get punished as a result of the SPL investigation – not a holding company e.g. Oldco. I imagine that if Mr Charles had had the sense to give his team a properly different name and let the history thing RIP, he could have avoided that.

As it stands, for SPL purposes the Club (i.e. Rangers FC) get punished, but whoever the current “holding company” are (i.e. TRFC Ltd) will be responsible for taking the spanking.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:35 pm - Nov 1, 2012


timtim says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 14:21

These SPL quality players are showing themselves up regularly to be no better than their
Div 3 opponent

———————————-

this has made me think…..!

you know, maybe there really isn’t that much of a gulf between a lower league and CL player

Maybe the only difference between a guy making it to the top flight is down to personal circumstances (able to travel/afford being an apprentice for a few years/no strong family ties keeping them at home)

Fitness & being injury free

I’m wondering if it might be possible for an SPL team to take on say 10 youngsters from a lower league team and work on their fitness, allow them to be devoted to full time football, and turn them into top flight footballers.

Or at least, be no better/worse than the players they currently have

Lets face it, we all know guys at school who were marvels with a ball, for one reason or other they never made it. (maybe they didn’t want to)

But after watching “SPL” level players strugglin in the lower division, i’m starting to think that there isn’t much between them except consistency, fitness and one does it every day of their life with similar quality players and for the other it’s a hobby.

Could be an interesting “social experiment” if a TV company fancied making a reality show about it – taking on Albion Rovers, paying the players to be full time, bringing in some professional coaches/nutritionists/physios (full time – i mean, not implying the staff aren’t decent at Albion)

Could they rise through the leagues based on picking the best lower league players and giving them an opportunity to do it full time for a few years?

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:42 pm - Nov 1, 2012


for SPL/Footballing purposes (in scotland – as this won’t fly with UEFA OK)

if Sevco ARE the same club as RFC PLC

Sevco Rangers can claim 54 titles and a UEFA cup win etc. However, they can also have those titles removed if RANGERS (the CLUB) are found to have breached the rules

so, if the titles can be removed, can Sevco Rangers (the company) be punished by being fined/banned from UEFA competitions, banned from SPL, suspended from senior football – and can they be told to repay any prize money won? (a la lance armstrong?)

If Sevco rangers cannot be punished for the actions of the CLUB, then Sevco rangers cannot claim to be the CLUB.

That means they cannot claim the history.

So, it’s pretty straightforward. LNS will investigate, he may remove titles and then the SPL/SFA will need to then punish teh club. if Sevco rangers don’t accept it – then they will have to say they are NOT the same club.

They are a NEW club using an OLD SFA membership (one they weren’t entitled too as a new club we should remember)

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on2:46 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Galling fiver says:
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 23:18
17 0 i
Rate This
Valentines day, Halloween, Christmas. But dont forget Guy Fawkes, too much irony.
_______________________________________________

I see no reason
Why tax-dodging treason
Should ever be forgot

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on2:50 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Senior @ 1314 (Battle of Bannockburn, there’s some real history. Hope nobody buys it off us)

Yeah, I got the tongue in cheek bit, just could not think of anything similar to reply.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on2:50 pm - Nov 1, 2012


willmacufree says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 08:32

26

0

Rate This

bogsdollox says: Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 01:11

Just a stray thought for which I expect millions of TD’s but here goes – Rangers “The Club” was founded in 1872 but was not incorporated until 1899 so it seems that there are grounds for believing that the club CAN exist outside the company
==========
Bogsd,

I haven’t given you the dreaded TD, but anyway, I think you’re wrong. On a matter of simple English, incorporated = was made corporate, became a corporation or limited liability company.

If “The Club” was made or became any particular entity, then surely “The Club” = that entity, which is the limited company or other corporate body.

Sorry if this has already been said. Now I’m retired I haven’t the time to read through all posts right now.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with your analysis but if it is possible to incorporate it is also possible to disincorporate.

