Past the Event Horizon

Avatar By

Merry Xmas to all who post here and especially those …

Comment on Past the Event Horizon by ecobhoy.

Merry Xmas to all who post here and especially those who put in a wheen of unpaid work and lots of effort trying to clean-up the SFA.

It’s also a time to remember those who have gone and won’t be with their loved ones at this time and I feel sure many will be thinking of a guy who gave so much and taught everyone of us a helluva lot and not just about legal technicalities but the meaning of compassion and the ability to forgive.

We also have to remember that Scottish football is a tiny and very insignificant affair when we think of all the tragedies that beset the world and the millions out there who die needlessly from war, starvation and disease – let’s also commit to do what we can to help even though it might not be a lot individually we must always remember that when we act together we can be an unstoppable force for change.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Past the Event Horizon
BigGav says: (91)
December 24, 2013 at 5:43 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 24, 2013 at 4:50 pm

And as I have pointed out for months if all the TRFCL shares were transferred to RIFC in December 2012 how can TRFCL exist without at least a £1 share? That share should be shown in the TRFCL Annual Return and it isn’t. There are a host of anomalies in the latest return.
——–
I may be misunderstanding you, but I don’t see the problem here. TRFCL still has 33,415,200 shares (as shown in Part 3 of the return). It’s just that now they are all owned by RIFC plc, whereas previously they were owned by various holders – who swapped them for shares in RIFC.
=====================================================
My brain is obviously addled with hot toddies 😳


Past the Event Horizon
As I recently posted it came as a surprise to me to learn that Rangers on entering admin only only a few thousand in back rates to Glasgow and East Dunbartonshire Councils which seemed to suggest that CW had made an exception and paid his rates – Strange as it might seem

So was just looking at the Scottish Assessors Association rating website for Ibrox and Murray Park – honestly I’m not a saddo but I am sitting loaded with the cold and just not able to go to the pub 🙁

The latter comes under East Dunbartonshire Council and shows the proprietor as: Sevco Scotland Ltd at Edmiston Drive and shows the rateable value at £598,500 effective from 1 April 2010. Curiously it also shows that this figure is under appeal but apparently not from the revaluation which I think probably refers to the general revaluation of 2010.

What I don’t know is whether when an appeal is lodged that payments are frozen or not and perhaps someone with knowledge in this field might be able to assist.

Looking at Ibrox Stadium then it isn’t a former company name that is given as the proprietor but the non-existant company: ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’. I’m not saying that this is an intentional error but considering that the rates valuation work for Ibrox is handled by an external rating company – Les Ewan Associates – I would have thought that the error would have been corrected. I assume the proprietor is meant to be ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ but of course perhaps I am wrong in that assumption.

Rateable value for Ibrox is £1.1 million effective from 1 April 2013 and there is no appeal against the figure set. The Ibrox Valuation has fallen in line with Rangers’ league status. In 2005 the valuation figure was £1.76 million and at the 2010 general revaluation this increased to £1.916 million which was appealed.

It appears that the appeal settlement was set at £1 million with the valuation notice issued on 8 February 2013 but effective from 14 June 2012. So again I am left with the question as to whether the rates need to be paid when the valuation is under appeal. And if the revised valuation notice wasn’t issued until 8 February this year does that mean that no rates were paid from 14 June by the new owners? I just don’t know the answer to that.

But the question is also raised in my mind that the same could apply to the 2010 Valuation wrt the period 1 April 2010 to 13 June 2012. Did CW or D&P pay any rates during that period or is there a get-out because an appeal is in which wasn’t decided until February 2013 which could mean it wouldn’t have been on the list of creditors?

I could be way off-beam but still if you don’t ask the questions then you don’t get the laughs.


Past the Event Horizon
TRFCL corrected Annual Return details

As I have stated above the correction to the previously submitted incomplete and apparently incorrect Annual Return for TRFCL doesn’t mention Margarita but only ATP Investments whom Margarita’s 2.6 million shares were transferred to in the summer of 2012. The former Margarita shareholding in TRFCL was held by ATP until 18 December 2012 when it was swapped on a 1-for-1 basis for RIFC shares.

The important question which arises is whether ATP still owns these 2.6 million shares. If it does how was it possible for Sandy Easdale to be given a voting proxy for the AGM for 2.6 million shares in the name of Margarita Funds Holding Trust.

Were these 2.6 million shares transferred back from ATP to Margarita after 18 December 2012 or do ATP still have their 2.6 million shares? This could mean that Margarita has bought another 2.6 million shares at the IPO or from AIM but on the assumption they bought their original shares at 1p then they would have to have coughed-up 70p a share on flotation ro replace their 2.6 million share stake. And, if replaced on AIM, the cost would have been higher as share price peaked around 95p and the real collapse in price didn’t happen from memory until June.

Doesn’t make sense to me and just another one of the little mysteries surrounding Rangers and its flotation.

http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author

Avatar