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

1,119 thoughts on “Of Assets and Liabilities


  1. spanishcelt says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 22:16

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

    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?

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

    Firstly we do have criminal case without a Jury. In summary proceedings. The Sheriff deals with the law, the verdict and sentencing.

    In solemn proceedings (with a Jury) the Judge (or Sheriff) actually does rule on matters of law. The Jury is only there to deal with matters of fact. Did a thing happen or not. They give a verdict based on the evidence presented to them. The Judge will decide whether they get to hear that evidence or not.

    In either it is the Sheriff, or Judge who makes all of the decisions with regard the law. A lot of that is based on precedent, rather than their own interpretation.


  2. ekt1m says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 21:56
    1 0 Rate This
    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?
    =======================
    The SPL recognise a “Club” and an “association football club” as two different things. There is, in truth, no problem in their definition of either.

    A “Club” is an “association football club” in membership of the SPL: so yes, in that respect, their definition of a “Club” has an additional characteristic compared to other football “clubs” who are not members of the SPL.

    The problem is that Lord Nimmo Smith has simply ignored the SFA and UEFA definition of an “association football club” in his statement of reasons. Those bodies say that a “club” is the legal entity (company) – which means, of course, that a “Club” is simply the legal entity (company) in membership of the SPL.

    From which, he should have reasoned that under the SPL definitions, the former “Club” The Rangers Football Club plc (who had been members of the SPL) has no connection to the association football club The Rangers Football Club Ltd – who, of course, has never been a member of the SPL.

    As I understand his argument, LNS thinks that the “Club” somehow sat apart from the “club” (company) through a glaring misinterpretation of the SPL Articles & Rules. He suggests that the potential consequences for the former “Club” can affect the new “club”. I expect he will be highly embarrassed by that mistake – one way or the other.

    My guess is that it will be Charles Green who will gi’e him the biggest riddy!


  3. So if I understand correctly BDO are undertaking an undertaking of an undertaking. Does that clear things up?


  4. Oliver Kay ‏@OliverKayTimes
    There’s a disturbing story about more tax issues relating to Rangers in tmrw’s Times. It’s by @aleximostrous, nothing to do with me …
    Retweeted by Kerrydale Street
    ________________________________________________________________


  5. From tomorrow’s Times (not Evening!) “rangers in fresh trouble as key shareholder faces tax enquiry” http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A6pnp6MCEAAzxcp.jpg:large

    @OliverKayTimes
    There’s a disturbing story about more tax issues relating to Rangers in tmrw’s Times. It’s by @aleximostrous, nothing to do with me …


  6. now Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase
    Good scoop by The Times. This Sevco ownership tax thing is quite far reaching. More so than indicated by The Times story.
    _________________________________________________________________________
    now Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase
    Sevco tax story- fasten your seat belts. Here we go again.


  7. rab says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 13:09
    ‘..It was mentioned yesterday that D&P had accessed £2m that they where not yet entitled to. ‘

    I think, if I read my scribbled note correctly, that the QC ( very attractive, I say again) for Collyer Bristow argued that D&P had ‘drawn down’ from the fees money given in the proposal they had put to creditors, before a counter-proposal made by HMRC ( for a slightly lesser amount) had been decided upon.

    I think she was trying to imply that D&P were apt to play a little fast and loose in these procedural matters: doing something irregular now, and then going to get it rectified and approved later( as they had had to do with their actual appointment as Administrators, if you remember).

    But LH just shook his head and remarked that what they had done was to relate to the facts as they were at the time, and subsequently ( when the HMRC proposal was accepted) to have asked to have what they had done related to the new information, that new information having superseded the old.

    That is, they had not sought ‘rectification’ of something that they had wrongly done, but recognition that new figures had superseded the old.

    I think I understood that, and the QC likewise accepted it.

    The money was in respect of their fees and no doubt went into the D&P corporate purse.


  8. HirsutePursuit says:

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 22:48
    The problem is that Lord Nimmo Smith has simply ignored the SFA and UEFA definition of an “association football club” in his statement of reasons. Those bodies say that a “club” is the legal entity (company) – which means, of course, that a “Club” is simply the legal entity (company) in membership of the SPL.

    From which, he should have reasoned that under the SPL definitions, the former “Club” The Rangers Football Club plc (who had been members of the SPL) has no connection to the association football club The Rangers Football Club Ltd – who, of course, has never been a member of the SPL.

    As I understand his argument, LNS thinks that the “Club” somehow sat apart from the “club” (company) through a glaring misinterpretation of the SPL Articles & Rules. He suggests that the potential consequences for the former “Club” can affect the new “club”. I expect he will be highly embarrassed by that mistake – one way or the other.

    My guess is that it will be Charles Green who will gi’e him the biggest riddy!
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Another angle
    Perhaps we need to go back to the starting point for LNS and similar legal eagles ever getting involved in football adjudication panels
    This means forgetting about their legal background except insofar as it provides legitimacy for their ability to think clearly
    It also means we need to agree not to fall into the trap of thinking they are being asked to adjudicate on a solely legal matter
    i.e
    The panel is being asked to adjudicate on an issue which is presented to them in a specific context
    In the current FTT situation the context of the request to LNS is to consider RFC as an entity that survives its own legal death and continues to be the same entity providing all the parties agree this to be the case.
    This context means it is irrelevant to LNS whether RFC have been liquidated. All that matters is that the context defines TRFC to be RFC because all the parties agree this to be the case

    Daft as it seems this enables LNS to take on the job and apply any punishment to TRFC simply because the context says so

    A similar flight of fancy enabled the previous panel to invent a punishment called a transfer embargo for a crime that didnt have a transfer embargo as a punishment. That fell apart when Green pulled the context apart and challenged it in the real world by going to court
    However
    If he tries to challenge any LNS ruling in court he will surely be told that out in the real world the context of any LNS ruling has nothing do with TRFC


  9. Can I be 100% clear in my view. I fully expect LNS’s commission to find The Rangers Football Club plc (IL) guilty of playing improperly registered players over an extended period.