EG.I could run my business as a sole trader for a few years but decide to incorporate because the tax breaks are better and after a while because of the tightening up of tax laws I might decide to sell the company’s business back to myself. What business would I then be running?

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on2:55 pm - Nov 1, 2012


angus1983 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 14:31
0 0 i
Rate This

Agrajag says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:37

When the PLC was liquidated it was the original undertaking which was lost to the World.
——

Correct. In the eyes of everyone except the SPL …

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

I disagree with your reading of Lord Nimmos Smitth’s words.

“Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”

To me that recognises that a football club is a thing which exists and can be owned. However it does not distinguish between the type of undertaking. For example did Celtic have to have it’s licence transferred when it changed from a licence to a PLC. It did not. Changing from a Ltd company to a PLC was irrelevant for the purposes of being a football club. Similarly changing from a members club to a Ltd company would not mean a transfer of registration. It would be the same undertaking throughout.

Rangers, the undertaking, which happened to be a PLC at the time was liquidated. Importantly it’s registration had to be transferred to a new undertaking. This was done by the Scottish football authorities (disregarding whether that was appropriate or not). Whether it was a different PLC, or a different Ltd company isn’t really the issue. It was a different undertaking

To me, in the eyes of Scottish football New Rangers are a separate undertaking from old Rangers and therefore a new club.

Happy to agree to disagree.

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on3:11 pm - Nov 1, 2012


RM seems to have been unavailable for almost 24 hours.
A quick quiz for discerning correspondents as to the most likely reason for this break in transmission:-
a) RM was actually a subsidiary of RFC 2012 PLC and also went into liquidation yesterday.
b) A necessary break to revamp the site prior to submission in the Readers Digest’s Family Website of the Year competition.
c) Introduction of an automatic spellcheck function caused irretrievable damage.
d) Scottish legal authorities have taken action at last on the grounds of material likely to cause offence.

Clue for all entrants :- It’s not d)

View Comment

twopandaPosted on3:15 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Anyone up for listing what`s been `said and done`?

http://www.scotzine.com/2012/11/the-phantom-commercial-partnership-between-rangers-and-dallas-cowboys/

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on3:17 pm - Nov 1, 2012


from twitter

Andrew Young @Hullbhoy

FAO Billy Dodds:

JP Morgan workers have been ordered to pay tax – or face legal action – over allegations the firm transferred salary payments offshore, Sky News has learned.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) deemed the money as “disguised remuneration” and not retirement benefits as claimed.

Workers and executives have been told they must agree to pay up to 40% backdated income tax, 1% National Insurance contributions and interest accrued by December 7.

JP Morgan Chase and Co has agreed to pay 12.8% NI contributions for those who accept the settlement terms.

Those who do not agree to the terms face the threat of legal action by the Tax Office.

Sky News understands the money since classified as earnings by HMRC was transferred to Jersey from 1998, with most transferred from the 2005/6 tax year onwards.

The specified amount paid by individuals to the Tax Office to avoid litigation will be determined ultimately by how many agree to the settlement terms on offer. The investment bank employs thousands of people in the UK.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on3:18 pm - Nov 1, 2012


oops – didnt’ cut and paste the whole story…….

The Tax Office has offered settlements to numerous trust beneficiaries
In a letter to the head of JP Morgan’s tax department dated September 10, HMRC said: “As you are aware, the Government put in place legislation in 2011 to put beyond doubt the tax treatment of employee benefit trust arrangements.

“In addition, HMRC continues to robustly challenge the taxation treatment of such arrangements under previous legislation.

It adds: “In this context and where we are unable to agree a settlement HMRC will continue to formally progress its enquiries into the taxation treatment of the trusts.”

Last year HMRC contacted more than 2,000 employers and offered settlements over disputed employee benefit trusts (EBTs).

Earlier this year action was taken by HMRC against UBS and Deutsche Bank over EBTs, which contested the Tax Office claims.

