Podcast Episode 1

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

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

Corrupt OfficialPosted on1:24 am - Feb 19, 2014


To the legals out there, would this work?
I listened to the CG, CW, Peterjung tape again.
From about 28 mins, CG wants two forms signed. One English law, one Scots, but only one will be used. Deed of release forms.
“Even Sevco can’t use them until the assets are released”
“Patrick will hold them until you give him the nod”
Remember, the subliminal, “YOU are Sevco!”
Could the English deed of release have been Sevco 5088. The Scottish deed of release been Sevco Scotland.
Remember the immediate Ibrokes statement. “Sevco 5088 have bought the assets. All that is needed is for CW to give the nod. He does, and Patrick uses the Sevco Scotland deed of release. Switcheroo complete.
Is a novation doc still needed?
I don’t recall CW’s LBA mentioning anything about a novation doc, but that CG changed the name of Sevco S. Instead of 5088.
I do not have a copy.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:11 am - Feb 19, 2014


You have to wonder why only the Daily Record has started to publish some details of Charlotte material. Last year a prominent broadsheet Journalist told me only Leveson prevented them from writing about it, but as far as I’m aware his paper has not even reported the Judge’s ruling on the material being used. This begs the question whether Leveson was nothing other than a convenient smokescreen. For every paper to report on this material would then lead to phone ins having to discuss it, and that would have to include the role of the SFA in it all. Quite why the media don’t want as clean a game as possible is beyond me.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on7:12 am - Feb 19, 2014


Has the Club/Company [delete as appropriate] moved to take legal action against Phil yet for his comments? Has any statement been made to the AIM?

It appears to be accepted knowledge that money is being burned at a great rate, with no match of cash injection.

With TGEF on the horizon with a significant doubt as to who owns the assets – little chance of a cash loan at a reasonable rate.

I would imagine that now that the @CharlotteFakes materials will be released in open Court there are a few squeaky bums. How many people will move to try and save their own skins?

Unless there is massive cost cutting and a significant cash injection, the future looks very bleak. What are the chances of significant cuts and a loan happening?

Tick, tock…

Perhaps liquidation is inevitable, a scheme to put the assets outwith the reach of TGEF?

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on8:40 am - Feb 19, 2014


upthehoops says:
February 19, 2014 at 7:11 am
%%%%%%
Two things have to happen before CF is reported/discussed by the SMSM.
hacks have to acknowledge their reasons for remaining silent,
And, JI has to give the OK.

View Comment

erniePosted on9:06 am - Feb 19, 2014


john clarke says:
February 19, 2014 at 1:01 am
====================
JC best wishes to you and your family. It’s all that counts really. Hope my previous wee joke was not overly clumsy.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:09 am - Feb 19, 2014


ianagain says:

February 18, 2014 at 10:59 pm

ianagain (what were you called in between? 😉 ),

Another example of just how useful it is to this blog that we have people like yourself who are prepared to make the effort to attend these legal proceedings. Anyone still wonder why we are so dismissive of the SMSM?

Was it actually made clear that all CF’s material can be used, and not just the tapes?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:21 am - Feb 19, 2014


ecobhoy says:

February 18, 2014 at 11:59 pm

While reading ecobhoy’s post it struck me that there are so many strands to this example of spivery that it made me wonder if the RFC/TRFC debacle is not just a small part of some larger scam.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on9:26 am - Feb 19, 2014


Apologies if already posted:

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-scottish-football-association-ensure-neutral-venues-for-the-2014-scottish-cup-semi-finals?recruiter=80522567&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:28 am - Feb 19, 2014


Allyjambo says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:09 am
Was it actually made clear that all CF’s material can be used, and not just the tapes?

——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Obviously I wasn’t there but presumably the ruling is that if any party to the proceedings wishes to put forward in evidence any of the “CF material” then the court will allow such “material” to be presented.

Another party may then wish to cast doubt on that evidence by saying (for example) – “can you prove that that is the voice of Mr Yellow?” “When was this recorded?” “for what purpose?” “who knew it was being recorded?” “where did you get that copy of those emails?” “can you prove that that email that purports to come from Mr Red is actually from Mr Red” etc etc etc etc.

When we talk about about “CF material”, what do we actually mean? There have been a lot of “charlottes”
over the months. There have been tapes and documents. Not all have come from the same source. Just because someone has “charlotte” in their name doesn’t mean its the same person/source. Otherwise we might find that the court has a lot of recordings of an angelic voiced Welsh songstress to work through as well as other stuff.

