Past the Event Horizon

ByBig Pink

Past the Event Horizon

On the Old Club vs New Club (OCNC) debate, the SFA’s silence has been arguably the most damaging factor with respect to the future of the game. Of course people get frustrated when there is a deliberate policy of silence on the part of the SFA which results in the endless cycle of arguments being trotted out again and again with no resolution or closure possible.

The irony (it’s only irony if you assume that the SFA have gone to great lengths to create the conditions for the unbroken history status of the new club) is that the mealy-mouthed attitude they have adopted has actually polarised opinion in a far more serious and irreconcilable way than had they just made a clear statement when Sevco were handed SFA membership. A bit of leadership, with a decision either way at that time would have spiked a lot of OCNC guns very early on, but as history shows, they were afraid of a backlash from wherever it came.

I am now convinced that Scottish Football has passed the Event Horizon and is broken beyond the possibility of any repair that might have taken it back to its pre-2010 condition. Rangers fans will never – no matter what any eventual pronouncement from Hampden may be – accept that their next trophy will be their first. The trouble is that no-one else – again despite anything from Hampden – will cast them as anything else other than a new club who were given a free passage into the higher echelons of the game. Furthermore, they will forever force that down the throats of Rangers fans whenever and wherever they play. A recipe for discord, threats of violence, actual violence, and a general ramping up of the sectarian gas that we had all hoped, only a year or so ago, was to be set to an all-time low peep.

There is a saying in politics that we get the government we deserve. It works both ways though, and the SFA will get the audience it deserves. In actual fact it is the one it has actively sought over the last couple of years, for they have tacitly (and even perhaps explicitly) admitted that Scottish Football is a dish best served garnished with sectarianism. They have effectively told us that without it, the game cannot flourish, and they stick to that fallacy even although the empirical evidence of the past year indicates otherwise.

That belief is an intellectual black-hole they have now thrust the game into. They have effectively said that only two clubs actually matter in Scottish football. The crazy thing is that to put their plans into action they have successfully persuaded enough of the other clubs to jump into the chasm and hence vote themselves into irrelevance and permanent semi-obscurity.

That belief is also shared by the majority in the MSM, who despite their lofty, self-righteous and ostensibly anti-sectarian stance, have done everything they can to stir the hornet’s nest in the interests of greater sales.
Act as an unpaid wing of a PR company, check nothing, ask nothing, help to create unrest, and then tut-tut away indignantly like Monty Python Pepperpots when people take them to task.

Consequently the victims of all the wrongdoing (creditors and clubs) walk away without any redress or compensation for the loss of income and opportunity (and history) – stripped of any pride and dignity since they do so in the full knowledge of what has happened. But even as they wipe away the sand kicked in their faces, those clubs still insist on the loyalty of their own fanbases, the same fans whose trust they have betrayed with their meek acceptance of the new, old order.

The kinder interpretation of the impotence of the clubs is that they want to avoid the hassle and move on, the more cynical view that they are interested only in money, not people. In either case, sporting integrity, in the words of Lord Traynor of Winhall (Airdrie, not Vermont), is “crap”.

The question is; which constituency of 21st century Scotland subscribes to that 17th century paradigm?
Sadly, this massive hoax, this gigantic insult to our collective intelligence, is working. Many will leave the game – many already have in view of the spineless absence of intervention from their own clubs – but many, many more will stay and support the charade.

If you doubt my prediction, ask yourself how many tickets will be unsold the first time the New Rangers play Celtic at Parkhead? That my friends will be final imprimatur of authenticity on just exactly who New Rangers are, no matter the proclamations of both sides of the OCNC argument.

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

3,926 Comments so far

wottpiPosted on10:52 am - Dec 23, 2013


Allyjambo says: (736)
December 23, 2013 at 9:48 am

Well said.

Perhaps some people have forgotten the very detailed working accounts (too detailed to be forgred) that appeared via Charlotte where it seemed Brian Stockbridge had every penny accounted for and provided information all the costs and percentage savings for a range of business centres.

Surely speaking as one Chartered Accountant to another and working round the clock to review Stockbridge’ work Wallace should be able to reach an accurate conclusion with regard to the clubs finances within a matter of days.

Either Wallace agrees with Stockbridge’s figures and can see there is a plan (which he could tweak to his liking) or he thinks its all a load of bollocks.

It is only a football club with limited operations assets and income streams.
120 days is just nonsense and if the Bears fall for it then hell mend them.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:12 am - Dec 23, 2013


coineanachantaighe says: (374)

December 23, 2013 at 9:54 am

PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (190)
December 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm
I’m still amazed that they ever managed to get £17M odd out of the institutional investors the first time.
******************************************************

I think a quick look at the kind of people who run things in this country – people who have risen to the top without showing any sign of competence whatsoever (politicians, bankers, many business managers – and guys like Paul Flowers for instance, I mean how did he ever get top jobs he was unqualified for and totally unequipped for?). When you think of that it’s not so surprising they found some mugs to invest in a busted flush. Spivs seem to be the only ones with any brains in the operation.

Edit: I seem to recall after posting … someone I think posted ages ago there may be some kind of tax break investing in a loss-making operation but I don’t think it can totally account for it.
_____________________________________________________

This is a subject that has puzzled many on here; how could these ‘institutions’ invest in such an obvious lame duck? The easy and very likely answer is: it’s not their money!

They are investing other peoples money, and the other people do not know, and have no say in, where it’s being invested. The beneficial owners of the investments will have invested their money in an Investment Trust or Fund (both the same thing really). A tiny proportion of their individual investments will have been ‘invested’ in RIFC.

Why would the Fund or Trust Managers invest in RIFC? Answer: Because they either owe, or receive a promise of, a favour.

I, many years ago, got first hand experience of this at the floatation of a fairly large investment trust. For, I think, obvious reasons, I cannot give much detail about how this came about or why I was a witness to this, but will try to explain in a somewhat circumspect way.

The company I worked for were doing work in relation to the launch of around a dozen new Investment Trusts by a firm of investment managers. They were the brainchild of one of the investment managers and he spent a lot of time in our office for around a week or so until the ‘closing date’ 5pm on a Friday. As with the RIFC IPO there was a target figure, though in this case it was pretty much a ‘must achieve’ figure and the whole operation would have been a costly failure if it failed to at least reach a level that could be accepted at the discretion of the managers. Needless to say with half an hour to go they were short by almost £2m. Cue panic (by this yuppie manager) and frantic phone calls to various other fund managers. He was standing beside me using my phone (as though I wasn’t there) almost begging these friendly managers to invest in his scheme, promising to do likewise to help them out in the future. I have to admit I enjoyed his discomfort 😉 as, by this time, I’d grown tired of his blue shirts and red braces along with his very expensive dark blue suits, not to mention the way he was treating me, and my team, as if of no consequence. By memory he raised about a further £500,000 and was able to call the launch a success. Like RIFC the Fund Managers got a good press, they were big names in the sector, but none of the dozen or so trusts were a great success and some of them failed and were liquidated a few years later. Regardless, the fund managers made money, no doubt the yuppy manager had moved on before things went t*ts up, and a great many people lost a bit of money (but they had been warned in the prospectus) and some lost quite a bit.