    There is no problems with jurisdiction – The Rangers Football Club plc (IL)’s are still liable today for their actions when they were members of the SPL.

    SPL titles will be re-assigned to their proper recipients, fines may be issued, The Rangers Football Club plc (IL) may even be permanently excluded from the SPL.

    The point is, none of this has any legal relevance to The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

    The Rangers Football Club Ltd have no titles to defend.
    The Rangers Football Club Ltd will not be fined.
    The Rangers Football Club Ltd will not be permanently excluded from the SPL.

    The Rangers Football Club Ltd have only existed for a matter of months. They simply cannot be punished for anything that happened before their incorporation.

    Any attempt by the commission to punish The Rangers Football Club Ltd for the actions of The Rangers Football Club plc (IL) will be challenged (100% cast iron guarantee on this) as being ultra vires. Such a challenge will succeed at the SFA. It will not even require a legal challenge.


  10. Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase
    RTC Exclusive: Charles Green is the subject a new tax inquiry- separate from the Zeus investigation.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    It just gets better and better! Haha!


  11. HirsutePursuit says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 23:26

    Wasnt agreeing to accept fines/punishment of TFC (IL) part of the issue of sfa licence agreement?


  12. paulsatim says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 23:34
    0 0 Rate This
    HirsutePursuit says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 23:26

    Wasnt agreeing to accept fines/punishment of TFC (IL) part of the issue of sfa licence agreement?
    =====================================
    Don’t think so.
    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252

    “The Scottish Premier League has reserved its position in relation to the on-going investigation into EBTs.”

    That’s as much as we got.


  13. Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase
    The Green story has been bubbling under with a media outlet for a couple of weeks, but in light of The Times story, it was time to go.


  14. Looks like there could be enough bubbling around with regard to the tax affairs of Mr Charles and Zeus to make even the most loyal bear question ‘Here we go again!!!

    This truly is the gift that keeps on giving.


  15. iki says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 06:52
    ‘..Is it common for court business to be unpublicised when dealing with anything other than emergencies?..’
    ——
    I shall explore the matter tomorrow.

    I know that about ten days ago there were computer problems in the Scottish Courts service, with at least one whole day’s business not appearing.

    I don’t think there is any provision for keeping secret the fact that any particular case is being heard.

    There is, I think ,some limited provision for some cases to be heard in private ( the way that some FTTT cases can be in private).

    The fact that I and about 70000 bloggers ( well, maybe two) from different blogs got in yesterday clearly signals that it was not a private hearing.

    So, fair-mindedly, I conclude that the fact that the ‘Rolls of Court’ page did not show it was probably just a computer glitch.


  16. HirsutePursuit says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 23:42

    Someone on CQN asking same questions, says the following, “Paul’s (CQN blogger) response was (and I paraphrase) that newco got the license by agreeing to accept any liabilities found held against oldco. Perhaps Paul would like to re affirm?

    Will try and locate article tomorrow, need to hit sack now. Nite all.


  17. An early Christmas present

    “Rangers Tax-Case‏@rangerstaxcase

    RTC Exclusive: Charles Green is the subject a new tax inquiry- separate from the Zeus investigation.


  18. sorry , missed earlier posts, but here is the Times story

    “Criminal investigations have been launched into tax schemes sold by a key shareholder in Rangers Football Club, The Times has learnt.

    Richard Hughes, the co-founder of Zeus Capital, the finance company at the centre of the Rangers takeover, also set up Zeus Partners, which created and marketed a £134 million film investment scheme that HM Revenue & Customs suspects may be part of an illegal effort to generate millions of pounds in tax relief.

    The Revenue is understood to be investigating 17 companies set up by Zeus Partners. Criminal investigations by HMRC are reserved for the most serious cases of suspected illegality including those where “only a criminal sanction is appropriate”.

    Mr Hughes, who has more than two million shares in Rangers, a stake of 6.8 per cent, played a pivotal role in the purchase of the Glasgow club after it went into administration in February. The collapse came after Rangers’ previous owners became embroiled in disputes with the Revenue. The club has been beset by tax problems that led to the new Rangers, who play at Ibrox Stadium, being forced to start from the fourth tier of Scottish football this season.

    The Revenue claims to be owed an estimated £73 million in tax and penalties after the club used a tax avoidance scheme to pay its players for nearly a decade. Rangers went into administration over a separate tax problem, when Craig Whyte, who bought it last year, failed to pay an £18 million PAYE bill.

    When Zeus Capital and the businessman Charles Green bought the club for £5.5 million in June, they presented their consortium of investors as a “new beginning”. But a year before the acquisition, Revenue officials raided premises associated with Zeus Partners, two sources told The Times, as well as offices of Seven Arts Entertainment, the US film company that was counterparty to the deal. Neither Zeus Partners nor HMRC commented on the alleged raid.

    “They showed up, knocked on the door, and said, ‘We want to come and look at the records’,” one person said of the Seven Arts raid. “They took everything under the sun.”

