Podcast Episode 1

Avatar ByTrisidium

Podcast Episode 1

SFM PodcastOur First podcast features a general discussion involving our own Big Pink and Auldheid.
Since it is the first podcast there is no particular agenda save for a general chat about TSFM, the state of Scottish Football, and some few reminiscences. The chat covers a lot of ground, but establishes the ethos of the blog pretty well.

Topics discussed include FPP, Leadership, Interdependence, Scotland’s self-regard, Coaching and Nurturing of Talent, Redistribution of Income, Rangers, Forgiveness, domestic strife 🙂

The interview was conducted a couple of days before the latest round of Armageddon, when Big Pink and Auldheid felt safe and well 🙂

The link below is to the iTunes store page for our Podcasts.  If you go there, you can subscribe to the podcast (on your PC or iPhone) and new episodes will automatically be sent to you.

Since we have just been approved for a spot on iTunes, the iTunes search side of things may not work properly for a day or so.

rss podcast feed   Subscribe to RSS Feed

iTunes podcast Feed  Subscribe to iTunes Feed

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,849 Comments so far

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:54 am - Feb 17, 2014


Two things on jack sons piece ” the club can’t go on being a Carnoustie regular and monthly wage cutter” (my summary). Em for once Ally is right. Yes you can. But you need money, preferably someone else’s and if the non returnable variety, to do so. Oh and an end game slightly more constructive deliberate and frankly realistic than “old firm, champions league n’ that” also helps.

I also note with a smile that they now apparently have a 142 year “narrative” Setting some peepul up for a fall?

View Comment

Avatar

davythelotionPosted on8:58 am - Feb 17, 2014


“All these things will obviously be affected but only after Graham’s 120-day assessment.”
%%%%%%
The club was briefly in administration
The holding company is in liquidation
Apart from a large number of creditors getting rinsed, shareholders & debenture holders taking a bath and supporters being pumped for money that’…will not be used for day to day running costs’ ……nothing really happened.

View Comment

Avatar

Tic 6709Posted on8:58 am - Feb 17, 2014


Looks like Jackson has been told that there are no vacancies at Ibrox.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on8:59 am - Feb 17, 2014


GeronimosCadillac says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:50 am

I don’t think that is what happened. see my post above. Sevco 5088 were the legal beneficiaries of the 5 way agreement but Sevco Scotland ended up with all those benefits.

Legally a Big problem for Duff & Phelps and the SFA/SPL and its succesor
=========================================
I think you are confusing the agreement with Duff & Phelps to buy the assets of RFC, and the 5 way agreement, which was for the transfer of the RFC membership of the SFA to Sevco Scotland.

At the time of the sale agreement with D&P, Sevco Scotland didn’t exist, and the agreement was definitely between D&P and Sevco 5088. By the time the transfer of assets actually took place under the agreement, Sevco Scotland had been formed, and in effect received the benefit of the agreement, we are told by a deed of novation, which D&P must have a copy of.

The parties to the 5 way agreement were the SFA, SPL, SFL, D&P as administrators of RFC, and Sevco Scotland. That agreement had nothing to do with the assets, which Sevco Scotland already had by then.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:30 am - Feb 17, 2014


paulsatim says:
February 16, 2014 at 11:36 pm
16 0 i
Rate This

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 4m
Gazette notice ready. An Ibrox Insolvency event will take place before March. Voluntary Liquidation and asset sale 100%.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

This looks like garbage. If you were going to do a liquidation in the next couple of weeks, why would you bother now drafting the notice that has to go to the Edinburgh Gazette afterwards? Just nonsense.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:36 am - Feb 17, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:30 am

I am not an expert on these thigs. Is it not for a Court to declare an entity insolvent and then for a notice to appear in the Edinburgh Gazette. I agree, sounds and smells fishy to me.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:53 am - Feb 17, 2014


I had a quick look on the Edinburgh Gazette:
http://www.edinburgh-gazette.co.uk/insolvency

A notice can only be produced as part of a liquidation process. As sales of jelly and ice cream appear to be normal, I am assuming that no liquidation processes has started 🙂 The blurb on the Edinburgh Gazette suggests that a notice will normally only be published if supported by Court documents.

Charlotte2Weeks may not be that credible.

View Comment

Avatar

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on9:56 am - Feb 17, 2014


The Charlotte tweet was referring to an MVL or CVL, so drafting a Gazette notice is not outwith the bounds of possibility. However, IIRC, both of those processes require an AGM. Has one been called?