I got the impression from these telephone conversations that it was all standard practice amongst these money managers, and so have thought, since first reading of the unbelievable level of institutional investment in RIFC, that this practice must have accounted for a fair proportion of the money raised. The tax loss investments no doubt play a part too, along with the sheer incompetence you describe in your post. In the world of investment management, along with so many other ‘top establishment jobs’, a lack of conscience is the most important ‘quality’ to have.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:21 am - Dec 23, 2013


neepheid says: (949)

December 23, 2013 at 10:21 am

(Santa) Hats off to you, neepheid. Really well constructed letter and one the AIM Regulators should find hard to dismiss.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:26 am - Dec 23, 2013


PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (194)
December 22, 2013 at 10:20 pm
43 1 Rate This

Tif Finn says: (1049)
December 22, 2013 at 10:14 pm
I think it is HIGHLY significant that RIFC/Sevco has not been able to secure a line of credit from a bank.
That tells you so much about how their sustainability as a business is viewed.
We are all well versed here that a sustainable football business IS possible at Ibrox.
However they must live within their means (gasp) and that will entail-finally-someone leveling with the fans.

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

Phil

I have to disagree with that….i think it is impossible to see how they can live within their means.

Sure, they can cut costs significantly – offload Murray park, cut squad size and salary, reduce directors salaries/bonus’s – looks easy on paper, but getting rid of Murray Park itself won’t be easy. Building houses is a no no there, so who is picking up large empty areas of flat land?

maybe a deal can be done with their rugby playing neighbours to move onto the site (allowing them to sell their own site which will get permission for housing) but who else is likely to pick it up? So, they could actually be stuck with it. I guess they could shut it down and mothball it for a few years and go back to running up and down the sands at Gullane beach.

Cutting the player wage bill won’t be easy….these guys signed on for the long haul and “the journey” they expect to see wages rise year on year as they climb the leagues – they won’t be easily released without a pay off. They are NOT going to receive a transfer fee for players at the current level, if they do, it will be in the 50-100k range. The players won’t want to leave lucrative contracts behind either – so they could be stuck with them for another 2/3 years.

Directors salaries could be cut easily enough but further costs are going to be hard to cut – police, stewards, catering staff, ticket office staff will remain constant so long as crowd sizes do. Rates bill will rise slightly as the level of competition they are playing in increases (they got a big cut when they entered SFL3 after the previous occupants of Ibrox having played in the SPL) Gas/electricity/phone bills remain constant, transport costs constant

Simply enough, there isn’t much to cut away – unless you are looking at closing a stand and having part time football players….which in turn means reduced income and hence further costs required.

I don’t see a sustainable business model – their costs are too high for the income they can generate. Unless the fans bite a 100% increase in season ticket cash and are prepared to watch a mid table team – then the spiral will begin.

Alternatively, someone is going to have to take a leap of faith, put £15M in the pot, carry out severe wage cuts/playing staff cuts, bump up the prices, renegotiate the catering/merchandise deals and hope the fans remain loyal until the manager can overcome the on field issues and get into the CL – when they’ll get their money back

then, and only if the manager can repeat it year on year, can they think about increasing the squad budget to something comparible to Celtics

and theres the problem, they might manage a 1 off, rise above the rest – but maintaining that is the problem, the good players will be bought/leave, the replacements won’t be up to the standard and other teams will invest in their own squad.

I am not convinced it is a sustainable model – someone needs to pour cash in for no return. That simple.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:47 am - Dec 23, 2013


wottpi says: (1353)
December 23, 2013 at 10:52 am
Allyjambo says: (736)
December 23, 2013 at 9:48 am

Well said. Perhaps some people have forgotten the very detailed working accounts (too detailed to be forgred) that appeared via Charlotte where it seemed Brian Stockbridge had every penny accounted for and provided information all the costs and percentage savings for a range of business centres.
============================================================================
I would be amazed, given the current crippling financial pressures on Rangers, that Stockbridge wasn’t doing detailed books on a weekly basis.

Therefore it’s a nonsense to require 120 days to come up with a plan. IMO the time scale is just a feint while a much earlier Ibrox withdrawal is carried out. Or perhaps they are waiting on something which has been or is being arranged/promised to save the day.

Personally I think the Easdales are well out of their depth in dealing with the spivs involved in this operation although I doubt if they will lose much cash as I doubt that they have that much to begin with. But they could well be made to look stupid and I don’t think they’ll be happy with that as possiby street cred is important to them.

Perhaps someone like DK has made a promise that the necessary cash will be made available to ‘save’ the club but claims it’ll take a bit of time as those pesky South African tax people still have their beady eyes on his financial flows.

Of course if such a benefactor pulled out at the last minute that truly would throw a spanner in the works and I would IMO lead to an almost immediate spiv departure with the title deeds in their pocket. TRFCL would be left like a beached whale and the ‘Real Rangers Men’ would be expected to pick-up the baton and rent the stadium and buy the all-important club history from the administrators as that truly is the Ibrox Holy Grail to deluded Bears.

But the longer this runs the more I believe that the ‘Real Rangers Men’ either don’t have the money or recognise the danger to their personal health of trying to breathe life into the financial basket case of the club corpse without swingeing cost-saving which will impact deeply on the quality of affordable playing staff.

I really am mystified in trying to figure out where this is all going other than disaster but then I’m not a spiv and these guys are clever and I have little doubt that they will see-out their master plan and depart well recompensed for their stint in Scotland’s lower leagues.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:50 am - Dec 23, 2013


Sad to report that two young footballers died in Edinburgh within the last 24 hours. A 14 year-old died during a game involving Tynecastle FC yesterday and an 18 year-old Hibs under 20s player died at home this morning. Two fit young men, taken from their families far too soon.

I know everyone here will be saddened and be feeling for their families.

RIP lads

http://www.theedinbu…edinburgh-home/
http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2013/12/teenage-footballer-dies-during-game-at-saughton-playing-fields/

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on12:01 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Tif Finn says: (1056)
December 22, 2013 at 9:48 pm

The £10m has been required for many years, that has been the difference between income and expenditure when European money was not available.
It has simply become more obvious since the new club came into existence and the money just wasn’t there, and the credit facilities are not available to bridge the gap.
Nothing has changed, they are still spending more than they earn to buy success.
==================================================================================
Light Bulb Moment

Thanks Tif Finn – you have just crystallized the whole saga for me – I now have the “elevator speech” for what is wrong with Rangers.

They are simply £10,000,000 per year less efficient than Celtic – so without Euro money the books don’t balance by £10m/yr so they end up with EBTs, side letters, WTC, BTC, Whyte, Admin, Liquidation, Sevco, Spivs. Dodgy IPO, Unknown Owners, Dubious Deeds, Leaseback.

And with that I’ll sign off until 2014 – Merry Christmas everybody, a Happy New Year and may your God go with you.

m.c.f.c.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:05 pm - Dec 23, 2013


m.c.f.c. says: (82)

December 23, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Merry Xmas to you, too, m.c.f.c. and a Happy New Year. Big one for you on Boxing Day, good luck for that one, and the rest of the season 🙂

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:06 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1080)
December 23, 2013 at 11:26 am

Phil is probably right that a sustainable club could play out of Ibrox but you are also correct in pointing out that it takes a load of monay to keep the operation going regardless of what league T’Rangers are playing in. The crowds of 40k are required to run the club but at the same time satifying the needs for those 40k both from the operation and admin side of things and via the results on the park means most of the income they generate is gone as soon as it comes in the door. In the current climate without a Sugar Daddy the balancing act is trying to keep the 40k onside to the point where they can maximise ticket revenue by being in the top league. Once there they should be able to put out a reasonable team on the park for the revue being generated.
The fans of course have no choice, it is either part with your cash or the club will most definitely fold – again.
While they are to be applauded for turning out in such large numbers the volume of fans are both saviours of the club and a burden at the same time.