Is anyone able to summarise what it is considered “charlotte” has told us/established?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:32 am - Feb 19, 2014


barcabuster says:
February 19, 2014 at 1:24 am
28 0 Rate This

To the legals out there, would this work?
I listened to the CG, CW, Peterjung tape again.
From about 28 mins, CG wants two forms signed. One English law, one Scots, but only one will be used. Deed of release forms.
“Even Sevco can’t use them until the assets are released”
“Patrick will hold them until you give him the nod”
=======================
Are you certain that the precise phrase used was “deed of release”? If so, that seems to me very interesting, since a deed of release is a different thing altogether than a deed of novation. A deed of novation transfers the benefit of a contract from one party to another, in this case the benefit of the agreement with D&P from Sevco5088 to Sevco Scotland.

A deed of release is explained as follows; “A legal document that removes a previous claim or lien on an asset. A deed of release is usually issued once a mortgage or other type of debt, previously secured against the asset, has been paid in full. After the deed of release is written, the asset is owned free and clear by the owner, and any previous claims against the asset that the lender may have had are dissolved.” (from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deed_of_release.asp )

So what liens or claims were there on the RFC assets at the time of the audio (July 2012) ? Can this relate to Whyte’s/Ticketus floating charge? Or have I just headed up a blind alley (again) ? Is there a full transcript of this audio clip anywhere?

View Comment

iamacantPosted on9:44 am - Feb 19, 2014


The Record reports “that police last week dropped their objections to the recordings being used as evidence and that Craig Whyte himself had no issue with them being heard”

Would Police Scotland answer the question as to why they dropped their objections or would they hide behind the probable reply of “Sorry we cannot comment on an ongoing court case?”

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:06 am - Feb 19, 2014


iamacant says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:44 am

The Record reports “that police last week dropped their objections to the recordings being used as evidence and that Craig Whyte himself had no issue with them being heard”

Would Police Scotland answer the question as to why they dropped their objections or would they hide behind the probable reply of “Sorry we cannot comment on an ongoing court case?”
=========================================================
Much more likely the reason would be that the cannot comment on an ongoing investigation or on operational matters. And quite rightly they cannot comment on such matters 😀

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:09 am - Feb 19, 2014


neepheid says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:32 am

Very interesting and possibly crucial spot neepheid ❗

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on10:25 am - Feb 19, 2014


Casper 999. At 10:28pm Re McCoist.
You got his modus operandi spot on.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:37 am - Feb 19, 2014


upthehoops says:
February 19, 2014 at 7:11 am

You have to wonder why only the Daily Record has started to publish some details of Charlotte material. Last year a prominent broadsheet Journalist told me only Leveson prevented them from writing about it, but as far as I’m aware his paper has not even reported the Judge’s ruling on the material being used. This begs the question whether Leveson was nothing other than a convenient smokescreen. For every paper to report on this material would then lead to phone ins having to discuss it, and that would have to include the role of the SFA in it all. Quite why the media don’t want as clean a game as possible is beyond me.
===================================================================
I fell out with a long-term SMSM journo pal who peddled the Leveson nonsense as the excuse for not doing anything. We still don’t talk 😎

However it prompted me to ask, I think it was 5 journos at the time, the reason why they weren’t using CF material or even alluding to it as I could see absolutely nothing legally to prevent knowledge gained from the material being used to ask very searching questions of the main parties without even mentioning CF.

Quite surprisingly I received 5 different answers although with an element of crossover. So did that prove there was no conspiracy at work in the SMSM to ignore the CF revelations?

One might jump to the conclusion that an organised conspiracy would tend to coalesce round a central and common theme which wasn’t the case as revealed by my totally unscientific ‘straw-poll’.

But for me, perversely as usual, what made me believe something was rotten to the core in our wee country was the answer that was ‘missing’. Not one journo said the Editor had decreed the material wasn’t to be used. In any story as important as The Rangers one, especially with a dramatic development like CF, decisions would be taken at a senior editorial level as to whether the story runs and the ‘line’ to be taken. That’s normal and that’s how it works.

IMO they were and there’s nothing wrong with that because they happen day and daily in the news industry and although an individual journo might be p*ssed off at his Worldwide Exclusive being ‘spiked’ it’s part of the job and he’ll get drinks bought for him in the pub to soothe his ruffled feathers and more importantly his/her ego as they think of the Press Award that has slipped from their grasp.