    Mr Hughes, who has one of the biggest shareholdings in Rangers, founded Zeus Partners as an offshoot of Zeus Capital, in 2006. It was set up so wealthy individuals could access “returns that Zeus Capital has been achieving for its corporate clients”. Two other partners run the day-to-day business, although one said that Mr Hughes retained an “active role”.

    Mr Hughes stands to make millions of pounds when Rangers floats on the stockmarket before Christmas. Three other Zeus Capital executives, who do not work at Zeus Partners, own stakes in the club, making the finance house collectively its largest owner. There is no evidence that Zeus Capital marketed schemes similar to those offered by Zeus Partners. The Revenue is not investigating Zeus Capital, the company involved in the Rangers takeover.

    Zeus Partners’ controversial film deal attracted about 165 high-net worth individuals including Hugh Sloane, the hedge-fund mogul and Tory donor, and Laurie McIlwee, chief finance officer of Tesco. Individual investors are not being investigated by HMRC, however.

    Each investor was offered a “high-risk film production” deal to buy a total of eight new films and some library content from Seven Arts.

    The deal was structured so that, in the event that the films were “blockbusters”, the investors would double their money. If they did badly, the investment would be largely wiped out and the cost could be written off against the investors’ other income.

    Films purchased from Seven Arts included Knife Edge, a 2009 British thriller starring Hugh Bonneville and Tamsin Egerton, The Winter Queen, starring Milla Jovovich, and Autopsy, a horror film directed by Adam Gierasch.

    None appears to have achieved anywhere close to the “blockbuster” level that would have generated profit. American Summer made only $2,269, according to Box Office Mojo. Deal, a 2008 film starring Burt Reynolds, is said to have made $61,625.

    A year after signing the deal in May 2008, Zeus Partners declared that each of the 17 companies was worthless, their accounts show, enabling investors to claim tax relief.

    At the time, however, a number of films had yet to be released. One, The Winter Queen, had not been made. “One of the key questions is how would the investors have known the stock was worthless as early as 2009, when some of the titles had yet to be released,” a person close to Seven Arts said.

    Up to 84 per cent of an investor’s contribution was financed by a loan from Seven Arts. The loan was secured against the companies, so investors were not personally liable if films failed.

    An investor who put in £160,000 could borrow about £840,000 and claim tax relief on the full £1 million without being liable to pay back the loan. For a high-net-worth investor the tax relief would be between £400,000 and £500,000.

    Rebus Investment Solutions, a company representing several disgruntled Zeus investors, said their clients had been advised that the film deal was a “win-win scenario”. “The deal was based on the notion that, if the films were successful, investors would see huge returns and, if they were unsuccessful, they would be able to claim tax relief on the losses,” a spokesman said. “Such a bullish view failed to take into account the significant risks, including potential challenges by HMRC.”

    A Rangers spokesman said yesterday that Mr Hughes was “one of a number of minority investors” and had “no involvement in the management of the club”, and that Rangers had “no business relationship with Zeus Capital”.

    However, in June, Zeus Capital said that it “worked in conjunction with Charles Green to complete the £5.5 million acquisition of Rangers”. In the same month, Zeus Capital was described by Malcolm Murray, the new chairman, as “the primary advisers” on the Rangers deal.

    Mr Hughes is understood to believe that the focus of the criminal investigation is on Seven Arts, not Zeus Partners. He denied that the film investments could be illegal or amounted to tax avoidance. The investments had been approved by qualified accountants before being marketed. He also said that he had not been contacted by HMRC in relation to the film investigation since it began about 18 months ago.

    A spokesman for Zeus Partners said: “Zeus Partners provided a number of high-risk investment opportunities, backing highly successful entrepreneurs with a proven track record across a number of sectors. Individual investors had the option of claiming HMRC statutory relief in the event that the investments were unsuccessful. We are aware that there is an HMRC investigation into these and other investments under way at this time and Zeus Partners is providing its full co-operation to HMRC.”

    Seven Arts strongly denied claims that it, rather than Zeus, was the focus of the Revenue investigation. Peter Hoffman, chief executive of Seven Arts, said: “There was nothing fraudulent about the transaction, it was perfectly valid. These were real movies we were intending to make money on.”

    Mr Sloane said he had not claimed for tax relief on the Seven Arts investment. Mr McIlwee and the Revenue both declined to comment.


  19. John Clarke,

    Thanks for the reply.

    It was buried in a sea of information yesterday and i wondered if D&P had used creditor funds to pay bills to allow the club to stumble over the line and finish the season last season. Cleared up now and happy to concentrate on the breaking story that caught my eye before i replied, a genuine wow just wow moment i think.

    I hope you have room in your schedule to give us the benefit of your talents in the upcoming sequel, TRTC – the zombie returns, and this time he’s green.


  20. Is there anyone connected with Rfc* that can be described as a fit and proper person?
    Sir David Murray(tax cheat) -Craig Whyte(tax cheat)- Charles Green(suspected tax cheat)
    -Campbell Ogilvie(tax cheat EBT) -EBT Walter- EBT Souness-Dave King(tax cheat)-
    Dog Whistle Ally-Dog Whistle Sandy -Donald the Sash Findlay -Bomber the pension pincher Brown- every member of the previous board – Their Administrators D+P and the minority 99%
    that continue to belt out tunes from an illegal song book
    Rotten to the core is not an exaggeration its a sad fact of life.
    Rogues in Brogues the lot of them


  21. Regarding the titles acquired illegally by the defunct club, what does it matter if they are awarded or not by the SPL, surely the clubs who were cheated out of trophies and titles will automatically add those legitimately won awards to their own history, and rightly so. Who is to tell them they cannot do this – certainly not the shady characters that occupy Hampden. If the new club Servco are intent on purloining the titles won by an extinct club – without let or hindrance by the above mentioned shady characters surely the clubs themselves who won those titles honestly have a compelling case and indeed a duty to their long suffering fans to lay climb to those titles. I feel as a minimum it will force the hand of the co-conspirators at the top of Scottish football. As regard the proper distribution of prize money, well it may be time to contact a gentleman called Solomon once again


  22. HirsutePursuit says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 23:26
    ‘..Any attempt by the commission to punish The Rangers Football Club Ltd for the actions of The Rangers Football Club plc (IL) will be challenged (100% cast iron guarantee on this) as
    being ultra vires. ‘
    ———–
    It would be an interesting legal situation.