As I keep saying it is a tremendous tightrope act. If they do manage to get to the other side with everyone coming out reasonably happy, then someone somewhere will have done a great job.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:06 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1080)
December 23, 2013 at 11:26 am

Rates bill will rise slightly as the level of competition they are playing in increases (they got a big cut when they entered SFL3 after the previous occupants of Ibrox having played in the SPL)
==============================================================
I have always wondered about the rates bills to Glasgow (Ibrox) and East Dunbartonshire? (MP).

The list of creditors when Rangers entered administration showed a pretty negigible amount owed in rates which I could never really figure out as the small anount made it look as though the only payments CW was actually making was to the rates which struck me as strange because the amounts payable were quite substantial.

But the rate valuations were under appeal at that time and I wonder whether because of this the payments were suspended and therefore have never actually been added as a debt for the full amount. The councils would realise they weren’t going to get any money back from admin/liquidation and perhaps didn’t want to have red faces about the amount of money not collected so if the rates appeal eventually fell because of the Rangers demise then it might have been handy not to add the actual amount owed and just let it slide under the carpet.

And, as you say, the new club was another ball game when it came to rates as there are percentage deductions applied the lower ther league you are playing in. So was it a fresh start for Rangers with a clean-slate as far as rates payable?

This is just supposition onb my part but

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:12 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Danish Pastry says: (1836)

December 23, 2013 at 10:09 am

Sounds like a hybrid version of ‘Kick the Can’, Ally. Last man blooters the can o’er the dyke and everybody runs oot the Den, hame tae a lavish tea at their chateau, and the game’s a bogey.
________________________________________________

Unfortunately for Wallace, he might find himself carrying the can rather than kicking it 😉

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on12:17 pm - Dec 23, 2013


paulsatim says: (672)
December 23, 2013 at 10:25 am
10 0 Rate This

Probably usual hearsay/rumour, but anyone heard about this possibility?

Is Hector the tax inspector about to visit Govan again? – From KDS poster during the night
Today, 2:06 AM
Apparently their end of VAT period is Dec payable Jan 2014 is £1m and they havent paid their monthly PAYE payments according to a few reliable cid sevconians in the pub tonight who realy dont speak ill of their tribute act but know the writing is on the wall very very very quickly.

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

Any more information about this gem ?

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:29 pm - Dec 23, 2013


You’ll be pleased to hear that the fans on follow follow are now asking two very pertinent questions.

What cost cutting can actually be made to try to balance the books.

Why exactly do they need another 120 days to examine things, is there an ulterior motive.

A bit late but it’s actually good to see some sensible questions being asked rather than hunting to find which {insert sectarian insult here} is to blame for their latest troubles.

View Comment

Sugar DaddyPosted on1:55 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Tif Finn

Hopefully not on the basis that no cost cutting should take place.

GW has to sell players, writing off some of the income in golden goodbyes to get them off books. Probably needs to bring in £1.5m net and get at least 6 out.

A plan that gets them to end of season and till new ST money comes in is what’s required. I’d be telling Ally that since he wanted to take a wage cut 3 months ago he’s not getting paid again till March to square things up.

A doubling of ST price, a much reduced wage bill and the possibility of break even may be enough to get him a secured line of credit using either MP or Ibrox. That might be enough get them to end of next season.

Unless of course they find a huge bag of cash under the Christmas tree as a “gift” from Dave King.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:02 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Oh, no.

They are genuinely discussing what costs can be cut in order to try to actually balance the books.

Talk of slashing the playing squad, staff redundancies etc.

Re season tickets, I don’t think they can really double them. If there was a 33% reduction then a 50% increase would take them back to the same level as before. Doubling them would make them one and a third of what they were when the old club was in the SPL. I can’t see even the loyal buying that (pun intended).

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:13 pm - Dec 23, 2013


More realisation methinks

In the thread entitled – “The moment most will wake up will be too late”

This from a poster with over 30,000 posts

“Being a poor second to Celtic will certainly jolt the support, and that’s what we are likely to be when we get back to the top division. This is what it will take for many fans to demand a better-run club.

I spoke to a pal at the weekend and he’ll stay the course because he believes that the current ownership bought into the club in a way that the requisitioners did not. From what I can gather, though, while there are others just like him, plenty have had enough. They see their money being used to fund spinmasters to tell us how great the board is. This sickens them. They have too much self-respect to keep funding this situation.

Much as I would like to see a concerted campaign that would bring about beneficial change, it is probably more likely that fans will chuck it in their own time as they realise that the club is on a fast track to nowhere.

For most of us, sadly, this will mean Celtic ruling the roost and marching to nine or ten league titles in a row. There is a noticeable gap between Rangers and Celtic now, and it will not easily be closed”

View Comment

blackjacquePosted on2:23 pm - Dec 23, 2013


200000 shares bought today at £0.335. Someone obviously has not read your comments on this blog Neepheid.

View Comment

CarntynePosted on2:28 pm - Dec 23, 2013


FLAGS AND BANNERS

I am all for banning flares from football grounds, but as is hinted in this article… http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=14412… it appears to me that the heavy hand of the law and saturation coverage by the media on this matter seems to fall unerringly on Celtic and their fans.

Although it has been mentioned in passing that other club’s fans get up to the same pyrotechnic tricks, the coverage just isn’t the same.

Rangers fans have been guilty of this activity on more than one occasion this season on TV games I have watched, with barely a mention.

Perhaps the powers that be think the Ibrox club have enough problems on their plate without adding to them.

I have no problem whatsoever with the treatment Celtic have suffered in the last week if the same standard is applied to every Scottish club.

But it isn’t.

Today Police Scotland are quoted as saying that…”the banning of flags and banners won’t be the start of a blanket ban. Police Scotland have no plans to stop fans from taking banners and flags into football grounds”.

Celtic fans being the exception presumably.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on2:42 pm - Dec 23, 2013


The problem they have is that the ONLY way to make cost savings as quickly and at the required level is through administration.

Most, if not all of the contracts still have at least to the end of the season to run (playing and non-playing). This coupled with that if the Annual Report is taken as fully factual, they have already made those savings by bringing a significant number of the services delivered in house.

£10 M reduction on a cost base of approximately £30 M is a tall order for any business, especially one in such a volatile market as football, where revenue comes in lump sums and is subject to relatively rapid fluctuations based on team performance.

Last Monday, I was out in London with a fellow Jags fan and we got talking to another Scot in a bar about golf (he was with a golf pro from a Scottish course) and our favourite courses. I said Macranhanish, at which point the gentleman (who my friend had already noted looked like a hungover Ancelotti) said, “I was playing there when I got the phone call to offer me the Rangers’ Chair position.” My immediate response was to ask which Rangers, rhyming off some of the various company names. Interestingly, he smiled and added a few.

In the subsequent ten minute discussion, I asked him about what he planned to do if he got back on the board and effectively he said what Wallace did about cost cutting, However, when I pointed out the above, and added that the only way to fill the black hole was to get rid of either all the players or Murray Park. He agreed…

In my opinion, after the 120 day review is completed, TRCF will be placed into administration with a main debtor of RIFC who will then take the assets in payment and sell TRFC to the Brogquistioners for a £1 (or maybe it will be £2 so they can claim a 100% increase in value). That will allow them to get out of the contracts, readjust the player costs; a rent free or nominal rent deal will be done to allow them to get to the SPFL and off we go with everyone blue happy.