The point being is it’s no big secret – OK it might not be widely broadfcast but journos are not an island and people working with them or close to them will know about the story and a management/editorial decision to bury it and sometimes there can be good reasons for doing so and not simply because it will hack-off your biggest advertiser.

The difference with CF is IMO that the decision to ignore was taken at the highest levels and I’m sure that it was never ever explained in detail to journos. They were just instructed to ignore the material and that was that ❗

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:37 am - Feb 19, 2014


Bartin Main ‏@iBartin 16m
Sevco 5088 have filed their return at Co. House, but document not ready for inspection yet. pic.twitter.com/MlUkEiNtKm

Bartin Main ‏@iBartin 2m
I have downloaded the free appointments report from Co. House. An application to strike off Sevco 5088 was made yesterday.

Bartin Main ‏@iBartin 4m
For the avoidance of doubt, Green is now listed as the ONLY director. Only HE could have filed the return on the 17th February.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:59 am - Feb 19, 2014


neepheid says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:32 am
7 0 Rate This
———-

Whyte doesn’t sound too sure about things:

“The deed of release … how does that work?”

He then says something like “We don’t want to give them a deed of release and then the deal not go through”. The discussion at this point in the conversation is very interesting and needs a trained mind to pull the pieces apart. The discussion of the two Sevcos gives the impression that the Scottish one is only pro forma and the “You are Sevco” very much suggests Green accepts that Whyte is the main man.

I was wondering about the phrase Whyte used in response to Green discussing what would happen in the event of the cva being rejected:

“But the debenture’s not worthless in that scenario,” Whyte said.

Anyone know who the “Patrick” is who drew up the documents?

Link again to: https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/charlotte-fakeover-charles-1

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on11:07 am - Feb 19, 2014


I have now received my reply from Companies House on the directorial and registered office musical chairs. As others have commented we can clearly place little reliance in anything published on the Companies House website.

Some interesting advance information on a proposed dissolution of Sevco 5088 appears towards the end of the response :

“Dear Mr….

Thank you for your further mail; I have been asked to respond in my capacity as a
Customer Services Officer.

I’m afraid I can add very little advice to that given previously. The main role of
Companies House, as laid down in the Companies Act (1985 & 2006), is to receive
information from Limited companies and to make it available for public inspection.
We do not licence or underwrite their activities.

We do not have the statutory power or capability to verify the accuracy of the
information that companies send to us. Provided the documents meet our examination
criteria, we accept all information that companies deliver to us and place it on the
public record. The fact that information has been placed on the public record should
not be taken to indicate that Companies House has verified or validated it in any
way. The person, or company, filing the documents are responsible for the content of
them.

The filing of the appointment and termination forms at Companies House does not
affect the question of whether an appointment or resignation of an officer is valid
or not. It merely serves as notice to the public and the Registrar of Companies that
something has occurred in the company. The true position of the company’s
appointment record would be held at the company’s registered office address; this
is: 35 Vine Street, London EC3N 2AA.

Having checked the records, the only director listed on our records now is: Charles
Alexander Green. Additionally, I thought I would also point out that the company has
also applied for voluntary dissolution. The Registrar will shortly publish notice of
the proposed striking off in the Gazette. If there is no reason to delay, the
Registrar will strike the company off the register not less than 3 months after the
date of the said notice.

I realise you will be disappointed with my response but hope you can appreciate that
Companies House is merely a registry of company information and that you understand
the Registrar’s position.

Yours sincerely
Customer Services”

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:18 am - Feb 19, 2014


Danish Pastry says: February 19, 2014 at 10:59 am

Anyone know who the “Patrick” is who drew up the documents?
===================================
I think it was lawyer Patrick Cannon of Field Fisher Waterhouse.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:19 am - Feb 19, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2014 at 10:37 am
‘…..The difference with CF is IMO that the decision to ignore was taken at the highest levels and I’m sure that it was never ever explained in detail to journos. ‘
————-
And I think this was particularly so in the case of BBC Radio Scotland, which does not even have the excuse of having to keep advertisers happy.

As we have seen, there were(and are) two huge stories to be thoroughly brought into the light and rigorously and relentlessly pursued.

Even now, a moderately sharp journalist (if such a thing were to be found among the juvenile, giggling-among-themselves toss-pots that we hear every day), drawing only on this blog,could produce a list of hard, realistic questions that the SFA and BBC Radio Scotland and other parties would find difficult to dodge, but which trying to evade would lead to suspicion/confirmation that they had something to hide, and therefore to further questioning and investigation.