HMRC has estimated that up to £1.7bn of tax and NI contributions were at stake in EBTs, including the “dependent fund” plans operated by JP Morgan.

The investment bank’s staff who were part of the employee benefit trusts of 1998, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the 2010 executive retirement plan are affected by the HMRC action.

The ruling impacts both current and former UK-based staff, whether or not they are British citizens or foreign nationals.

The employees’ Jersey tax haven funds have been managed by subsidiaries of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), which describe the island as “tax neutral”.

RBC’s wealth management section actively promotes the benefits of using the island for affluent individuals.

“The chief preoccupation of most ultra high net worth families is wealth preservation,” RBC explains on its website.

“Only by structuring their affairs legitimately and with the advice of professionals, including lawyers, accountants, trust and tax experts, private clients will be able to protect their assets.”

RBC Europe Ltd has offered JP Morgan workers collaterised bridging loans of more than £250,000 to fund the Tax Office demand.

Jersey is described as “tax neutral” by fund manager RBC
JP Morgan’s private bank has also offered financing arrangements for those who need more than £300,000, or mortgage arrangements in excess of £1m, to facilitate the settlement payments.

Helplines have been set up for workers in regard to the Tax Office offer by JP Morgan, RBC and advisers KPMG.

JP Morgan still disputes the offshore payments as being salary but has agreed to the settlement to avoid litigation under the recently enacted Disguised Remuneration legislation.

A JP Morgan spokesman told Sky News: “Our employee trust has always been transparent to HMRC, and its independent trustee has consistently paid taxes in accordance with UK tax law.

“In addition to taxes paid by the trust, JP Morgan has paid, on average, more than £1bn of corporation and payroll taxes to HMRC annually over the past decade.”

View Comment

angus1983Posted on4:01 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Agrajag says:

I disagree with your reading of Lord Nimmos Smitth’s words.
—–

No problem with that, Ag.

I do think, however, that “undertaking” does not equate to “company”.

The word “undertaking” refers to the activities undertaken by the company – the actual operation of that company and what it does ro promises to do – rather than to the company which is doing it.

LNS is calling the “Club” an undertaking – in essence, saying it has that ethereal quality in the SPL Rules – which TRFC fans claim it has in all circumstances.

Which it doesn’t.

undertaking (Business): engagement, project, pursuit, task, transaction, venture

undertaking (Commitment): agreement, obligation, pledge

undertaking (Enterprise): adventure, affair, attempt, business, coeptum, concern, effort, emprise, engagement, essay, exercise, inceptum, job, move, occupation, operation, plan, program, project, pursuit, quest, search, task, trial, venture

I thought we’d agreed all this when LNS came out with his Statement originally, and were rhappy that this would mean TRFC would have to accept six of the best if Rangers FC (note: not Oldco) were found guitly of misdemeanours by him under SPL Rules?

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on4:11 pm - Nov 1, 2012


angus1983 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 16:01
0 0 i Rate This

Agrajag says:

I disagree with your reading of Lord Nimmos Smitth’s words.
—–

No problem with that, Ag.

I do think, however, that “undertaking” does not equate to “company”.

The word “undertaking” refers to the activities undertaken by the company – the actual operation of that company and what it does ro promises to do – rather than to the company which is doing it.

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

I think you are confusing “undertaking” and “an undertaking”.

http://www.kkv.se/t/Page____906.aspx

“Limited companies, partnerships, sole proprietorships and economic associations are all to be understood as undertakings.”

View Comment

liveinhopPosted on4:31 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Rangers media back up but 36 hours behind time scary eh

View Comment

arabest1Posted on4:49 pm - Nov 1, 2012


liveinhop says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 16:31
1 0 i Rate This

Rangers media back up but 36 hours behind time scary eh

——————————————————————————

Bout 360 years behind time……………

View Comment

bangordubPosted on5:12 pm - Nov 1, 2012


TSFM says:
Friday, November 2, 2012 at 17:35
This must be the most democratic site ever !!!!