Only question is whether they can last the 120 days and how the SFA/SPFL will manage to still promote them even with administration – perhaps they will even come in and out of admin before the season ends…

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:56 pm - Dec 23, 2013


From AIM-

23 December 2013

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers”, “RIFC” or the “Company”)

Director’s Dealing in shares

The Company was notified that today Norman Crighton, Non-Executive Director, purchased 60,000 ordinary shares of 1p each in the Company (“Ordinary Shares”) at a price of 34p per share.

Mr Crighton is now interested in 60,000 Ordinary Shares representing approximately 0.09% of the issued share capital of the Company.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:00 pm - Dec 23, 2013


On a lighter note, totally OT, just something that made me laugh.and it is football related-

http://eveningharold.com/2013/12/09/manchester-united-crisis-deepens-as-glory-supporters-put-in-transfer-request/

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on3:12 pm - Dec 23, 2013


It really is worth bearing in mind that people are buying shares in a PLC which happens to wholly own a football club.

The PLC’s plan for making money does not necessarily have to involve a successful football club being a wholly owned subsidiary going forward.

People are not buying shares in Rangers, they are buying shares in the PLC which owns Rangers.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on3:16 pm - Dec 23, 2013


jimlarkin says: (712)
December 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm

Nothing yet. I did say probably rumour, but here’s hoping!

View Comment

bluPosted on3:26 pm - Dec 23, 2013


blackjacque says: (11)
December 23, 2013 at 2:23 pm
200000 shares bought today at £0.335. Someone obviously has not read your comments on this blog Neepheid.

60,000 of those bought by the Honourable Norman at a cost of £20,400. I wonder if his NED payment would cover that?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on3:29 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Para Handy says: (27)
December 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm
3 0 Rate This
———-

Reading both yours and Allyjambo’s comments, has Graham Wallace been set up to do the deed none of the others dare to do? You get the impression his lot will be that of the bringer of unwelcome tidings.

Btw, is Crighton actually ‘buying’ shares, or could he be having them allocated as payment? Excuse my naive question, but is it possible that this could be stock as payment?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:29 pm - Dec 23, 2013


neepheid says: (951)
December 23, 2013 at 10:21 am
‘…my email to AIM Regulation…’
———–
Good one, neepheid!

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on3:36 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Para Handy says: (27)
December 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Only question is whether they can last the 120 days and how the SFA/SPFL will manage to still promote them even with administration – perhaps they will even come in and out of admin before the season ends…

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

This is heading to be a pre-pack administration at the end of the season with Ibrokes passed across in lieu of debt.

The Real Rangers Men (RRM©) will inject a few million into TRFC with matched funding sought from the fans. RIFC will give them a year’s rent honeymoon on Ibrokes and the car park. MP & Edmiston House will be gone with the spivs into RIFC.

Players and other staff will be TUPE’d over but TRFC will spend the close season attempting to sell any who won’t take pay cuts or make redundant those staff who have no contractual protection.

The margin of victory of Division Three will mean a points deduction will have no effect and TRFC will then go into Division Two (what’s it called now?).

Scottish Football needs the return of CW & Ticketus! 🙂

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on3:41 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Danish Pastry says: (1837)
December 23, 2013 at 8:38 am

Mange tak.
Jeg håber, du og din familie er godt denne jul 😉

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on3:43 pm - Dec 23, 2013


redlichtie says: (305)
December 23, 2013 at 3:36 pm

There is the possibility that Ticketus can have CW declared a bankrupt then go after what is owed to his estate through a Trustee.
That would mean T/Us taking up the Sevco 5088 case.
It is, however, a long shot IMO

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:10 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Danish Pastry says: (1837)
December 23, 2013 at 3:29 pm

Para Handy says: (27)
December 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm
———-

Reading both yours and Allyjambo’s comments, has Graham Wallace been set up to do the deed none of the others dare to do? You get the impression his lot will be that of the bringer of unwelcome tidings…
=============================
And wottpi mentioned above that Wallace is a CA, so if that is the case Wallace can’t claim ignorance re: the financial situation he has come into, [his misleading statement aside…]

Wallace has arrived with – on the face of it – decent credentials, i.e. ‘from Man City’.
He has been lauded by the SMSM, but I agree he might have been brought in to do a specific task over a specified period of time – i.e. he is not going to to be a long-term CEO.

And the other CA, Stockbridge, MUST have been micromanaging the cash position at Ibrox since he started as FD. Maybe every payment over e.g. GBP500 has to be approved by Stockbridge ?

Stockbridge knows exactly what is going on with the cash forecasting, and rather than fall on his sword – as you would expect in a ‘normal’ business – the very fact that this FD was comfortably re-elected at the AGM indicates that he is actually ‘doing a good job’, or at least doing the job he had been tasked to perform – and for the ultimate benefit of certain shareholders, IMO.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:12 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Looks like a U-turn over flags at the St Johnstone v Celtic match
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/258173-celtic-fans-allowed-banners-at-st-johnstone-game-after-u-turn/

Just hope the half-wits leave their squibs at home or it could be embarrassment all round. With common sense breaking out in the boardrooms and cop shops it might be a good time for it to break out in the stands as well 🙂

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:14 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Carntyne says: (99)
December 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm

FLAGS AND BANNERS

I am all for banning flares from football grounds, but as is hinted in this article… http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=14412… it appears to me that the heavy hand of the law and saturation coverage by the media on this matter seems to fall unerringly on Celtic and their fans.

Although it has been mentioned in passing that other club’s fans get up to the same pyrotechnic tricks, the coverage just isn’t the same. Rangers fans have been guilty of this activity on more than one occasion this season on TV games I have watched, with barely a mention.

Perhaps the powers that be think the Ibrox club have enough problems on their plate without adding to them. I have no problem whatsoever with the treatment Celtic have suffered in the last week if the same standard is applied to every Scottish club. But it isn’t.

Today Police Scotland are quoted as saying that…”the banning of flags and banners won’t be the start of a blanket ban. Police Scotland have no plans to stop fans from taking banners and flags into football grounds”. Celtic fans being the exception presumably.
=================================================================
I see the CQN article goes off on what I believe to be a false premise that the flages are being banned because they are used to smuggle in pyros/flares. T he reason for the ban is because flages and banners are used for ‘cover’ to hide the activities of those irresponsible supporters involved in setting-off potentially dangerous items.

I suspect that Celtic and the police have clear evidence that points to a concerted use by a tiny handful of mindless Celtic supporters who are using this ploy to endanger other people in the stadium including Celtic supporters there to watch the football.

This issue could potentially involve any club and isn’t just a Celtic one and perhaps it’s been decided that a clear message has to be sent to those involved and hopefully this will be done by ordinary fans who want to be able to, quite rightly, take acceptable flags and banners to a game without their enjoyment being spoilt by a mindless minority.

The answer is quite simple and it’s stop the dangerous and selfish behaviour and there will be no problem with acceptable flags and banners. If the perpetrators would do it voluntarily then it’s obvious that a line in the sand is going to be drawn in an attempt to get video evidence for prosecutions and bannings.

And I really think it is a bit disingenuous to expect a fair crack of the whip from the SMSM when it comes to Celtic. Any long-term fan with the good of the club at heart knows they have to be more careful than most other clubs when it comes to behaviour or they will be pilloried. As to the police then they have their ‘sources’ and intelligence and it may well be that somethingf spectacular was being planned for the St Johnstone Boxing Day game or perhaps the info came from Celtic after being passed-on by decent supporters who don’t want to see anyone endangered.