    The SFA, as an association of football clubs, on the promise by a new club that it would accept SFA jurisdiction in the matter of certain liabilities arising from a former member club, decided to grant membership to that new club.

    One could well argue therefore that the new club accepted that it was subject to the SFA in principle, as a member subscribing to the Articles of association.

    And therefore subject to the SFA’s disciplinary powers.

    Which include, of course, the power to apply the penalties for fielding ineligible players.

    The argument that ‘The Rangers FC Ltd’ is a quite different commercial entity can , of course,be advanced.

    However, in the very essence of matters, it is NOT the commercial entity , the ‘holding company’, that the SFA relates to.

    No, it is the football club that is a member of the SFA!

    And it is only by being the owner/operator of a football club that you can be a member of the SFA.

    And the ‘owner’ of ‘The Rangers FC Ltd’ is one Charles Bucknall Green and his associates.

    In the event that the old club( whose liabilities in footballing jurisdiction have been accepted by the new club) is convicted of fielding ineligible players, then, in my view,, CG’s club will find it difficult to hold on to any titles that were ‘won’ illicitly by what, in the SFA’s eyes, were players and teams who wore RFC jerseys in the seasons in question.

    Innocent as those individual players may have been of the the alleged rotten corruption of their directors and majority shareholder.

    Having said that, i will say again that the SFA have made a complete ba.ls-up of the whole thing, such as probably to give work to the legal profession for possibly years to come..


  23. willmacufree says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 21:49

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

    Cheers Ears.

    But my line of thought was that it would allow Sevco to be punished for the cheating of Oldco and that Charlie boy needs the share issue cash to fund/threaten the SPL/SFA with litigation these two bankrupt bodies can ill afford. Let’s face it the SPL is not paying out the Clubs their cash on time.


  24. redetin says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 17:32
    ‘…..Were there many in the public gallery at the liquidation hearing?……’
    —–
    There is not in court 6 a ‘public gallery’ as such.

    There are 4 rows of 9 seats, and at the back ,2 little sections of 2 rows of 3 seats ( separated by the doorway in).

    The front row is occupied by Senior Counsel and junior Counsel or principal solicitor/s

    The second row is occupied by the teams of solicitors for each side, and the remaining rows are for anybody else.

    I sat in the third row, immediately behind the solicitors for D&P.

    I estimated that highest number of people in those rows was about 30 or so.

    There were

    Collyer Bristow’s QC( even more attractive as the night wears on!), and her solicitor minder

    The QC for D&P and her minder and six other lawyers.

    Then four or five other folk ( clearly some kind of ‘legals’ , all with A4 pads

    Then Douglas Fraser of the BBC, and someone else who might have been with Fraser,and another member of the public ( possibly the blogger who had been tweeting) , and me.

    And then two lots of six in the wee sections behind, some of whom seemed to be to be media men of some kind.

    If you haven’t been before, I would recommend that you make a point of visiting your local sheriff court or, if there’s one sitting near you, the High Court.

    Just to see the reality. And to see both criminal courts and civil courts.

    It is an absolute education.

    Tedious and boring it can be, until you remember that it’s all about people going to jail or not, or winning or losing inheritances or land, or homes, or parental rights, etc etc.

    All done in a calm, controlled, reasoned and reasonable and almost impersonal way .


  25. JC – “The QC for D&P and her minder and six other lawyers.” That’s a lot – Any reason?


  26. bogsdollox says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 02:13
    —–
    ‘JC – “The QC for D&P and her minder and six other lawyers.” That’s a lot – Any reason?’
    ———–
    Your guess is as good as mine, I’m afraid

    .I think the only face I hadn’t seen before among the D&P lot was the QC, Mrs Woolfe, and one other guy right in front of me who was looking at a receipt for a flight from London.

    The others I had all seen before at the Ticketus hearing, advising the different QC who headed up on that occasion.


  27. I posted flippantly yesterday morning, about Sandy and it’s inconvenience to me. Having subsequently discovered the full extent of the devastation caused and the loss of life suffered, it appears in bad taste. Apologies if anyone was caused offence.


  28. Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase
    @DaveTaggart Here is an image of the story (lifted from someone else’s tweet pic.twitter.com/BqcXBj5V)

    Looks as if a major share holder in TRFC/Sevco is under investigation for tax issues. Richard Hughes co-founder of Zeus Capital suspected of illegal effort to generate millions of pounds in tax relief.


  29. Sorry, missed the earlier posts on the new tax story.

    Can someone re-cap the projected can situation at TRFC/Sevco – if they cannot launch a successful share issue then are we looking at administration for TRFC/Sevco this season?