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:57 am - Feb 17, 2014


That Jackson article really said nothing. Its value might be in whether it will elicit a new denial that admin is on the cards.

Maybe JI is just baiting people knowing full well that each new bit of rumour bashing will convince the support and keep them onside. “See, the press were wrong, we were right, buy your ST pronto.”

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:02 am - Feb 17, 2014


Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:56 am

My apologies to Charlotte2Weeks.

Would TRIFC have to have an AGM to move on the MCL / CVL or does that fall to the holding company?

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:11 am - Feb 17, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:57 am
0 0 Rate This

That Jackson article really said nothing. Its value might be in whether it will elicit a new denial that admin is on the cards.

Maybe JI is just baiting people knowing full well that each new bit of rumour bashing will convince the support and keep them onside. “See, the press were wrong, we were right, buy your ST pronto.”

———————————

ignoring an internet bampot like Phil is 1 thing, surely they CANNOT allow a national paper to run with such a story without either taking action. Issuing their own statement/denial or asking Record for retraction

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on10:16 am - Feb 17, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:11 am
1 0 Rate This

ignoring an internet bampot like Phil is 1 thing, surely they CANNOT allow a national paper to run with such a story without either taking action. Issuing their own statement/denial or asking Record for retraction.
———

Indeed.

View Comment

Avatar

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on10:33 am - Feb 17, 2014


LTL – depends what you’re winding up, doesn’t it?

For an MVL, your company must be solvent (Sevco Scotland?)
For a CVL, your company must be unable to meet its debts (TRIFC?)

The AGM would be of the shareholders of the company being wound up. More likely to be an MVL of Sevco, who own the assets and are solvent.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:35 am - Feb 17, 2014


Long Time Lurker says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:02 am
2 0 i
Rate This

Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:56 am

My apologies to Charlotte2Weeks.

Would TRIFC have to have an AGM to move on the MCL / CVL or does that fall to the holding company?

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

To put TRFC into a Members Voluntary Liquidation (“MVL”) would require a resolution of the shareholders of TRFC (normally done at EGMs but as the only shareholder in TRFC is RIFC this would be done by way of written resolution). It would also require the directors of TRFC to sign a statutory declaration of solvency of TRFC (can’t see that happening).

To put TRFC into a Creditors Voluntary Liquidation (“CVL”) would require an EGM/written resolution of TRFC and a meeting of the creditors of TRFC. (But no statutory declaration of solvency).

View Comment

Avatar

readceltPosted on10:36 am - Feb 17, 2014


Re Jacksons article.

What Keith is being very careful to point out is, these are the words of warning from your messiah.

The king beyond the waves has spoken and he is probably right. This is not the conspiracy of a timposter trying to rock the boat, this is one of your people.

To criticise King would be to criticise the ethereal, eternal idea of ‘Rangers’. There really is trouble ahead.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:48 am - Feb 17, 2014


Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:33 am
0 0 i
Rate This

LTL – depends what you’re winding up, doesn’t it?

For an MVL, your company must be solvent (Sevco Scotland?)
For a CVL, your company must be unable to meet its debts (TRIFC?)

The AGM would be of the shareholders of the company being wound up. More likely to be an MVL of Sevco, who own the assets and are solvent.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

I don’t understand what you are saying. Sevco Scotland = TRFC. It holds the assets but also has heaps of liabilities (including debt due to RIFC. Are you suggesting it is solvent ? On a balance sheet test and/or on a cashflow test?

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on10:48 am - Feb 17, 2014


RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of Rangers 2012 vs Collier Bristow

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m
Lawyers for “Oldco” Rangers make motion to bring “Charlotte recordings” into evidence

😮

View Comment

Avatar

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on11:02 am - Feb 17, 2014


CM

That’s the question I was asking – those little scamps have woven a tangled web, I am aware that Sevco hold the assets but which legal entity has most debt? Are neither solvent?

Some audited accounts might clear things up.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:10 am - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:48 am
9 0 Rate This

RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of Rangers 2012 vs Collier Bristow

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m
Lawyers for “Oldco” Rangers make motion to bring “Charlotte recordings” into evidence
———

Thanks for that. Fascinating. I notice people are saying this is effectively BDO requesting Charlotte Fakes info! Are the lawyers for oldco working for BDO?*

* It take it they must be but it is all confusing

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on11:24 am - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:48 am

RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of Rangers 2012 vs Collier Bristow

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m
Lawyers for “Oldco” Rangers make motion to bring “Charlotte recordings” into evidence
—————————————————————-
Might that then allow members of the press to actually mention them?