This particular spat has nothing to do with flags and banners but the work of a few morons who will eventually end up seriously maiming or possibly killing someone unless their antics are brought to a halt and I would think every responsible Scottish football fan would support that position.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:32 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Lot of talk about people investing but I can’t see how money gets into the football operation via the Plc unless there is a new share issue. Any buying of current shares just means money goes to the current shareholders.
OK once you have the shares you can get yourself onto the board but how many shares are you going to have to buy to make sure you are a shoe in and that gives you and your mates some degree of control.

Not sure what the rules are on directors loans to a Plc (ableit that the current board obvioulsy want shares in exchange) but if you were a director of the Ltd then I think you could provide a directors loan, and that if you were of a mind you could never ask for repayment. However while that may help the football club get over one hurdle it doesn’t give you any control over the Plc. Also I beleive if the loan isn’t paid back then there may be corporation taxes to be paid on the outstanding amout of the loan, which in itself is a burden.

Can anyone else see how investment and/or increased revenue gets into the footballing side other than another share issue (witb associated dilution) and punters paying more for their tickets and merchandise?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:32 pm - Dec 23, 2013


StevieBC says: (955)
December 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm
4 0 Rate This

… And wottpi mentioned above that Wallace is a CA, so if that is the case Wallace can’t claim ignorance re: the financial situation he has come into, [his misleading statement aside…]
———–

Not unless he’s only being given ‘Stockbridge resumes’, and thus can claim a plausible deniability of [any knowledge of] the true facts.

View Comment

andyPosted on4:44 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Tif Finn says: (1060)
December 23, 2013 at 3:12 pm
16 0 Rate This

It really is worth bearing in mind that people are buying shares in a PLC which happens to wholly own a football club.

The PLC’s plan for making money does not necessarily have to involve a successful football club being a wholly owned subsidiary going forward.

People are not buying shares in Rangers, they are buying shares in the PLC which owns Rangers.
_____________
any one care to guess what RIFC would be worth as a property company when they ditch TRFC for £1

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:46 pm - Dec 23, 2013


redlichtie says: (305)
December 23, 2013 at 3:36 pm

This is heading to be a pre-pack administration at the end of the season with Ibrokes passed across in lieu of debt.

The Real Rangers Men (RRM©) will inject a few million into TRFC with matched funding sought from the fans. RIFC will give them a year’s rent honeymoon on Ibrokes and the car park. MP & Edmiston House will be gone with the spivs into RIFC . . . . .
==================================================
What you are saying is a real possibility in general but I think the spivs will keep the Albion carpark as it’s a cash goldmine on match days with minimal costs associated with running it.

But I can’t see the spivs wanting Edmiston House – probably cost at least £1 million to refurbish it and it might be cheaper to demolish it and start again although I suppose it could be turned into a drinking/catering/function venue – but would spivs want the hassle of running it especially when the Bears have set their heart on turning it into a museum to display their ‘history’.

There is also the joint venture with Sports Direct and possible use of Edmiston House as a retail facility but again I keep thinking this was a Green project and might be one the spivs will leave behind as it could be another money-pit.

As to MP I think the spivs might try to offload it to the SFA for the ‘right’ price or even to a private sports club operator with 5-a-side ptches which might prove popular with the Bears. But I agree with you that I doubt it will be handed to ‘real rangers men’ who probably will be quite relieved that they won’t need to close it down as part of their cost-cutting and incur threats to life and limb.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:00 pm - Dec 23, 2013


andy says: (277)
December 23, 2013 at 4:44 pm

any one care to guess what RIFC would be worth as a property company when they ditch TRFC for £1
=======================================================================
I think the more interesting question is what RIFC will be worth after they sell the lease for Ibrox signed by the ‘real rangers men’ to a real property company.

It will be interesting to see how that payment is extracted from the Plc without it going to all of the shareholders or in dividends and IMO that is what makes the failed resolution at the agm so important as a monster dilution in shareholding would see most of the proceeds end-up with whoever gets the new shares issued. Now I wonder who that could end-up being 🙄

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on5:04 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Cooler heads have prevailed on the “fleg” issue and pyros are agreed to be the real enemy!

http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=5152

Club statement on St Johnstone v Celtic game

By: Newsroom Staff on 23 Dec, 2013 15:05

FOLLOWING discussions today between Celtic, the local police and St Johnstone FC, it has been decided that flags and banners will now be permitted at the match on Boxing Day.

We have an excellent relationship with everyone at St Johnstone FC and we thank them and the police for reviewing their initial decision.

Football is about colour and atmosphere and creating a positive occasion for all and everything should be done to ensure that such an event can take place.

However, it is also imperative that the safety and the well-being of fans is given paramount importance and in this regard we share the obvious desire of St Johnstone FC and the police that all matches take place in a safe environment.

We do not need or welcome any form of pyrotechnics at matches and clearly any continued presence of these does nothing for Celtic Football Club or our supporters.

Celtic has already had discussions with our main supporters’ representatives and we have been assured that our supporters will again back the Club in the right manner at McDiarmid Park.

With the team currently unbeaten in the League we want our fans to come and enjoy the game safely in a positive atmosphere – and hopefully celebrate the Club continuing this great run over the festive season.

View Comment

scottcPosted on5:05 pm - Dec 23, 2013


ecobhoy says: (2089)
December 23, 2013 at 4:46 pm
0 0 Rate This

What you are saying is a real possibility in general but I think the spivs will keep the Albion carpark as it’s a cash goldmine on match days with minimal costs associated with running it.

But I can’t see the spivs wanting Edmiston House – probably cost at least £1 million to refurbish it and it might be cheaper to demolish it and start again although I suppose it could be turned into a drinking/catering/function venue – …

I’d be greatly surprised if the spivs didn’t already have Edmiston House and the Albion car park. They were, after all, bought with RIFC money. Can’t see any reason at all for them to have been put in the name of TRFC

View Comment

TallBoy PoppyPosted on5:05 pm - Dec 23, 2013


jimlarkin says: (712)
December 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
paulsatim says: (672)
December 23, 2013 at 10:25 am
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
I don’t know the Harry who posted this on KdS, so I can’t vouch for him or his info. What I will say is that I don’t usually pass on pub gossip without a second source, but on this occasion the post and poster appeared genuine. When you read the likes of parahandy’s post above at 2.42pm (and I hope you noticed the KdS post before Harry’s in relation to the catering firms demand for money from Sevco) there’s evidence building from multiple sources to support the notion that bills are not being paid.

Not posting much here these days – the subject matter and detail is above my pay grade – but congratulations to all our core contributors for keeping the standard so high for so long. During this Yuletide may I replace our normal “Chapeau!” with “felicitations” to one and all.

View Comment

McCaig`s TowerPosted on5:12 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Carntyne says: (99)
December 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm

Today Police Scotland are quoted as saying that…”the banning of flags and banners won’t be the start of a blanket ban.

I’m glad to hear it – I could have done with a blanket for warmth at Gayfield on Saturday

Scottish Football needs a warm Arbroath

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on5:19 pm - Dec 23, 2013


TallBoy Poppy says: (122)
December 23, 2013 at 5:05 pm
There was indeed some chatter about suppliers not being paid just before Craig Mather came on board.
However, that died down after he became CEO and bills were being paid.

Felicitations to you too 😉

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on5:23 pm - Dec 23, 2013


To add to the excellent post by Neepheid, it would help if AIM also looked into claims by RIFC of “owning” the stadium. At the AGM for a company set up last Dec 2012, the fact that it was disclosed that the “club” that was running that AGM still owned and had no intention of selling the assets of Sports Direct Stadium and Moses MacNeil Park, I can only assume that these are already with RIFC. TRFC who originally owned these assets from their inception as Sevco Scotland in June 2012 must have transferred these assets to its parent company already in order for RIFC to announce such a thing.