  30. smartbhoy says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 23:30
    34 0 Rate This
    Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase
    RTC Exclusive: Charles Green is the subject a new tax inquiry- separate from the Zeus investigation.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    It just gets better and better! Haha!
    —————

    Don’t tell me this is about to start all over again? Funnily enough, I had read the name of the journalist as ‘Alexi Monstrous’, not altogether inappropriate.

    Although the front page headline makes you wonder if the sheer volume of cases may allow some to escape:

    “Revenue cuts deal to keep tax evaders’ names secret

    Fay Schlesinger and James Bone
    Last updated at 12:01AM, November 2 2012

    Hundreds of tax evaders identified on Britain’s “Lagarde list” will escape prosecution and keep their identities secret under immunity deals offered by Revenue & Customs, The Times has learnt. Two and a half years after Christine Lagarde, who was then the French Finance Minister, handed the UK 6,000 names of people with secret HSBC bank accounts in Switzerland, 500 have been investigated on suspicion of serious fraud. Only one has been convicted, HMRC confirmed. The Revenue’s strategy is to offer most secret account-holders immunity in return for a settlement of their tax bills and payment of a penalty, rather than pursue them through the courts. A senior Revenue official told The Times: “The courts would not thank HMRC for taking zillions of prosecutions into them, so…”


  31. DR claiming that Chuckie has been in talks with Walter Smith offering him non-exec seat on the Board. Walter has said, mibees-aye, mibees-naw, so far.

    Something is certainly going to be needed in terms of personnel to bridge the vast chasm between Oldco and Sevco because Ally McCoist’s worth to Green in that department is rapidly diminishing.

    Super Ally is not there on account of his managerial prowess I am guessing.


  32. doontheslope says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 08:01
    2 0 Rate This
    DR claiming that Chuckie has been in talks with Walter Smith offering him non-exec seat on the Board. Walter has said, mibees-aye, mibees-naw, so far.

    Something is certainly going to be needed in terms of personnel to bridge the vast chasm between Oldco and Sevco because Ally McCoist’s worth to Green in that department is rapidly diminishing.

    Super Ally is not there on account of his managerial prowess I am guessing.
    ————-

    Doon,
    If RTC’s latest tweets come to the attention of WS he may not want to touch CG with a barge pole. Apparently Green is also under investigation. And what with the former manager possibly about to be in a bit of hot water himself. I may have to retire early to follow these stories. Not enough hours in the day.


  33. Danish

    Walter shurely knows his invitation is about nothing more than getting supporters (many of them who can ill afford it – but hell mend ’em anyway) to part with their dosh at the share issue.

    He wouldn’t do that to the fans, would he?


  34. So a company being investigated for a possible tax scam that involved making loans that never had to be repaid to gain tax relief are associated with the company that helped arrange the buy-out of a football club who are being investigated for a possible tax scam that involved making loans that never had to be repaid.

    Have I got that right?


  35. The man with the wee white bricks is claiming some sort of scoop about Sir Walter of Cardigan heading over to join Sevco.

    No big deal as such, but the best bit is that the bitter, ex-journo believes that this will prove, beyond any doubt, that Charles Green is honest and above board!!

    Regular readers on here and indeed of his strange, myopic blog, will remember that ‘Leggo’ constantly referred to Green as a ‘proven liar’ and seemed to trust his instinct that the man who claimed to be their saviour was actually a snake oil salesman, who’d bleed them dry and leave them back where they started.

    But the mere fact that Green has been seen in the same company as Sir Walter Myth, is enough for Leggo.

    They, and he especially, really do live in a bizarre little world where all you need to do is say the right thing and you’re in. Green hasn’t said a single thing yet that has come true, or hasn’t since been proven to be untrue.


  36. If it helps – Skeleton Timeline:

    T`was all quiet on the Western Front

    – Expecting the oft delayed FTT in Sept – then delayed again – put back to `October` – Then;

    • 27 Sept – HMRC pressure? – Final Creditor’s Report – Resolution for end of administration
    • 11 Oct – Share Issue Announced
    • 12 Oct – Creditors vote
    • 17 Oct – D+ P to apply for liquidation `urgently`
    • 19 Oct – Ashley Given Green Light
    • 19 Oct – 17m pledged for shares
    • 22 Oct – PMcC – Shareholders revealed
    • 24/25 Oct – DG / CW tapes – Martys Playbook goes out of `context`
    • 26 Oct – Head of Terms Thing
    • 29 Oct – CG – Rangers finances `fantastic` – Cardigan mentioned
    • 30 Oct – Cardigan again
    • 31 Oct – admins exit stage left
    • 31 Oct – Enter Investigative liquidation process – `with immediate effect`
    • 1 /2 Oct – The Cardigan and poss new investors / bidders
    • 2 Nov – HMRC – A `Shareholder` under Tax investigation ?

    HMRC?

    But! – If the FTT doesn’t come out today – we should assume it’s been deliberately held up – That’s over two full weeks since it `landed`. LN Inquiry due to re-start on 13 November.If the FTT goes beyond 13 November – I`ll assume then the whole system is rank rotten to the core – or doing its best to try to be – hope I`m wrong


  37. It is interesting that Rangers claim to have no business relationship with Zeus Capital. If I remember right the Ranger’s board includes Mr Ahmed (who recently went touring with Mr Green) and Mr Stockbridge. Both of whom are with Zeus Capital. So Zeus set up the deal, two of the main players from Zeus are now on The Rangers board, but they have no business relationship.

    Their Team can be found here

    http://www.zeuscapital.co.uk/team.php

    With Richard Hughes sitting proudly at the top.