😮

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:31 am - Feb 17, 2014


RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of Rangers 2012 vs Collier Bristow

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m
Lawyers for “Oldco” Rangers make motion to bring “Charlotte recordings” into evidence
=========================================================
It will be interesting to see if this is agreed by the court. If it is it will demolish the SMSM excuse to ignore the info when it was being released and reveal them as cowards.

If the court decides it was illegally obtained I don’t think it can be allowed so it’s an interesting point.

However it opens the door wide for the SMSM to now safely carry the CF story – I won’t hold my breath btw 😆

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:39 am - Feb 17, 2014


Tartanwulver says:

February 17, 2014 at 11:24 am
aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:48 am

RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of Rangers 2012 vs Collier Bristow

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m
Lawyers for “Oldco” Rangers make motion to bring “Charlotte recordings” into evidence
—————————————————————-
Might that then allow members of the press to actually mention them?

😮
__________________________________________________________
It might remove their excuse for not mentioning it, but lack of moral fibre might not allow them to do so. :roll

If BDO/RFC (IL) feel it’s worthwhile producing them in court then they must consider them genuine, and verifiable, as it wouldn’t look good to try to have them admitted to the hearing if they weren’t confident that they could verify them. I can’t remember if there was anything published by CF that showed dishonesty or a conspiracy within the administration of the club, though I’m sure there was something that at least suggested it; if so, it might indicate that BDO are looking at that side of things very seriously.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:40 am - Feb 17, 2014


There appears to be some confusion over Sevco Scotland and TRFCL with some posters apparently treating them as separate companies.

That isn’t the case because after incorporation and purchasing the Rangers business and assets from D&P Sevco Scotland changed its name to TRFC. So they are the basically the same company and if you check on Companies House you will see that the incorporation date of TRFCL is the same as Sevco Scotland and you will also see notice of the name change from Sevco Scotland to TRFCL.

TRFCL is a private limited company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of RIFC Plc and apparently has only one shareholder viz RIFC Plc. Some board members sit on the Board of both companies and some don’t but it must always be remembered that they are separate legal entities.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on11:43 am - Feb 17, 2014


Going very much OT here but I heard some numpty on Radio Shortbread this morning banging on about Scotland having problems with the EU if we vote for independence. Stuff about legal position, rules, lack of precedent, some parties almost certainly agin a ‘newco’ waltzing back into the EU league, etc (I paraphrase).

The solution to me is obvious – Alex Salmond needs to get CO dispatched to Brussels pronto to assist in drawing up a 30+ way agreement that deals with all these silly little details.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:49 am - Feb 17, 2014


ecobhoy is right (again).

The easiest way to know what you are dealing with with companies is to look at company numbers. A company can change its name as much as it wants but its company number remains the same all through its existence. The number cannot be changed.

This may be stating the blindingly bloody obvious but for the avoidance of doubt, changing the name of a company does not make it a different company.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:54 am - Feb 17, 2014


Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:02 am
3 0 i
Rate This

CM

That’s the question I was asking – those little scamps have woven a tangled web, I am aware that Sevco hold the assets but which legal entity has most debt? Are neither solvent?

Some audited accounts might clear things up.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

I dont know if RIFC has any debt at all. It will have liabilities – it has employees (I guess) and it has professional advisors but I am not aware that it has borrowed any money.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:56 am - Feb 17, 2014


Jings …

@jamesdoleman: Football “forum” posts on charlotte tapes now being placed in evidence.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:59 am - Feb 17, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:10 am
5 0 i
Rate This

aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:48 am
9 0 Rate This

RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of Rangers 2012 vs Collier Bristow

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m
Lawyers for “Oldco” Rangers make motion to bring “Charlotte recordings” into evidence
———

Thanks for that. Fascinating. I notice people are saying this is effectively BDO requesting Charlotte Fakes info! Are the lawyers for oldco working for BDO?*

* It take it they must be but it is all confusing

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

BDO are the liquidators of Oldco Rangers. They now run Oldco Rangers. The lawyers for Oldco Rangers are the liquidators lawyers. There is not one one set of lawyers for Oldco Rangers and a separate set for the liquidators.

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on12:04 pm - Feb 17, 2014


a wee update from court:

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 16m
Now doing detailed argument over @charlottefakes tapes. CB lawyers also want them in.