Its either been transferred already – in which case this should have been announced to AIM – but has not been.

Or it still belongs to TRFC in which case RIFC should not be allowed to claim ownership at an AGM.

Either way, AIM/NOMAD needs to ensure future investors know exactly what assets RIFC have to make their judgment on investment.

Can AIM or NOMAD be forced to clarify this?

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on5:39 pm - Dec 23, 2013


McCaig`s Tower says: (16)
December 23, 2013 at 5:12 pm

I’m glad to hear it – I could have done with a blanket for warmth at Gayfield on Saturday

Scottish Football needs a warm Arbroath
================================================

You and me both! Be thankful you’ve only got to ‘enjoy’ sunny Gayfield 1-2 times per season….

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:21 pm - Dec 23, 2013


scottc says: (396)
December 23, 2013 at 5:05 pm
ecobhoy says: (2089)
December 23, 2013 at 4:46 pm

What you are saying is a real possibility in general but I think the spivs will keep the Albion carpark as it’s a cash goldmine on match days with minimal costs associated with running it.

But I can’t see the spivs wanting Edmiston House – probably cost at least £1 million to refurbish it and it might be cheaper to demolish it and start again although I suppose it could be turned into a drinking/catering/function venue – …
———————————————————————————————————–
I’d be greatly surprised if the spivs didn’t already have Edmiston House and the Albion car park. They were, after all, bought with RIFC money. Can’t see any reason at all for them to have been put in the name of TRFC
—————————————————————————————————-
I think if you go back and look at the post I was originally replying to you will see that the discussion centred round what the spivs would want to keep in RIFC and what they would leave behind either in TRFCL or by selling to a third party.

However I am afraid you are mistaken wrt to whose name the properties were bought in. The Rangers AIM Prospectus clearly states the purchaser was TRFCL ( Page 103). The bulk of the money came from the flotation cash but the deposits for both properties were paid by TRFCL before the flotation cash arrived.

Before RIFC even existed TRFCL paid the £150k deposit for The Albion on 22 November 2012 and the £80k deposit for Edmiston House was paid, again by TRFCL and binding purchase agreements for both properties entered into by TRFCL.

There is no doubt that these properties were bought by TRFCL although I haven’t a clue who now owns them or possibly has them for security.

View Comment

billyj1Posted on6:30 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Police Scotland have issued a statement saying flag ban stays. This is a recipe for disaster at the game with possible serious confrontation between fans, police and stewards. They need to get this sorted out and clarified.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:32 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Apparently Rangers can’t go back into the top division without a budget that compares with Celtic’s.

Thanks for that Mr Keevins, I take it you aren’t concerned that other teams in the top division don’t have the same level of budgets and are expected just to get on with it.

Oh I forgot that’s not the Rangers way to do business, they are a special case and don’t actually have to be realistic.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on6:43 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Exiled Celt says: (874)
December 23, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Either way, AIM/NOMAD needs to ensure future investors know exactly what assets RIFC have to make their judgment on investment.

Can AIM or NOMAD be forced to clarify this?
=======================
I don’t think so, because all that AIM and the NOMAD are interested in are things that affect shareholder value. From the viewpoint of the shareholders, it doesn’t matter whether the properties are owned directly by RIFC PLC, or by its 100% subsidiary, TRFC Ltd. So long as the properties don’t leave the RIFC “group”, there is nothing to interest the shareholders. It is fairly common for holding companies to move properties among their subsidiaries, usually just to tidy up the corporate structure by putting all the properties in one company, for instance. The shareholders only find out when the annual report is published, if they are interested.

From the fans’ point of view, it matters a great deal, because shiftng the properties out of TRFC would clearly be a first step towards dumping the football business, the sale of TRFC for a pound scenario, but paying rent for Ibrox for ever and a day. AIM don’t care about the fans, and neither, may I dare to suggest, do any of the people who are behind the current regime at Ibrox. They don’t care much about the small shareholders either, of course, the whole show is being run entirely for the benefit of the original “penny a share” investors.

View Comment

blackjacquePosted on7:09 pm - Dec 23, 2013


For the legal eagles on here.
Under what law are Police Scotland going to enforce the banning of flags and banners being taken into the St Johnstone game?
If there is no law being broken and the Police illegally remove the property of any fan then surely they are open to being sued by these fans?

Not a lawyer so would love to hear legal opinions.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on7:09 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Neepheid – but if I were an investor, would I not like to see what assets are held securely should they go to the wall? Kind of what is security over my investment? How can you vote on whether or not to sell TRFC to a SA company if you don’t know what exactly it is that is being sold? Or wound up even? I have no clue on shares etc so bow to others like yourselves on this – but from an outsiders view surely the “investors” also need to know what is being invested in – otherwise why was Ibrox, MP and the RFC-NIIL history all mentioned in the IPO pamphlet as being owned by RIFC? Or are the “blue chip” investors punting on a blind gamble – much like when someone tells me the 4-30 at Redcar is a cert for some donkey etc?

Edit to add – Sevco Scotland were shown at ROS to be the title holders – not RIFC

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on7:20 pm - Dec 23, 2013


neepheid says: (952)
December 23, 2013 at 6:43 pm
2 0 Rate This

Exiled Celt says: (874)
December 23, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Either way, AIM/NOMAD needs to ensure future investors know exactly what assets RIFC have to make their judgment on investment.

Can AIM or NOMAD be forced to clarify this?
=======================
I don’t think so, because all that AIM and the NOMAD are interested in are things that affect shareholder value. From the viewpoint of the shareholders, it doesn’t matter whether the properties are owned directly by RIFC PLC, or by its 100% subsidiary, TRFC Ltd. So long as the properties don’t leave the RIFC “group”, there is nothing to interest the shareholders. It is fairly common for holding companies to move properties among their subsidiaries, usually just to tidy up the corporate structure by putting all the properties in one company, for instance. The shareholders only find out when the annual report is published, if they are interested.

From the fans’ point of view, it matters a great deal, because shiftng the properties out of TRFC would clearly be a first step towards dumping the football business, the sale of TRFC for a pound scenario, but paying rent for Ibrox for ever and a day. AIM don’t care about the fans, and neither, may I dare to suggest, do any of the people who are behind the current regime at Ibrox. They don’t care much about the small shareholders either, of course, the whole show is being run entirely for the benefit of the original “penny a share” investors.

Once again neepheid you bring light to a subject which is dark for me. Then also explain very well allowing me to understand it.

so this is the current companies house for TRFC

Name & Registered Office:
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
IBROX STADIUM
150 EDMISTON DRIVE
GLASGOW
G51 2XD
Company No. SC425159

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 29/05/2012

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC):
93120 – Activities of sport clubs
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2014
Last Return Made Up To: 29/05/2013
Next Return Due: 26/06/2014
Mortgage: Number of charges: 1 ( 1 outstanding / 0 satisfied / 0 part satisfied )
Last Members List: 29/05/2013
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
31/07/2012 SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED

So, the annual return which is incomplete as it does not show the original investors, what is the sanction for this? The sanction is from which regulatory authority? What are the penalties for not doing as the regulatory authority says?

The accounts for TRFC are due 28 February 2014, will they be available through companies house?

If TRFC do not exist any more then I guess then the annual return and accounts and becomes immaterial.

Is it plausible another corporate entity will be formed and the TRFC assets moved to them and therefor the dubiety of the inception secvo scotland/TRFC further left behind?