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on5:20 pm - Nov 1, 2012


bogsdollox says: Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 14:50
I agree with your analysis but if it is possible to incorporate it is also possible to disincorporate.
EG.I could run my business as a sole trader for a few years but decide to incorporate because the tax breaks are better and after a while because of the tightening up of tax laws I might decide to sell the company’s business back to myself. What business would I then be running?
——-
Bogsd,
You’d need to ask the lawyers, but in my opinion, the problem lies in your example. You are comparing the inanimate (a club) with a person (you). In your scenario, you should be equivalent to club members.

Club members vote for the club to become a PLC. It becomes Club PLC. The members might buy shares in the corporate entity.

You, sole trader, opt for your firm to become Bogsd PLC. You possibly hold all the shares in the PLC.

If Club PLC is liquidated, it ceases to exist. The members have to find something else to be members of. If you wind up your PLC, it ceases to exist. You can go back to sole trading, maybe enter a partnership. But you won’t be Bogsd PLC.

That’s my take if it’s any good to you.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on5:30 pm - Nov 1, 2012


willmacufree says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 17:20
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don’t agree but I’m not going to clog up the blog arguing. I was just thinking that if my analysis was any good it would support the LNS proposition and allow Sevco to be punished for the cheating of Oldco.

View Comment

redetinPosted on5:32 pm - Nov 1, 2012


john clarke says:
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 22:55
3 0
Rate This

redetin says:
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 20:46
‘..We hear that LH expressed annoyance at the late delivery of some papers from D&P. ..’
_________________________________

Many thanks for your excellent explanation of the late docs.

O/T I attended some of the Napier case (slopping out) a few years back in front of Lord Bonamy. Very educational, but I was almost the only one in the public gallery. (Well just a row of seats at the back).

Were there many in the public gallery at the liquidation hearing?

View Comment

Charlie BrownPosted on5:35 pm - Nov 1, 2012


arabest1 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 16:49
7 0 Rate This
liveinhop says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 16:31
1 0 i Rate This

Rangers media back up but 36 hours behind time scary eh

——————————————————————————

Bout 360 years behind time……………
=============================================

Indeed, in terms of their Cultural Revolution we’re still waiting for the Great Leap Forwards!

View Comment

AlthetimPosted on5:37 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Iceman
Angus

“If you don’t accept that, and want to quibble about dates, fill yer boots”
==========================================================

I’m not arguing with you guys, I enjoy your posts, but I do want to quibble about dates and my point is this.

NOT ONE reference to Rangers FC PLC (the company) and Rangers FC (the club) being separable prior to admin exists. Not one. Zip. Squat. Diddly. Heehaw.

Why not?

Because Rangers FC PLC was Rangers FC. One and the same.The subject was never discussed and why should it have been? The requirement for separation only arose when liquidation became a reality for the MSM, Doncaster, the SFA and any other person or organisation with a desire for Rangers to continue uninterrupted.

We can all get technical but in the end everyone knows it is made up pish to suit a particular agenda and yes, it annoys the crap out of me.

I’m away for a pint.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on5:44 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Do Fifa/Uefa /Sfa issue licences to companies or football clubs .
Would they issue one for say Argos or P C World ,do they not just issue licences to play football and without a football club these companies would not be given a licence .
If for instance the company that owed Aberdeen football club sold it’s ownership to another company would that mean that Aberdeen would be ineligible to play in Europe for 3 yrs .
As long as the club/company was solvent I do not think there would be a problem ,if on the other hand the club/company was liquidated and were looking to just renege on all their debts ,I think there would be a problem .
Before you can get a uefa licence you need to have a minimum of 3yrs audited accounts ,they issue licences to CLUBS to enable them to compete in Uefa tournaments .
Why are The Ragers football club not eligible to play in Uefa tournaments ,peepil say they are banned ,how can they be banned ,what have they done to be banned ,they have never played in a Uefa competition to have done anything to be banned for .
I believe the same 3 yrs accounts are required by the Sfa ……enough said
Ragers 1872 died yesterday no amount of spin will alter that fact and the sevco fans can believe that they didn’t (I don’t blame them ) the MSM /SFA/SPL SFL though should refrain from
spouting lies ,if asked say nothing ,it seems to be working for Regan/Doomcaster lately .