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 11m
Football “forum” posts on charlotte tapes now being placed in evidence.
Expand

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 8m
“Charlotte emails” not followed up by press in “post-Leveson world” says counsel for CB

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 7m
Charlotte tapes “published” so confidentiality lost says counsel for CB

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 1m
claiments say some “Charlotte” material privlaged, counsel for CB say is in public domain so should be allowed to hear all of it

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:09 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Quite a good article by Gordon Waddell in the DR, comparing Ann Budge, the leading light behind the Hearts’ efforts to come out of administration as the same club, and Whyte and Green, who didn’t do the same for Rangers. Of course he doesn’t put it quite that way, nor does he compare the actions/reactions of real Hearts people towards her to those of their counterparts at Rangers/TRFC towards Whyte and Green, instead he prefers to make out that those two were totally culpable and everyone else’s part is overlooked. He also fails to point out that to do what Ann Budge is doing requires a support that doesn’t expect/demand instant success and, more importantly, doesn’t have a WATP attitude.

Still, from a Hearts supporter’s view, it’s a nice read 🙂

The following sentence, I think, sums up the difference between the three ‘saviours’, though I think he could have added ‘no empty promises’ to the list, but the last two words say it all for me:

“The deal to take Hearts out of administration and forward is the result of months of good
leadership, good governance, good PR, good organisation and, most of all, good intentions.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-waddell-altruistic-ann-budge-3151057

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on12:16 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 1m
Lawyer for CB says Craig Whyte has emailed court and has “no objection” to @Charlottefakes material being used in evidence.

🙂

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on12:20 pm - Feb 17, 2014


appologies for the dribs and drabs of this. just trying top keep TSFM updated whilst i am at my desk

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 45s
No police objection to Charlotte material being used as evidence court hears

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on12:21 pm - Feb 17, 2014


redlichtie says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:43 am
13 0 Rate This

Going very much OT here but I heard some numpty on Radio Shortbread this morning banging on about Scotland having problems with the EU if we vote for independence. Stuff about legal position, rules, lack of precedent, some parties almost certainly agin a ‘newco’ waltzing back into the EU league, etc (I paraphrase).

The solution to me is obvious – Alex Salmond needs to get CO dispatched to Brussels pronto to assist in drawing up a 30+ way agreement that deals with all these silly little details.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
============================
Not CO but Bryson. If Scotland was a member of the EU by being part of the UK and nobody noticed that we were actually a separate country then membership should be automatically allowed.

Actually that makes sense to me 💡

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on12:22 pm - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 12:04 pm

I wonder – does this mean that Alex Tomo can now run the C4 report on the Charlotte tapes that he was about to run before the lawyers said no?

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on12:24 pm - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm

“Lawyer for CB says Craig Whyte has emailed court and has “no objection” to @Charlottefakes material being used in evidence.”
—————————–
Before we get too frothed up about the CharlortteFakes dam apparently bursting I would caution that we do not know Charlotte’s motives. One possibility to be considered is that the release of this information was done to provide ammunition for the upcoming court cases. There appears to have been multiple cases of duplicitous behavior in the Charlotte stuff but we could all end up being part of the scam if we’re not careful.

View Comment

Avatar

futbolPosted on12:25 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 4m
Gazette notice ready. An Ibrox Insolvency event will take place before March. Voluntary Liquidation and asset sale 100%.

Re the above – I did not read this in the literal sense, more as a “the writing is on the wall” sense, i.e. I don’t believe there’s literally writing on the wall (other than “Craigy W wiz ere”) but that what’s being intimated is a “certainty”.

Not personally saying it is a cert, but just looking at the statement from another perspective and it ties in with the tone of Phil’s recent blog posts.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on12:31 pm - Feb 17, 2014


I think that any perceived unfairness in how the insolvency rules operate in the football sector arise out of two separate (but connected) elements.

The first is the football rule that football creditors have to be paid in full, otherwise the relevant “Club” does not get to play; and

The second is the withholding by the football authorities of sums that would otherwise be paid to the insolvent company (and would therefore be available for distribution amongst all of its creditors). As I would understand it, the governing body might use the sums withheld to pay sums due to football creditors. In this way, they would “look after their own”.

The reasons that I think that these two elements are not matters that require to be addressed by insolvency rules and regulations differ.

The reason that the first element is not an issue for insolvency law is because the way that this is “got round” in football is that the funds that are used to pay the football creditors are third party funds. The funds come from a purchaser and not from the insolvent entity itself. A purchaser agrees to make payment of the debts due to football creditors using the purchaser’s own funds. Insolvency legislation would prohibit the funds of the insolvent entity itself being used in this way but if an unconnected third party wishes “out of the goodness of its own heart” to settle certain liabilities, then there is no prejudice to the general body of creditors as a result. It just so happens that some creditors get looked after but others don’t. To suggest that the law should legislate against this is effectively saying there should be a law against gift. If the “football creditor” rule did not exist, all that would happen is that the purchaser would not provide those additional funds. The other creditors would be no better off. There is no prejudice to creditors here. No one is worse off – some are better off.