Buddy

View Comment

coatbrigbhoyPosted on7:31 pm - Dec 23, 2013


blackjacque says: (12)
December 23, 2013 at 7:09 pm

5

0

Rate This

For the legal eagles on here.
Under what law are Police Scotland going to enforce the banning of flags and banners being taken into the St Johnstone game?
If there is no law being broken and the Police illegally remove the property of any fan then surely they are open to being sued by these fans?

Not a lawyer so would love to hear legal opinions.
===================================================

http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=5152

looks like a U turn has taken place

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on7:37 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Post that it is being reported on Clyde that Police Scotland have said the ban stands and they know nothing about it being lifted.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:00 pm - Dec 23, 2013


buddy_holly says: (117)
December 23, 2013 at 7:20 pm

So, the annual return which is incomplete as it does not show the original investors, what is the sanction for this? The sanction is from which regulatory authority? What are the penalties for not doing as the regulatory authority says?

The accounts for TRFC are due 28 February 2014, will they be available through companies house? If TRFC do not exist any more then I guess then the annual return and accounts and becomes immaterial.

Is it plausible another corporate entity will be formed and the TRFC assets moved to them and therefor the dubiety of the inception secvo scotland/TRFC further left behind?
===============================================================
Companies House is initially responsible for ensuring that the statutorily required info is provided by a company. They are well aware that the initial return made by TRFCL is incomplete but are refusing to comment on what they are doing about it. A number of journalists have attempted to finbd out and just been stonewalled.

Rangers claim they have submitted the required Annual Return which is incomplete because it only lists the RIFC shareholding.

All of the shareholding history from Sevco Scotland and TRFCL is missing and that is where vital info probably exists. Because the required info isn’t just a list of shareholders but the size of their holdings and any share dealings.

But you raise an interesting question for me in what happens if the directors wind-up TRFCL before the accounts are required to be submitted to Companies House. If that did happen then in a normal case I don’t think there is any need to file any documentation.

But this isn’t a ‘normal’ case because the accounts of TRFCL have been consolidated with those of RIFC. There is also the question of the football licencing with TRFCL as the owner and operator of the club. How easy would it be just to wind-up TRFCL and replace it with a new ‘owner/operator’ company? That’s without even considering an insolvency event for TRFCL.

Obviously RIFC, a subsidiary wholly-owned by RIFC, could transfer any property/assets in the name of TRFCL to a new company but could it legally do that and leave liabilities/debts behind to parties other than RIFC?

The question of penalties and deadlines is covered quite simply at: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp2.shtml#ch5

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:17 pm - Dec 23, 2013


coatbrigbhoy says: (23)
December 23, 2013 at 7:31 pm
blackjacque says: (12)
December 23, 2013 at 7:09 pm

For the legal eagles on here. Under what law are Police Scotland going to enforce the banning of flags and banners being taken into the St Johnstone game? If there is no law being broken and the Police illegally remove the property of any fan then surely they are open to being sued by these fans?

Not a lawyer so would love to hear legal opinions.
===================================================
http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=5152
looks like a U turn has taken place
==========================================
It’s not actually a question of a criminal law being broken as I understand it. It’s just the right that a stadium owner has to determine who and what they are prepared to allow into their stadium. Obviously the police would assist to ensure that this decision would be observed in a peaceful manner by fans so that there was no threat to public order.

Afaik we don’t knopw the sequence of events which led to the original ban being applied and who actually initiated the process. Even if it was St Johnstone on its own they would obviously have run it past Celtic and they appear to have been in agreement.

I doubt if St Johnstone would have actually been aware of the use of flags and banners to provide anonymity for those involved with pyro/flares. So I can only assume the police or Celtic imparted this info. Personally I have no probs with a determined and robust effort to stamp-out dangerous and irresponsible behaviour by any fans but that means you have to be able to identify the perpetrators.

However the apparent U-turn, seemingly unilaterally by Celtic, has now got us in a situation which could cause more aggro/danger than flares. Of course at the end of the day the final say rests with the home ground but St Johnstone to me is being put in an impossible position and from the info currently being broadcast someone at Parkhead had handled this very badly. However until all the details are out I could be wrong.

One thing I’m not wrong about is that in the interests of public safety this matter requires immediate clarification followed by an appropriate explanation and apology from whoever has created this ludicrous situation.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on8:24 pm - Dec 23, 2013


wottpi says: (1355)
December 23, 2013 at 12:06 pm

Even if GW pushes through a sustainability package it will take cash to make it happen.
I would say by March 2014 we’ll know a bit more about how he is managing to turn the ship around.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:31 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Exiled Celt says: (875)
December 23, 2013 at 7:09 pm
3 0 Rate This

Neepheid – but if I were an investor, would I not like to see what assets are held securely should they go to the wall? Kind of what is security over my investment? How can you vote on whether or not to sell TRFC to a SA company if you don’t know what exactly it is that is being sold? Or wound up even?
=================
Good questions, firstly, if who goes to the wall? Do you mean TRFC? Your security, in that event, is the fact that RIFC will be overwhelmingly the largest creditor, so that when TRFC is wound up, RIFC get most if not all of the assets. I reckon that TRFC must owe RIFC about £30m by now. Any other creditors will be peanuts in comparison. And although the people running RIFC may not run a tight ship, they have their own interests to protect, and you can be sure that any administration of TRFC takes place after they have transferred the properties out. As with all things related to shares and the City, your security as a shareholder is simply the reliability of those in charge of the company. I won’t give a list of all the quoted companies where shareholder value has been wiped out by incompetent or corrupt directors- It wouldn’t be a short list, believe me.

There will be no shareholder votes on any actions the board decide on. It would take a large block of votes to even call an EGM, and what would be the point? The board would turn up for any egm with 65% of the votes in their pockets, just like the AGM. The board will clear any major action with the real people in charge, those who really own that 65%. In reality, the small shareholder is utterly powerless.

The IPO document made it clear, I think, that they were treating the whole group (RIFC and its subsidiaries) as one entity. I certainly remember a note to that effect. To do otherwise would have been pretty complex, given the prior history. As I said before, all the investors need to know is what the group as a whole owns. That’s what they are getting a share of, everything owned by RIFC PLC, and that includes TRFC and anything owned by it. So the investors all knew what the deal was. All the football stuff (and that includes the SFA membership) was owned at the time of the IPO by TRFC Ltd. But TRFC Ltd is 100% owned by RIFC PLC, so to an investor in RIFC PLC, they are getting a slice of whatever TRFC Ltd owns, because they have a slice of the company that 100% owns TRFC Ltd.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:45 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Tweet from Graham Spiers, who, to be fair, has not backed off all the difficult issues of late:

Some seasonal peace + goodwill from a Rangers fan… @bluebear1968: ‘There’s a special place reserved for you in hell…’
9:25pm – 23 Dec 13

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on8:48 pm - Dec 23, 2013


http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159/THE-RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/company-summary#event-history

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

Event history !

Is this different from the history that chico verde bought?

On the top right hand corner, it says – 1 Year Old !

[you can get fooled into…being a fool…]

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:50 pm - Dec 23, 2013


If GW can come up with a (realistic) sustainability package I will think him a miracle worker.

Remember this is a Chartered Accountant who has been there for a month already and needs another four months just to look into things to come up with some sort of plan.

Massive job losses and cost cutting seems the only way to go, Graham. Come back in four months and tell us that why don’t you.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on8:53 pm - Dec 23, 2013


PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (198)
December 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm
1 0 Rate This
wottpi says: (1355)
December 23, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Even if GW pushes through a sustainability package it will take cash to make it happen.
I would say by March 2014 we’ll know a bit more about how he is managing to turn the ship around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This ship being the Carpathia? Given that the pride of the White Star Line had already sunk!