There are conflicted, compromised, lying cheats out there- and they need to be nailed, as do the people in the media who abdicated their responsibility and tried to shield them from scrutiny.

I keep in mind the fact that the supposed ‘defenders’ of Sporting truth and Integrity have committed a far greater evil than the original evil perpetrated by SDM and the whole, almost unending, stream of his successors at RFC(IL) and his equivalents at the new club.

View Comment

BartinMainPosted on11:21 am - Feb 19, 2014


Looks like cheerio to Sevco 5088. Application to strike off made by sole remaining director Green yesterday. Can we assume Whyte has been paid his go away fee?

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on11:30 am - Feb 19, 2014


easyJambo says:
February 19, 2014 at 11:18 am
0 0 Rate This
which would make sense as the current registered office of Sevco 5088 (as included in Redlichtie’s response from Co House is offices of Field Fisher Waterhouse

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:30 am - Feb 19, 2014


At the risk of fanning the flames.

ecobhoy says:
February 18, 2014 at 10:56 pm

” Where is there any evidence that Zeus loaned £8.5 million and why would they need to when the price for the Rangers business and assets paid to D&P was only £5.5 million.”
——————————-
Could this be related :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141736878/imran-rafat-craig-aidan-chris

================
neepheid says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:32 am

” Is there a full transcript of this audio clip anywhere?”
——————————
https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/charlotte-fakeover-charles-1

===============
barcabuster says:
February 19, 2014 at 1:24 am

“I don’t recall CW’s LBA mentioning anything about a novation doc, but that CG changed the name of Sevco S. Instead of 5088. I do not have a copy.”
—————————
This is not the Letter Before Action (Claim) but it does purport to be the legal advice upon which the claim was made. In some ways it may be more informative.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142204728/Letter-on-Worthington-Claims-Final

=============
Campbellsmoney says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:28 am

“Is anyone able to summarise what it is considered “charlotte” has told us/established?”
————————-
She claimed to be in possession of 150,000 documents but never revealed how they were obtained. It could be a Craig Whyte PR stunt but the alternative involves CW failing to keep up payments on a computer domain name. A method was elucidated whereby sought after domain names might be ‘phished’ as soon as they became available. If this was the method used, it is not clear if Charlotte’s acquisition was accidental or deliberate.

Charlotte seemed to suggest some level of ignorance concerning the material in her possession. She certainly had some insight because the releases were usually accompanied by a cryptic comment like “What Murray knew”. She stopped short of leading the narrative however which could be read in two ways:

1. She (He) did know the whole story and was allowing the blogosphere to fill in the blanks, thus creating an attention grabbing firestorm of speculation.

2. She was slow to realise the implications of the material in her possession and relied on the cyberspace frenzy to inform her own investigations and subsequent releases. There were some document releases (UEFA licensing) that did appear to occur in response to online speculation.

So I don’t think a succinct summary can be provided. If it was CW then he handled the process well as we are still in doubt about motives (perhaps less so given ianagains’ visual aid). It contrasts starkly with Stockbridge’ attempt to discredit Malcolm Murray using video footage. You couldn’t make it up but as CW has also obtained film rights as part of the transaction, perhaps he had a budding scriptwriter in on the deal.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:32 am - Feb 19, 2014


redlichtie says:
February 19, 2014 at 11:07 am
‘….I have now received my reply from Companies House..’
————-
And well done on drawing forth such an (to me, anyway) illuminating reply, which totally re-inforces the belief that Companies House is little more than a useless excrescence on the landscape.
“..We do not have the statutory power or capability to verify the accuracy of the
information that companies send to us. ”

What is the point of it, if it cannot in some way validate/refuse to validate the events reported to it, but merely refers the enquirer to the source of the information , which may -heaven forfend- be crooked!
lord, it would gar ye greet!

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:55 am - Feb 19, 2014


Regarding Floating Charges

Floating Charges are not like other securities. In fact, they are such an odd beast in Scots law that they had to be created by statute only 30/40 years ago. The English have had them for a lot longer but being a right-thinking legal jurisdiction, Scotland had no truck with such nonsense.

A Floating Charge is a security granted by a company that “floats” over the assets of that company. The actual term is that it floats over the “property and undertaking” of the company. Basically that means it catches everything that the company has (more or less).

That is one way in which a floating charge is different from other securities in Scots law. Other securities are in respect of a named asset – for example the mortgage over your house is over 1 Mount Florida Way, Glasgow. If you put an asset into pawn (this is pledge in Scots law) the security is over that specific asset.