The second element is perhaps a little more difficult to analyse. This brings into play issues of set off and balancing of accounts in insolvency. This issue arises in many insolvencies and not just insolvencies that arise in football. If A owes B £100 and B owes A £50, then in certain circumstances (but not all) A can say to B here is £50 and that is an end of it. A need not pay £100 to B and wait for B to repay the £50. This is called set off (the more correct legal term in Scotland is “compensation”). Set off can arise automatically at law or the parties can agree in their contracts that sums can be set off in this way. However, just because A and B are both creditors and debtors of each other does not mean that in all circumstances debts can be set off against each other. For example, in the absence of the parties agreeing otherwise, sums arising under different contracts may not be set off against each other.

However if one of the parties is insolvent, the position changes and instead of the general law of set off/compensation, you have additional rules called “balancing of accounts in insolvency”. In effect these rules allow for more extensive rights of set off/compensation than the general law allows.

Using our example of A and B again it is perhaps easy to see why. If set off was not available and B was insolvent, then A would be obliged to pay the £100 to B’s liquidator. In the liquidation of B, it might be that parties were only receiving 1p in the pound by way of dividend. That would mean that instead of getting its £50, it may be that what A gets by way of dividend from B’s insolvent estate is only 50p. Instead, what the law allows by way of balancing of accounts is that A only has to pay £50 to B’s liquidator.

Now even the balancing of accounts in insolvency rules only allow parties to apply funds in this way when they are both debtor and creditor. Turning to our industry of interest, the situation is more complex again. The governing body may be due to pay (say) £2m prize money to the insolvent entity on a certain date. However prior to that date, the insolvent entity goes into liquidation or administration owing other football companies (say) an aggregate of £3m.

If, prior to the insolvency of the relevant entity, an agreement had been entered into whereby the governing body was entitled to apply funds that it would otherwise have paid to the insolvent entity to discharge liabilities due to other members by the insolvent entity then that is in effect a pre existing binding contract that a liquidator cannot necessarily overturn. It may be that the contract is drafted in such a way that the entitlement to payment only in fact arises if, at the point payment would fall to be made, there were no sums outstanding due to other members. There is nothing objectionable in law in that regard at all. It is simply an arrangement between parties as to when an entitlement to payment arises.

The travel business has a very similar arrangement through an organisation called IATA. IATA works like a clearing house for payments among hoteliers, travel agents, airlines etc.

Once again, apologies for the length of this note but the operation of these rules in insolvencies is necessarily complex and it is not just an issue or issues that impact upon this particular industry.
Take the example of the printing industry. This industry is notoriously hostile to insolvency events and pre packs in particular. If a printing company goes bust and it is “recycled” by way of a pre pack into a newco, then my understanding is that the other companies in the printing industry will do what is open to them to hinder the newco’s commercial activities (always within the law presumably). They might for example bring pressure to bear upon the suppliers of paper or ink not to supply the newco or they might bring pressure to bear on hauliers and logistics companies not to trade with the newco. They might do this by threatening to terminate their own contracts with such suppliers and hauliers and instead place such contracts with those parties who are prepared to toe the party line and not deal with newco.

Why is printing so hostile to pre-packs?

Probably the basic reason for this is that the recycling of businesses via pre-packs into newcos allows the newcos to carry on business having shed debt. That allows the newcos a competitive advantage (in the eyes of the printing industry) to the detriment of those members who have not suffered insolvency events. It is perceived I think that the printing industry banding together in this way helps their members.

There is a very complex economic argument to be made here. It involves elements of competition law/anti competitive behaviour and issues relating to the value to the economy as a whole of recycled (and leaner) business assets.

Whether such practices are good or bad depends upon where you sit in the process. If you are an existing printer, you will undoubtedly view it as unfair that one of your competitors is able to shed a load of debt and start up again in a better position.

If you are the directors of a printing company which has suffered an insolvency event but you want to carry on in business, but you find that your previous suppliers won’t supply you and your previous hauliers won’t deal with you, then it looks very bad indeed.

Its complex. But is it really a question for insolvency law? I fail to see how it would be possible to legislate in the Insolvency Act or Rules to force hauliers to haul or suppliers to supply.

Its similar in the industry that we are discussing. If you don’t meet their conditions for playing, they don’t have to play with you.