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on6:08 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Scotzine’s Andy Muirhead does more investigative work than near on the entire Scottish MSM in the piece below, maybe he should be employed by a Broadcaster or Newspaper, he could show them his techniques of making a phone call and sending emails. I also hear there is something known as Google Search they might be trained to use which is supposedly very helpful.

Early last month, Rangers were reportedly in talks with five-time NFL Superbowl champions, the Dallas Cowboys. Rangers fans in North America, were informed by Rangers chief executive Charles Green and commercial director Imran Ahmed that they had been in talks with the NFL side over a lucrative commercial partnership.

Speaking to fans in Toronto, Ahmad boasted: “We have been in talks with Dallas Cowboys about commercial partnership and we are looking to start an academy in North America.”

However, when Scotzine approached Dallas Cowboys to find out what a partnership with Rangers would entail and what the American Football side would gain from linking up with the Third Division side, the Vice President of Public Relations & Communications for the Dallas Cowboy, Rich Dalrymple, said: “No one on this end is familiar [with] any such conversations.”

When questioned further Dalrymple added that the Dallas Cowboys only deal with organisations, in terms of commercial partnerships, that centre on ‘just American Football’.

So the question is why are Imran Ahmed and Charles Green informing fans in North America of talks ongoing over a commercial partnership with the NFL side, when Dallas have not heard about it? Why claim talks have already taken place when none have? What would Rangers gain from informing their fans in North America of talks with one of NFL’s premier clubs?

NARSA President Billy Ferguson, who was in attendance during the whistle-stop tour, however stated that: “Charles [Green] and Imram [Ahmed] had requested, that prior to the meeting starting that they would prefer that any information coming from the meeting was to come directly from Rangers.”

Ferguson added: “NARSA respect those wishes and kindly refuse to comment.”

Rangers have been unavailable for comment.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:22 pm - Nov 1, 2012


RTC retweeted a link to this today. In case someone missed it:

http://www.mlmsolutions.co.uk/Blog/insolvency/conflicts-of-interest-and-insolvency-appointments-rangers-fc-and-duff-phelps.html

View Comment

justshateredPosted on7:23 pm - Nov 1, 2012


If the FTTT result has been in the hands of the relevant parties for nearly two weeks did D&P perjure themselves yesterday by claiming that the do not know when the result will be announced.
How much longer can the public announcing of the result be delayed?
I thought I read somewhere that the maximum delay could be two weeks.

I don’t know much about the legal/technical side of this but would be grateful for some answers.

View Comment

Nuclear SheepPosted on7:34 pm - Nov 1, 2012


And so it swings again. Mr McCoist back under pressure.

Last night, they were at home, and, fully expected to win. They lost, so their followers will be unhappy.

Saturday will be another huge hurdle. Jump over it and all is well. Stumble and the pressure continues to mount.

The support are wired to expect success. For the majority of them, the club they followed, delivered. The fact that it was unfairly achieved with money that didn’t belong to them still does not register or matter. Many of these sorry souls have never experienced long periods of poor results.

I am worried for them. I don’t believe that they will handle it well. They will not make good customers. I worry for Charles Green and his business associates. Unhappy customers will make poor investors. That could be crucial to the future of this new club.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:43 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Agrajag: Yep, accepted. I maintain, however, that LNS was showing that for the purposes of SPL Rules, Rangers FC continues. Therefore, his investigation is not futile or historic. It applies to Newco as the owner/operator of Rangers FC (according to SPL Rules).