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:05 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Which spookily was torpedoed in the Celtic Sea by a German Submarine.

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on9:17 pm - Dec 23, 2013


neepheid says: (953)
December 23, 2013 at 8:31 pm
6 0 Rate This

Exiled Celt says: (875)
December 23, 2013 at 7:09 pm
3 0 Rate This

Neepheid – but if I were an investor, would I not like to see what assets are held securely should they go to the wall? Kind of what is security over my investment? How can you vote on whether or not to sell TRFC to a SA company if you don’t know what exactly it is that is being sold? Or wound up even?
=================
Good questions, firstly, if who goes to the wall? Do you mean TRFC? Your security, in that event, is the fact that RIFC will be overwhelmingly the largest creditor, so that when TRFC is wound up, RIFC get most if not all of the assets. I reckon that TRFC must owe RIFC about £30m by now. Any other creditors will be peanuts in comparison. And although the people running RIFC may not run a tight ship, they have their own interests to protect, and you can be sure that any administration of TRFC takes place after they have transferred the properties out. As with all things related to shares and the City, your security as a shareholder is simply the reliability of those in charge of the company. I won’t give a list of all the quoted companies where shareholder value has been wiped out by incompetent or corrupt directors- It wouldn’t be a short list, believe me.

There will be no shareholder votes on any actions the board decide on. It would take a large block of votes to even call an EGM, and what would be the point? The board would turn up for any egm with 65% of the votes in their pockets, just like the AGM. The board will clear any major action with the real people in charge, those who really own that 65%. In reality, the small shareholder is utterly powerless.

The IPO document made it clear, I think, that they were treating the whole group (RIFC and its subsidiaries) as one entity. I certainly remember a note to that effect. To do otherwise would have been pretty complex, given the prior history. As I said before, all the investors need to know is what the group as a whole owns. That’s what they are getting a share of, everything owned by RIFC PLC, and that includes TRFC and anything owned by it. So the investors all knew what the deal was. All the football stuff (and that includes the SFA membership) was owned at the time of the IPO by TRFC Ltd. But TRFC Ltd is 100% owned by RIFC PLC, so to an investor in RIFC PLC, they are getting a slice of whatever TRFC Ltd owns, because they have a slice of the company that 100% owns TRFC Ltd

And contained within this is the crux of the whole fiasco which will unwind itself out over the next 4/6/8 months.

Roughly 65% of RIFC shareholders backed Brian Stockbridge (BS).

Therefor roughly 65% of RIFC shareholders know how this is going to end. Because BS has been acting on their behalf all along

No matter who the front men are and who are the ultimate owners/controllers, RIFC will eventually sell/restructure with the assets leaving some from of “Rangers”.

It is only since the damp squid AGM that some of the fans groups and supporters have realised that they have been played a tune which they wanted to believe in (not conned or duped). And now too late realise that the thing they are emotionally attached to is going to allow them to be mocked again.

Buddy

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:28 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Stockbridge is and always has been the Zeus man on the board (or at least one of them).

Other people placed there to make it look like a real board are an irrelevance.

Stockbridge and the Easdales control Rangers. Or more accurately whoever is behind them control Rangers.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:40 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Tif Finn says: (1065)
December 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm

Rangers??

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on9:54 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Lord Wobbly says: (990)
December 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-matter-of-timing/

Ahem….

😉

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on10:00 pm - Dec 23, 2013


PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (199)
December 23, 2013 at 9:54 pm
0 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says: (990)
December 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-matter-of-timing/

Ahem….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I promise you, I had not seen that before. 😀

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on10:03 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Let’s play 7 degrees of separation.

Brian Stockbridge is the FD at RIFC PLC.
Before that he worked at Zeus Capital from 01/2012 to 06/2012.
While at Zeus one of his colleagues was Imran Amhed from 04/2012 to 10/2012.
In 06/2012 Zeus provided a £590k loan to Sevco Scotland to cover the Asset Purchase Agreement with D&P
In 06/2012 Zeus provided D&P with a £2m guarantee to cover working capital.
That same month Richard Hughes was granted 2,200,000 Shares as an initial investor.
Richard Hughes owns 88.6% of Zeus Capital.
Before he worked at Zeus Stockbridge was at Allenby Capital from 01/2010 to 01/2012.
Allenby Capital was owned by Inram Amhed before he joined Zeus.
Allenby Capital is the Nomad for Nova Resources Ltd.
Charles Green was a director at Nova from 01/2012to 05/2012.
Before CG left Nova Christopher Morgan was appointed as a director.
Christopher Morgan owns 100% of Asia Credit Corp.
Asia Credit Corp was one of Greens nitial shareholder investors.
Since 04/2004 Christopher Morgan has been a director of NEOS Interactive.
NEOS Interactive is a subsidiary of the Abela Corporation.
The Barbels Christa Abela / Abela Foundation isbeleived to be behind Margarita Trust, NorneAnstalt and Blue Pitch Holdings.

Brian Stockbridge will not be leaving RIFC PLC until his employer says he can. And that is not RIFC PLC.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on10:03 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Lord Wobbly says: (991)
December 23, 2013 at 10:00 pm

It was an anniversary and a metaphor that I simply couldn’t pass up

View Comment

selfassessorPosted on10:15 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Buddy

Good post sir but your typo suggesting there were damp squid at the tribute act’s AGM has made me chortle on this wet’n’wild night. I’m certain the damp squibs going off at the AGM were damp because they had been successfully pissed on by the puppet masters who are in control of the whole son et lumiere show.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on10:16 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Tif Finn says: (1065)
December 23, 2013 at 9:05 pm
4 0 Rate This
Which spookily was torpedoed in the Celtic Sea by a German Submarine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A quick search engine search would suggest that the German Submarine was the U55. Is that part of the same club myth? 😉

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:25 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Nice metaphor 😉

View Comment

CarntynePosted on10:30 pm - Dec 23, 2013


ecobhoy says: (2093)
December 23, 2013 at 4:14 pm

This particular spat has nothing to do with flags and banners but the work of a few morons who will eventually end up seriously maiming or possibly killing someone unless their antics are brought to a halt and I would think every responsible Scottish football fan would support that position.
_______________________________________________________________________

I do support that position, but my point is that fans of all clubs must be treated the same for this kind of behaviour.

Further your remark that it is ‘disingenuous’ to think the media would give Celtic fans the same treatment as fans of other clubs seems to suggest we should just suffer such treatment without complaint.

In other words just lie down to it.

That’s certainly not for me.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on10:40 pm - Dec 23, 2013


Lord Wobbly says: (992)
December 23, 2013 at 10:16 pm
5 0 Rate This

Tif Finn says: (1065)
December 23, 2013 at 9:05 pm

A quick search engine search would suggest that the German Submarine was the U55. Is that part of the same club myth?

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

Or even about the “Internet Bampots” and their followers (me) U55 could read as USS sinks the Sevcovia

View Comment

Sugar DaddyPosted on11:01 pm - Dec 23, 2013


So Ally and evidently a few others at Ibrox were surprised that the new CEO said the cost base was too high? Does Ally not read the accounts of the company in which he holds 1m shares?
Has he been living in a parallel universe for the past year?

For someone who professes to love Rangers he shows scant regard for it’s well being if all he wants to do is bring players in.

I imagine he is slightly miffed that his Rangerness & cheeky chappie routine isn’t going to work on this CEO.

Don’t worry Ally there will be another one along in 120 days or less.

View Comment

Comments are closed.