Remember also that the liquidators of Oldco don’t care what happens to Newco. Its nothing to do with them.

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on12:33 pm - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 12:04 pm

I wonder – does this mean that Alex Tomo can now run the C4 report on the Charlotte tapes that he was about to run before the lawyers said no?
———————-
i have asked Alex Thomson that very question via twitter. if i get a reply, i will let you (all) know

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on12:41 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 5m
Judge suggests transcript of “Charlotte” material made with anything legally privileged redacted, discussion continuing

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on12:48 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m

Police withdrew objection over “Charlotte material” on Feb 13 court hears
——————————————
So presumably police objection was what put AT off reporting it?

View Comment

Avatar

South0fThe BorderPosted on12:57 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman
Football “forum” posts on charlotte tapes now being placed in evidence.

It will be interesting to see what evidence from football forums discussing Charlotte material has been presented – and whether this is merely part of the submission to be able to use the material, or will be used in the actual hearing

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman
Judge suggests transcript of “Charlotte” material made with anything legally privileged redacted,

If there’s anything privileged it would probably have already been discussed at length on here!

View Comment

Avatar

davythelotionPosted on12:57 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Court has ruled Charlotte material admissible for full trial.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on1:01 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 17, 2014 at 12:31 pm

Many thanks for the post – a complex issue explained in terms that I could follow.

View Comment

Avatar

davythelotionPosted on1:05 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Will Mr Green be available to speak to his rather pungent opinions with regard to Ally?

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:07 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:11 am
ignoring an internet bampot like Phil is 1 thing, surely they CANNOT allow a national paper to run with such a story without either taking action. Issuing their own statement/denial or asking Record for retraction.
———

But they didn’t ignore him did they? They issued a statement referring to the “Irish-based blogger”

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on1:14 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 26m
Police withdrew objection over “Charlotte material” on Feb 13 court hears

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 22m
Court ends, judge rules “Charlotte”material is admissible in full trial as no police objections. 🙂

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 11m
Will be writing up full report on today’s proceedings, will tweet when it”s done

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on1:18 pm - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:14 pm

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 22m
Court ends, judge rules “Charlotte”material is admissible in full trial as no police objections. 🙂
————————————————————————————————————————–

I wonder how Regan, Doncaster and Scunner Campbell will take the news 😀 😀

It’s going to blow their due diligence on RFC(IL) out of the water shirley.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:18 pm - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 12:41 pm

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 5m
Judge suggests transcript of “Charlotte” material made with anything legally privileged redacted, discussion continuing
___________________________________________

Given that this is/was out in the public domain already, would any redaction not simply serve to highlight the key areas in big neon flashing lights and therefore be counter productive? The redacted areas could be cross referenced against the originals.

Hopefully a few enterprising bampots have downloaded the documents.

View Comment

Avatar

aenmac75Posted on1:20 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 31m
Court ends, judge rules “Charlotte”material is admissible in full trial as no police objections.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 28m
@jamesdoleman fascinating James – can you DM me your email do you think?
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:23 pm - Feb 17, 2014


http://www.scotzine.com/2013/09/media-covering-revelations-charlotte-fakes/

Maybe relevant to today’s discussion?

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on1:34 pm - Feb 17, 2014


The redactions asked for by the administrators just involve sections were legal advice is being given. I doubt they add up to very much. As the court heard, a London nightclub is hardly a confidential venue for a legal discussion. Both sides have all the material anyway so I doubt anything significant will be redacted.

Didn’t see what football blog they were discussing, point of that was to show material was “published” and therefore already in the public domain. Could well have been here though .

Full report to follow.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on1:37 pm - Feb 17, 2014


aenmac75 says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm

Is @alextomo getting ready to publish a new tomoblog?

alex thomson‏@alextomo·43m
So – finally some of the Charlotte Fakes material may be legally published by the MSM

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:54 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Does this court decision mean that they considers CF’s material genuine? If so, some people inside Hampden must be a wee bit worried. Will the SMSM go after them about some of the revelations, such as the dinner with Craig Whyte?

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on1:55 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Great to meet you James in court 17, Pity I missed first hour, still worth the visit, Do read James piece later.

View Comment

Avatar

GeronimosCadillacPosted on1:58 pm - Feb 17, 2014


neepheid says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:59 am

GeronimosCadillac says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:50 am

I don’t think that is what happened. see my post above. Sevco 5088 were the legal beneficiaries of the 5 way agreement but Sevco Scotland ended up with all those benefits.