Al: I agree with you too – the subject was never brought up before. However, the Rules were there for anyone that cared to consult them. The need never arose, that’s all.

View Comment

killiemadPosted on7:54 pm - Nov 1, 2012


The World According to Charles Green seems to be unravelling piece by inevitable piece. His comments to the North American Rangers supporters echo those made to the Northern irish fans in that he has told them exactly what they want to hear regardless of the facts.

The Dallas Cowboys are “America’s team” and the US oldco fans would have lapped up a tie-in with them, however it was all made up. The Irish fans loved the idea of an orange kit and a team in their league cup. “Sure, sure, we’re looking into it, blah, blah,” spouts Chuck, “Good idea…”

All Green wants is his £50 of every £500 that’s coughed up. After that it’s not his problem.

And while we’re at it, can we lose the notion that history can be bought and sold.

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on8:50 pm - Nov 1, 2012


angus1983 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 19:43

Agrajag: Yep, accepted. I maintain, however, that LNS was showing that for the purposes of SPL Rules, Rangers FC continues. Therefore, his investigation is not futile or historic. It applies to Newco as the owner/operator of Rangers FC (according to SPL Rules).

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

His enquiry is anything but futile. It will decide if Rangers cheated. If they were making payments to players and not reporting them properly to the football authorities then they were cheating.

I want that investigated and I want it reported.

The only question then is the punishment, but I think that has already been demonstrated, loss of each game where ineligible players played. Loss of those points. And if appropriate loss of any title won through that cheating.

Facing up to what happened, reporting it, and dealing with it is anything but futile. It is absolutely necessary for Scottish football.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:53 pm - Nov 1, 2012


OT

As power and water have been off since Monday in Lower Manhattan I have just found out today the level of devastation inflicted by Sandy.

My family and I are just inconvenienced and hope that fellow Eastern Seaboard contributors are also OK.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:06 pm - Nov 1, 2012


angus1983 says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 19:43
0 0 Rate This
Agrajag: Yep, accepted. I maintain, however, that LNS was showing that for the purposes of SPL Rules, Rangers FC continues. Therefore, his investigation is not futile or historic. It applies to Newco as the owner/operator of Rangers FC (according to SPL Rules).

Al: I agree with you too – the subject was never brought up before. However, the Rules were there for anyone that cared to consult them. The need never arose, that’s all.
================================
The problem for LNS is that he gave the correct definition of a “Club” from the SPL Articles:
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/ARTICLES%20OF%20ASSOCIATION%20AS%20AT%2030%20MAY%202012.pdf

Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;

…and also according to their rules
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/RULES%20EFFECTIVE%2016%20JULY%202012%20(CLEAN).pdf

Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;

…but completely misinterpreted their meaning!

LNS seemed to me to make a poor argument in his proposition that a “Club” [as defined by the SPL] was essentially a franchise where all of the component parts can be changed. Most of what he says, sort of makes sense, if the word “Club” is replaced by “franchisee”. However, there is one major flaw in his logic that is impossible to ignore.

It is very important to distinguish between a “Club” – and “an association football club” as defined by the SFA/UEFA/FIFA. The SPL Articles say that the franchisee [Club] “means the undertaking of an association football club”. The SPL Rules say that the franchisee [Club] “means an association football club”.

Is there a difference between these two definitions? No, none at all.

For the purpose of EU antitrust law, any entity engaged in an economic activity, that is an activity consisting in offering goods or services on a given market, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed, is considered to be an undertaking.

Therefore he should have deduced that since the Articles specify that the franchisee [Club] is the entity involved in the economic activity of an association football club – i.e. the company…

…and the Rules say that the franchisee [Club] is the association club.

The franchisee [Club] is both the company and the club. There is no difference. That is what the SPL Articles and rules say.

For further evidence he may have sought out and quoted the definition of an association football club as provided by the SFA & UEFA:
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20(2).pdf

3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.

Again confirming that a football club “is the legal entity”.