  38. HirsutePursuit says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 22:48

    The problem is that Lord Nimmo Smith has simply ignored the SFA and UEFA definition of an “association football club” in his statement of reasons.
    —–

    Indeed he has, because he has no need to refer to those definitions in a matter he is investigating purely under SPL Rules.

    The definitions given therein are evidently enough for him to proceed – although you may be correct in thinking that he missed “association football club” as actually requiring or having a definition. I think that would be uncharacteristically remiss of him, though. He didn’t get where he is today by not checking definitions, etc.

    That he is probably more used to dealing with legislation than crappy rulebooks may put him at a disadvantage here – he’d expect relevant terms to be properly defined within the Act (or rulebook) and therefore the SPL Rules’ poor construction and use of language will not have helped.

    In the real world, however, I reckon your later summation of what is likely to happen is pretty much spot on.


  39. Agrajag says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 09:27

    Note however that Amhad recently jumped ship, despite being taken on as Zeus’s Managing Director in April this year, to become the Commenrcial Director at T’Rangers.
    Stockbridge is T’Rangers financial director but also remains a director at Zeus.
    Hughes is merely an investor at T’Rangers, but is that on a personal basis or is it being funded by the company in which he is a parnter?


  40. wottpi says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 09:50

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

    Mr Ahmed may have jumped ship (either in reality or as a matter of convenience) however they haven’t actually bothered to take his details off the website.

    Imran Ahmad

    After training with Barclays De Zoete Wedd Limited in the early 90’s Imran has spent most of his career in small and mid cap broking. In September 2008 Imran founded and was Chief Executive of Allenby Capital Limited which grew from nothing to approaching 40 AIM clients by the time he sold his stake in September 2011. Imran has completed a significant number of transactions in the Resource, Energy, Engineering and Technology sectors. Imran joined Zeus Capital in April 2012 as Managing Director.


  41. john clarke says:

    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 02:00

    redetin says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 17:32
    ‘…..Were there many in the public gallery at the liquidation hearing?……’
    —–
    There is not in court 6 a ‘public gallery’ as such………….
    ____________________________________________________________

    John,
    You have painted a nice picture of the proceedings for those of us who couldn’t be there. I had a similar experienced watching Lord Bonomy take the Napier (slopping out) case. Clive Fairweather exSAS and Chief Inspector of Prisons was cross-examined in detail on every paragraph of the SPS annual report. Public gallery there was exactly as you describe, with few attending this landmark case. O/T Robert Napier: http://tinyurl.com/bz9arr7

    An education indeed in the long and grinding proceedings of the law and promises of more appearances to come in the case of D&P.

    Keep up the good court reporting work!


  42. john clarke says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 23:55
    8 1 Rate This
    iki says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 06:52
    ‘..Is it common for court business to be unpublicised when dealing with anything other than emergencies?..’
    ——
    I shall explore the matter tomorrow ……………………..
    ====
    Thanks for response.


  43. thespecialswon says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 09:06
    8 0 Rate This

    “… Regular readers on here and indeed of his strange, myopic blog, will remember that ‘Leggo’ constantly referred to Green as a ‘proven liar’ and seemed to trust his instinct that the man who claimed to be their saviour was actually a snake oil salesman, who’d bleed them dry and leave them back where they started.

    But the mere fact that Green has been seen in the same company as Sir Walter Myth, is enough for Leggo …”
    ———

    The first time snake oil has been shown to have a verifiable placebo effect?


  44. twopanda says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 09:20

    A timeline is a great idea- and especially useful. for people like me whose memory isn’t what it used to be! So thanks for producing that.

    A timeline from day one of this saga/farce would be fascinating, but it would take a bit of compiling, and would be a long list indeed. I seem to remember that the BBC had a timeline on their website a few months back, but it wasn’t complete or even very accurate.


  45. angus1983 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 09:34
    0 0 Rate This
    HirsutePursuit says:
    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 22:48

    The problem is that Lord Nimmo Smith has simply ignored the SFA and UEFA definition of an “association football club” in his statement of reasons.
    —–

    Indeed he has, because he has no need to refer to those definitions in a matter he is investigating purely under SPL Rules.

    The definitions given therein are evidently enough for him to proceed – although you may be correct in thinking that he missed “association football club” as actually requiring or having a definition. I think that would be uncharacteristically remiss of him, though. He didn’t get where he is today by not checking definitions, etc.

    That he is probably more used to dealing with legislation than crappy rulebooks may put him at a disadvantage here – he’d expect relevant terms to be properly defined within the Act (or rulebook) and therefore the SPL Rules’ poor construction and use of language will not have helped.

    In the real world, however, I reckon your later summation of what is likely to happen is pretty much spot on.
    ======================================
    On this point I don’t think the relevant SPL rules (and Articles) are vague. LNS has simply made an awful mistake in the interpretation and the application of those rules (and Articles) in this particular case.

    He should be aware that the SPL Articles & Rules do not sit apart from the SFA’s Articles & Rules – they sit entirely within. The SPL Articles & Rules require approval by the SFA – in that they must be in accordance with the SFA’s Articles of Association.

    In the same way that the SFA’s must be compliant with UEFA’s and FIFA’s rulebooks.

    Any reference therefore by the SPL to “an association football club” is subject to its true meaning – as set out by the governing bodies.

    Judges – by the adversarial nature of the court system – tend to rely on having two sides of an legal argument in front of them. From the differing interpretations made by the competing parties, it is up to the judge to decide which position has greater merit.

    In this case, I would hazard a guess that Mr Doncaster has presented LNS with his favoured (mis)interpretation of the rules within the context of the commissions terms of reference. Since no-one has disputed that interpretation, it appears, that LNS has simply gone with it.