Legally a Big problem for Duff & Phelps and the SFA/SPL and its succesor
=========================================
I think you are confusing the agreement with Duff & Phelps to buy the assets of RFC, and the 5 way agreement, which was for the transfer of the RFC membership of the SFA to Sevco Scotland.

At the time of the sale agreement with D&P, Sevco Scotland didn’t exist, and the agreement was definitely between D&P and Sevco 5088. By the time the transfer of assets actually took place under the agreement, Sevco Scotland had been formed, and in effect received the benefit of the agreement, we are told by a deed of novation, which D&P must have a copy of.

The parties to the 5 way agreement were the SFA, SPL, SFL, D&P as administrators of RFC, and Sevco Scotland. That agreement had nothing to do with the assets, which Sevco Scotland already had by then.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’re probably right.

I was thinking that all of the paperwork to sell the assets and transfer the membership under the 5 way agreement would have originally been drawn up in Sevco 5088’s name as the planning and discussion with the SFA etc would have been taking place at the same time as the proposed sale and therefore the benefit of the 5 way agreement was also novated or the agreement was altered to give Sevco Scotland the membership.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:29 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 26m
Police withdrew objection over “Charlotte material” on Feb 13 court hears
========================================================
The cops are playing a clever gane here I reckon. By having the CF allegations put to witnesses in open court their evidence will be scrutinised by the cops and could provide a lot of building-blocks for a subsequent criminal prosecution.

CW also wins a watch in terms of turning the screw and upping the pressure for a pay-off by the threat that all sorts of goodies will be fully in the public domain. Much better to buy his ‘silence’ with a pay-off mrthinks 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

THCPosted on2:31 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Allyjambo @ 1.54pm

It would be good to think that some within the SMSM have the means to go after the SFA and others but, even if this is so, I wouldn’t trust them to do it properly. What might help an enterprising yet overstretched (and I’m being generous here) member of the fourth estate wanting to make a name for him/herself is a simple list of the exact questions that should be asked of CO et al. I understand that the questions are all here, should such an enterprising yet overstretched journo care to look, but not in one easy-to-read post. It appears clear to me that, if we wish to see this whole farrago dealt with effectively in the print and broadcast media, we (the bampoterati) do need to spoon-feed the SMSM; after all, this is exactly the approach that JI takes with his pet hacks. Any volunteers? 🙂

THC

View Comment

Avatar

Tif FinnPosted on2:33 pm - Feb 17, 2014


A nice precedent for Craig Whyte if these recordings are admissible.

Particulalry Charles Green saying “You are Sevco” several times in the same meeting.

It’s small wonder he wouldn’t object to things like that being made available.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on2:37 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Allyjambo

In a word yes the court believes Charlotte originated with CW. Wry smiles all round when discussed how she got it.

View Comment

Avatar

sickofitallPosted on2:55 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Busa Bhoy
17 Feb 2014, 01:06 PM
my sister just sent me this txt, some fella she knows from the north stand sent it out.

Sevco to into Members Voluntary Liquidation
By end of the month. Have already seen the doc that by scots companies law has to be posted in the Edinburgh Gazette. Will leave them
Debt free and with Ibrox etc placed out of reach in the holding company. Explains why all those rules were changed last week and only paper to semi report it was the telegraph. Another stitch up on way. DSTM.

whit does it aw mean?
https://twitter.com/Charlotte2Weeks

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:57 pm - Feb 17, 2014


ianagain says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:37 pm
‘…In a word yes the court believes Charlotte originated with CW. Wry smiles all round when discussed how she got it.’
———
Superb.

View Comment

Avatar

sickofitallPosted on2:57 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Nisi Dominus Frustra
17 Feb 2014, 03:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://twitter.com/Charlotte2Weeks
she’s passed this one on now:

Another text from *****:-

All private documents and proof that Murray, sfa, Whyte, green and duff n phelps were all in it together from outset has just been ruled admissible in a London court as the liquidators try to sue all of the above to get money back for the creditors. Media can no longer hide behind the ‘leveson’ enquiry excuse for not publishing it. Evidence that i’ve seen that the sfa and green and whyte had dinner 4 months before admin to work out a plan and find soln to get sevco straight back into SPL together with excuse for giving them a licence three years ago when they were basically insolvent will all become public knowledge provided the media do their job and report it. The shampoo should truly be about to hit the fan. A lot of people in Scottish football including the press, referees and sfa hierarchy got brown trousers around half an hour ago. A programme made by Alex Thomson of Channel 4 which the police and lawyers blocked at last minute can now be shown. Super score board tonight should be interesting provided they allow folk on to talk about it. We SHOULD be about to find out how corrupt Scottish football is/ was . Both on kerrydale street forum

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:03 pm - Feb 17, 2014


It is difficult to know who the winners and losers might be out of the decision to admit the CF materials in this case. Perhaps we will have a better idea of this when James produces his report. And James I am sure I speak for many on here when I say many thanks for your good work this morning in keeping us appraised.