That he has come to rely on the completely flawed “Trigger’s broom” argument is a matter only he can explain. It does not stand up to any sort of proper examination.

View Comment

hangerheadPosted on9:08 pm - Nov 1, 2012


i was a bit confused by all the talk about an undertaking and undertaking (the verb) when really, I just wanted to read about the undertakers.

anyway, I wonder if Charles Green will be able to keep up the current TRFC guise with all the old good stuff and none of the bad…for so long, that we all just stop trying.
that the future reality will be based firmly in the present ridiculousness.

i hope not but, where does everyone get the energy and the positive belief that TRFC will be proven and widely publicly accepted as an entirely new brand, new entity, new history.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:09 pm - Nov 1, 2012


StevieBC says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 20:53

OT

As power and water have been off since Monday in Lower Manhattan I have just found out today the level of devastation inflicted by Sandy.

My family and I are just inconvenienced and hope that fellow Eastern Seaboard contributors are also OK.
====================================================================
Welcome back Stevie,
Glad you’re OK.
You didn’t miss much :mrgreen:

You must have been worried when Sandy was upgraded to a “Glasgow Summer” 😆

View Comment

john clarkePosted on9:28 pm - Nov 1, 2012


raycharlez says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 03:24
‘..Sorry John, hate to take you to task a wee bit ..’
—–
What a wonderfully civilised blog this is, where people courteously and politely air their opinions.
It is a genuine pleasure to be part of it.
( And I’ve sat down at my pc after a busy day, so apologies for the time-lag in responding to you, in so far as you might have wanted a response).

You’re perfectly right to make an observation about the time-lag between the request for D&P’s report and the first mention (which, as far as I know, was yesterday!) by LH that he had actually received and read it.

It’s just that I think there are more ordinary explanations that are probably more credible,given the fact that LH did not have to call for a report at all!

There would have been other less dramatic ways to avoid having to end the administration, if his intention was a conspiratorial one to keep RFC(IA) out of liquidation until it was safely in possession of SFA membership.

This side of death, I don’t think we’ll ever know with absolute certainty, unless some ‘sting’ operation has a dvd of LH playing certain tunes on a certain musical instrument in the Louden, while certain directors of a club that no longer exists dance around him in their aprons!
( Wasn’t there some senior legal chappie in recent years who featured in some such scenario? How the memory fails one!!)

Historically, this little country of ours ( and quite off topic, I’ll say here and now to the Washington Post re its editorial- butt out, Americans!) has had its fair share of crooked judges.

I really don’t believe LH is one such.

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on9:41 pm - Nov 1, 2012


john clarke says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 21:28

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

I’m a simple person and look on things in a simple way.

As far as I am aware the administration ended because that was when the administrator lodged the petition to exit administration and move to liquidation. It didn’t happen before because they didn’t petition before. (Maybe they did and I missed it).

He allowed it because the creditors agreed it. So the administrator wanted it and the creditor agreed. He did not have the power to do anything but let it happen.

However he did intimate that he would take an interest in further investigations, and even get material from them, through orders if required.

He is letting the IPA report because that is their job. His is to preside over High Court and Court of Session hearings and cases. Between the IPA and BDO they will get to the bottom of it. Lord Hodge will keep an eye on it but won’t actually carry out an investigation, why would he. There are professionals in place to do that.

HMRC wanted BDO in because of Malcolm Cohen. They will be keeping a close eye on what transpires during that investigation. Because of who they are, and them being the major creditor by far BDO will effectively be working for them.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on9:45 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Things may be getting even more interesting.

Giovanni is claiming that Collyer Bristow has appealed Lord Hodge’s decision

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on9:49 pm - Nov 1, 2012


bogsdollox says: Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 17:30
————————————————————————
It’s good that you intend not to clog up the blog arguing.

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on9:56 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Question for all the lawyers, etc. Is the SPL definition of a “football club” different from all other associations, and if so why would the governing body, ie, the SFA allow this if their rules state otherwise?