    As I said previously, I am sure that he is (or soon will be) mightily embarrassed by his mistake,


  46. Regards L.Wobblys link to the Sun article
    it seems that the SFA will take the money from the forthcoming Alloa game to finally
    repay the debt to Dundee Utd . Did Charles not state that all football debts had been satisfied?
    Or was he only talking about football debts that he agreed with
    Murray may have been the King of Lamb but Charles is the Duke of Pork
    another one to add to the list of Porkies
    20 investors onboard – Murray Park name change-30m in bank by June- euro league awaits
    Dallas Cowboys – only met Whyte once –
    Im losing count here, what does it take for our MSM to challenge this mans words ?
    Are they worried that if they pressure/expose this charlatan that he’ll bring the walls tumbling down. As usual with our MSM it comes down to cowardice , they couldnt expose Whyte as he was their only hope and to do so they would have copped the blame for destroying the club.
    Its a rinse and repeat job with Green .


  47. From Barcabhoy(4 weeks ago but worth a repeat):

    10:34 on 6 October, 2012

    Thought for a Saturday morning……

    Zeus Capital are the main shareholders in Chuckles Green’s new football club. Zeus are largely owned by on man. Richard Hughes.

    Mr Hughes was interviewed by a business magazine in Manchester in 2005, where he boasted of a great future for Zeus. He spoke of clients who’s worth ranged in value from £35 million to £31 billion.

    He said what a great year it was , and that he was busy investing in the Spanish Property market ( I wonder how that turned out for his investors)

    Anyway……and much more to follow later……you would think Zeus Capital ( why do I keep thinking Liberty Capital) , would have a business that was now fit to sit beside Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan …..

    You might think that, but you would be wrong. The most recent accounts show a business with an annual turnover of £1.6 million which has made a loss for 3 of the last 4 years. The year they made a profit it was a whopping £10,000.

    The balance sheet shows that Directors do not take enormous salaries, and that the business appears to have around a dozen employees in total

    Mr Hughes has had an interesting career. I haven’t seen anyone who has had so many directorships in a long time. Most of these business’s no longer exist and many have incredibly similar names.

    Well actually I have seen someone similar, I wonder what happened to him


  48. Paul Mc has gone mainstream, being cited by Ian Fraser.

    The fans seem to be split on the latest tax issues, but, more than a few are raising concerns. Not sure how Green is going to steady the ship. Ramsay is going to have to write one hell of a press release…

    Strangely RM has no mention of the tax issues, Times to highbrow?.


  49. scapaflow14 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:24

    Strangely RM has no mention of the tax issues, Times to highbrow?.

    =============================================================
    Those who mock must be wary of their own limitations too.


  50. scapaflow14 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:24

    Actually Blu, I wronged them, didn’t scroll far enough down the pages. Trying hard to remember the last time anyone connected with RFC admitted to making a mistake.

    …… nope still nothing springs to mind.


  51. From KDS, interesting point made during the discussion of the tax investigation into Zeus Capital and RTC’s tweets on the seperate tax enquiry concerning Charles Green:

    “Haven’t they been punished enough?”


  52. HirsutePursuit says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:13

    Hirsuite you may well be correct!

    However, am I the only one who finds the prospect of a definitive ruling that the history died with liquidation coming as a result of an action brought by Mr Green, positively hilarious?


  53. Leggo’s writes as if he’s parodying the way Chick Young speaks anyway for anybody that cares to read back numerous articles written by Leggat and you will repeatedly see Charles Green referred to as the “oft-times proven liar and Snake-Oil Salesman…..” there was also much previous talk of Green’s Manchester based backers being linked in a sinister manner and referred to as the “Quality Street Gang” after the infamous Manchester mobsters of previous decades. Total nutjob.


  54. Hopefully Mark will get recognition for his work

    “Mark Daly‏@markdaly2

    Just heard I’ve been shortlisted in the @pressgazette British Journalism awards for our Rangers stuff. Delighted. http://ow.ly/eXKXB


  55. Blu

    “Those who mock must be wary of their own limitations too.”
    ——————————————————————————-
    Funnily enough, that’s exactly what I was thinking that day I witnessed Ally McCoist bounding down the Hampden steps, p1ssing himself laughing at Celtic, after having been let off scot free for his disgusting behaviour at Parkhead in the shame game.

    Celtic had three men booked (one of them wrongly.) Rangers had ten men booked and three sent off. Yet Celtic were required to attend a top level summit over the matter. They threw the book at Lennon and the Press portrayed him as the guilty party. I, and many others, lost any hope in justice that day.

    So I was certainly hoping that super Ally’s own limitations would be exposed one day. And that day is here. I now mock him for being a crap manager, dog whistler and a man of zero integrity.

    From Smith, McCoist, Jardine, Brown, to Smith, Ogilvie, Bain, King and Johnston, to the Rangers and Sevco support, mocking is appropriate and well deserved.


  56. HirsutePursuit says: Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:13
    As I said previously, I am sure that he is (or soon will be) mightily embarrassed by his mistake.
    =============

    H.P.
    Can LNS not do what the rest of us do all the time, admit our mistakes, and the sooner the better? There seems to be a culture of reluctance to admit to human failings among eminent legal people.

    I for one would have infinitely more faith and trust in a judge who admitted to error, apologised, put the record straight, and got on with it, than in somebody who tried to bluster and bluff through it.

    Besides, an admission by the learned gentleman would pre-empt any hay being made by Mr Green.