However in the meantime, let me again reiterate that unravelling the interweaving strands of this story will take a long time. This current court action after all relates to the determination of entitlement to a fund that was created prior to the takeover by CW. And that predates the administration of what is now RFC 2012 PLC by many months.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on3:20 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:34 pm
27 0 Rate This
———-

As mentioned James, a huge thanks for the tweets and reports and also to you @aenmac75 for alerting us initially with up-to-the-minute info on James’ live updates.

Brilliant.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on3:39 pm - Feb 17, 2014


sickofitall says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm

“whit does it aw mean?”
———————————
I wouldn’t dare to hazard a guess but the following piece of incrimination on the twitter account is interesting.

Not just because it draws in Doncaster, though that in itself is remarkable but the inclusion of Rod McKenzie in the e:mail trail. Wasn’t he the guy that failed to ask the obvious questions at the LNS tribunal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151580990/Phone-Calls

View Comment

Avatar

CitibhoyPosted on3:40 pm - Feb 17, 2014


THC 2.31
SMSM Hacks aren’t just lazy , they are greedy too – you can spoon feed them the story but unless you fill their corpulent bellies there will be no “Pavlovian” response.
I’ll happily stand the Winalot bill if someone can knap the poodle!

View Comment

Avatar

hamemadesoupPosted on3:41 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Now that CF’ s material is considered admissible and the messages on KDS have come to light , can we now be certain Mr RC Ogilvie will shortly be tendering his resignation ? In fact , has it been proofed and awaiting signature ?
If I was Ogilvie , I’d be looking at a long overseas break . A very long break . :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on3:44 pm - Feb 17, 2014


ianagain says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:37 pm

“In a word yes the court believes Charlotte originated with CW.”
——————————
Originated as in generated or was the information obtained without his permission?

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on3:57 pm - Feb 17, 2014


TSFM. I think your money worries might be over. Just charge the SMSM for advice on how to report the saga. Its patently obvious they won’t have a clue where to start. Perhaps they could take you out for a fine dining experience. I think a nice bit of :slamb: followed by a huge slice of humble pie (apologies for any copyright infringement) sounds rather appetising.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on4:02 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Castof

No one knows nor said if permission given. Fact is all parties agree tapes are admissable.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:09 pm - Feb 17, 2014


sickofitall says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm
6 0 i
Rate This

Busa Bhoy
17 Feb 2014, 01:06 PM
my sister just sent me this txt, some fella she knows from the north stand sent it out.

Sevco to into Members Voluntary Liquidation
By end of the month. Have already seen the doc that by scots companies law has to be posted in the Edinburgh Gazette. Will leave them
Debt free and with Ibrox etc placed out of reach in the holding company. Explains why all those rules were changed last week and only paper to semi report it was the telegraph. Another stitch up on way. DSTM.

whit does it aw mean?
https://twitter.com/Charlotte2Weeks

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

For there to be a members voluntary liquidation of TRFC, this would involve the directors signing a statutory declaration stating that the directors believe that the company can pay its debts in full within 12 months. I believe that it is a crime to swear such declaration knowing it to be untrue.

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on4:16 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Thanks all, have to say didn’t even have known case was on today until I read it here so team effort all round, Good to meet you to Ian.

Report is done just awaiting decision on publication.

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on4:22 pm - Feb 17, 2014


sickofitall says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm
—————————————-
I’m with Campbellsmoney on this. There is little way the directors could make a statutory declaration such as is required.
An MVL also requires HMRC consent which is unlikely to be forthcoming if there are arrears of any sort and of course no accounts have ever been filed for this business, or are likely to be.

Given therefore that there will be no MVL, that calls into question the reliability of your later post at 2.57 which seems to be supposition heaped upon conjecture with a dash of wishful thinking.

We need to stick to the facts on here. The fact Charlotte’s correspondence may be relied upon in court is a big start but proves nothing at this juncture.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on4:29 pm - Feb 17, 2014


paulonotini says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:35 pm

“Re BDO/RFC 2012 & Others v Collyer Bristow”
————————————-
You know who you are.

View Comment

Avatar

BangordubPosted on4:29 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Just in from work. Did I miss anything? 😀

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.