View Comment

spanishceltPosted on10:16 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Agrajag says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 21:41

I’m a simple person and look on things in a simple way.

As far as I am aware the administration ended because that was when the administrator lodged the petition to exit administration and move to liquidation. It didn’t happen before because they didn’t petition before. (Maybe they did and I missed it).
……………………………………………………………………………

Like your good self Agrajag I am also a simple person, and I certainly dont understand a lot of the legal arguments put forward and bow to other posters greater knowledge.
However there is one thing I will say with certainty and that is since the first move was made to place Rangers into administration not one official body in the country, whether its the court and legal system, the football authorities, the media, government ministers or public purse creditors, not one has has come out against them and in support of the people they robbed of millions of pounds of taxes.
I dont know if LH has masonic influences/ulterior motives, or if he will indeed only interpret the law as it is written, but if we could always rely on a judge to interpret the law and lay it down properly why would we need juries in trials?

I still think the whole thing stinks, its much bigger than a game of football, its about the culture of the country.
Its the way it has been for so long, that it is acceptable to the people who hold the power in the places that matter throughout the fabric of society and this could have been a breakthrough in civilising what could be the best little country in the world.

When I watch Braveheart and hear Mel Gibson scream out FREEDOM! ,,,,,,,, I always have a little laugh to myself.
Freedom? not for everyone in the country I remember.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:20 pm - Nov 1, 2012


jonnyod says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 17:44

Before you can get a uefa licence you need to have a minimum of 3yrs audited accounts ,they
issue licences to CLUBS to enable them to compete in Uefa tournaments .
Why are The Ragers football club not eligible to play in Uefa tournaments ,

Because they’re a new club by UEFA Rules. No 3 years accounts.


I believe the same 3 yrs accounts are required by the Sfa ……enough said

“Special” circumstances. i.e. a gigantic swindle.

😉

Great discussion with regard to what a club is this evening. I’m keeping an open mind as much as I can, but can’t help believing that LNS’s statement looks good with regard to the SPL’s rules – where the definition of “undertaking” is now obviously the arguable point. They didn’t see fit to properly define it in their interpretations section, unfortunately.

Whether SPL rules are sensible and/or watertight is severely open to question. This may yet let TRFC off the hook aimed at RFC(IA) – if they employ Hirsute as their defence. 🙂

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:23 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Excellent post on CQN today. Page 10, the” naw anoni thingummyjig……”

View Comment

ikiPosted on10:25 pm - Nov 1, 2012


iki says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 06:52
18 0 Rate This
Over the last few days there was uncertainty about the Lord Hodge event taking place.
Some posters noted that it was not in the published lists for the court business.
Is it common for court business to be unpublicised when dealing with anything other than emergencies?
==============
This was not a rhetorical question nor an attempt at sarcasm. I was hoping that one of our legal eagles would provide an answer,

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:33 pm - Nov 1, 2012


Agrajag says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 20:50

Facing up to what happened, reporting it, and dealing with it is anything but futile. It is absolutely necessary for Scottish football.
——
Poorly worded on my part. I meant “futile” as in a “guilty” verdict would not allow the current horse to be flogged instead of just the dead one.

I don’t care about e.g. stripping titles, I want to see someone getting a spanking for this wrongdoing.

And because TRFC are determined to tell us they’re Rangers then, now and forever, I want that spanking to be applied to them.

Retrospective punishment doesn’t do it for me. I still had to watch my team getting horsed by a bunch of arrogant, literally overpaid “superstars”, and put up with constant jibes from glory-hunting colleagues. My own memories won’t be wiped if their titles are stripped. It would be only right so to do but, as we know, that is not a punishment.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:36 pm - Nov 1, 2012


iki says:
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 22:25

Is it common for court business to be unpublicised when dealing with anything other than emergencies?
——
Not in my experience, but I’m not a Court of Session kind of guy so can’t vouch for them.

View Comment

Leave a Reply