  57. scapaflow14 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:32
    8 0 i
    Rate This

    scapaflow14 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:24

    Actually Blu, I wronged them, didn’t scroll far enough down the pages. Trying hard to remember the last time anyone connected with RFC admitted to making a mistake.

    …… nope still nothing springs to mind.

    =====================================================
    Scapa, I’ve no disagreement with your views, just saw some irony in your mocking the Sevcos’ intellectual capabilities whilst making a basic spelling error. It doesn’t add to the discussion but I couldn’t resist it.


  58. twopanda says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 09:20

    RTC tweeted last night that the decision notice is with the counsel for MIH and HMRC for comment on the level of redaction of personal data.

    RTC speculated that counsel for MIH are delaying the process by stretching out the redaction consultation process and that we could be looking at 2 weeks before release into the public domain.


  59. Its old age Blu, I can’t find my fecking glasses this morning, and no they are not on the top of my head….


  60. blu

    I got your drift right away…

    but, amazing how some didn’t and ran with their own version of reality…

    a lesson there for us all perhaps?


  61. 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;

    Sometimes legal types will use technical language that is assumed (incorrectly) to be understood by everyone. This can often cause some doubt as to the true intention of the author.

    One example would be the use of the word “undertaking”. Because the term is in everyday use in legal circles – and it will have been lawyers who drafted the SPL Articles & Rules – it has found its way in to one of those documents.

    It is often used in legislation – esp in regard to employee transfers – as an alternative to the term “company”. Such legislation will have been written (in most cases) to apply equally to non-corporate entities – local government, civil service, quango’s, etc – which are not necessarily registered at companies house.

    But, in general (or common terms); the words undertaking and company are completely interchangeable. In plain language an undertaking is an entity engaged in economic activity – and unless that entity does not have a company number, the undertaking will ALWAYS be the company itself.

    To be clear – an undertaking is NOT the business and/or asset(s) of a company – IT IS the company. Any half-asleep lawyer (or judge) would know this.

    The SPL Articles would mean exactly the same if they said:

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

    The actual language used in the SPL Articles may not be in plain English; but it still entirely clear in its meaning.

    Though Lord Nimmo Smith has drawn a different conclusion (for now!), the SPL Articles & Rules are, IMO, in complete accord with the SFA and UEFA/FIFA.

    The Club is the undertaking.
    The Club is the legal entity.
    The Club is the company.


  62. doontheslope says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 11:15
    =====================================================
    Doon, I’m not going into the Celtic/Rangers territory but, as someone who thought that McCoist had done well for himself in his cheeky chappie sort of way, the dog whistle episode was a watershed. It was calculated and done without any consideration to the damage that might be done to innocent individuals who’d volunteered their time and expertise to help Scottish football.


  63. scapaflow14 says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 11:28

    abigboydiditandranaway says:
    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 11:31
    1 0 i
    Rate This

    blu

    I got your drift right away…

    but, amazing how some didn’t and ran with their own version of reality…

    a lesson there for us all perhaps?

    ===========================================================
    Thanks. Being misunderstood when indulging in irony/sarcasm/smart-arsery/pedantry is a danger inherent in the medium though.


  64. STV are reporting that Topping is standing down as chair of the SPL. Wonder who will replace him, Fred Goodwin?

    Turnbull Hutton would be my choice, not related to an SPL club, but understands football. However, like the fictional Italian detective Zen, his unfortunate reputation for integrity would probably rule him out 😉


  65. Whats the betting?

    Craig Levien is waiting anxiously for the FTT announcement on RFC This will signal a phone call from the SFA and imediate release of a press announcement on his future.


  66. From twitter,acknowledgement to GJ

    Livingston Provide Proof That “The Rangers” Are A New Club
    November 2, 2012 by Gordon Johnston
    Tomorrow sees the third round of the Scottish Cup, or the William Hill Scottish Cup as I suppose I should call it to give the sponsors their due. Sixteen ties between Scotland’s smaller clubs will take place to see who makes it through to the fourth round draw, where they will be joined by Scotland’s top sixteen clubs from last season.

    But the crucial question that should be asked by serious students of Scottish football is perhaps not an obvious one. It is “Who are Livingston playing in the third round?”

    Why is this so important?

    Well, have a look at last year’s First Division table. We see that Livingston finished the season in fifth place. Now let’s look at the regulations for this year’s Scottish Cup.

    Round Three

    The clubs which, in the previous season, were members of The Scottish Premier League and those clubs finishing in The Scottish Football League First Division league positions one to four, shall be exempt from playing in Round Three of the Competition.

    So Livingston should be playing in the third round, right?

    Well, no. They have a bye and will enter the competition in the fourth round. But why?

    The answer is quite simple. One of the clubs that finished in the top sixteen last season no longer exists. The former Rangers Football Club is now in liquidation and is no longer a Scottish league club.

    The spare place in the Scottish leagues was taken by new club “The Rangers” who joined in the bottom tier. And as a third division club they came into this year’s Scottish Cup in the second round. A narrow 1 – 0 win over non-league Forres Mechanics saw them progress and they now have a third round tie against higher league opponents in Alloa Athletic to look forward to.

    Now if, as some erroneously claim, “The Rangers” is in fact the same football club as the former Rangers FC, would this be case? Well, no. If the two were indeed the same then, as the rules make clear, a bye to the fourth round would have been secured. And Livingston would have been in the draw for the third round rather than having a weekend off.

    So there you are. Proof according to the SFA, which runs the Scottish Cup, that “The Rangers” are not the same football club as former SPL club Rangers FC.

    QED as they say. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Leave a Reply