Floating Charges are different. They catch whatever is in the property or undertaking of the company from time to time. Assets come in and assets come out. What matters is what is there when the Floating Charge “crystallises”. A Floating Charge will crystallise when a receiver is appointed (unlikely now because of a change in the law in 2003) or when an insolvency event occurs.

This is significant. Compare the following two situations.

Company A owns one asset. Land and buildings at 14 Walter Way, Glasgow. It grants a Standard Security (the posh name for a mortgage) over that property to its bank.

Company B owns one asset. Land and buildings at 15 Walter Way, Glasgow. It grants a floating charge over its whole property and undertaking (which actually only comprises the property at 15 Walter Way) to its bank.

On the insolvency of company A and company B, the bank will actually get more of a return out of company A’s insolvency because of the way the ranking of fixed securities and floating charges works. But that’s not important right now. The significance comes with what happens if the properties are transferred.

If Company A transfers the property without discharging the Standard Security, the Standard Security remains on the property and any purchaser who acquires the property will find that if Company A does not repay the debt to the Bank, then the property remains liable to be repossessed by the Bank.

However, a purchaser from Company B will be free of the Floating Charge. The Floating Charge cannot “bite” on the assets of the purchaser. That is a fundamental difference between fixed securities (such as Standard Securities) and Floating Charges.

I raise this because from time to time I see suggestions that the Oldco Floating Charge can somehow be impacting upon or operating upon or be relevant to the assets of Newco. It simply cannot be. Floating charges don’t work like that.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:58 am - Feb 19, 2014


BartinMain says:
February 19, 2014 at 11:21 am

Looks like cheerio to Sevco 5088. Application to strike off made by sole remaining director Green yesterday. Can we assume Whyte has been paid his go away fee?

Only one of several possible variations but, you’d have to hand it to Craigy – bought the shooting match for a quid and his innocuous holding company at suitable arms length about to be offered a stadium and a traning ground for, ooo, lets go for £1 again for maximium irony. And a pie!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:07 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Smugas says:
February 19, 2014 at 11:58 am
BartinMain says:
February 19, 2014 at 11:21 am

Looks like cheerio to Sevco 5088. Application to strike off made by sole remaining director Green yesterday. Can we assume Whyte has been paid his go away fee?

Only one of several possible variations but, you’d have to hand it to Craigy – bought the shooting match for a quid and his innocuous holding company at suitable arms length about to be offered a stadium and a traning ground for, ooo, lets go for £1 again for maximium irony. And a pie!
===========================================================
Green tried the same trick back in December 2012 and failed because Wee Craigie and Earley joined as directors and stopped Green’s winding-up petition.

I dealt with it at:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/mystery-directors-and-the-rangers-sevco-5088-switcheroo-by-ecojon/#comments

Green’s latest move raises the point whether the Board of RIFC Plc has given Green permission to ditch Sevco 5088 – a subsidiary of RIFC Plc – or does the Board actually know anything about it?

Who says Green or even Craigie has ever actually gone away? They never will IMO as long as the shadowy offshore investors remain unmasked pulling their strokes in the background.

I truly am beginning to think Wallace is totally out of his depth and must be wondering why he allowed himself to be sucked into this morass and the reputational damage that might ensue.

View Comment

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on12:08 pm - Feb 19, 2014


New Phil post up. Says the IPO money ran out on 10th Feb and the £2.5 million ‘line of credit’ is spent too. So salary payment looking somewhat unlikely.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:16 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
February 19, 2014 at 12:08 pm
1 0 Rate This

New Phil post up. Says the IPO money ran out on 10th Feb and the £2.5 million ‘line of credit’ is spent too. So salary payment looking somewhat unlikely.
—————

To be fair to Phil he did say “I understand that …” and “I have been informed that …” on those two points. He’s being guarded in his choice of words, imo.

As someone mentioned, his sources may have been fed a line. His main point about the resounding silence regarding the DR piece is undeniable, and, as he says, ‘ominous’.

View Comment

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on12:22 pm - Feb 19, 2014


DP – skim read it as I am glued to the curling from Sochi…

Covering himself lest there be any legal threat? However, if he’s accurate, there isn’t even enough to put a tanner in the meter, let alone pay the massive team of legal experts that TRFC no doubt have on speed dial.

Where’s Jack? Why no statements? The money really must have run out. Its times like this you really start to miss James Traynor.

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on12:22 pm - Feb 19, 2014


If Sevco 5088 have only 1 director and that is Green then the next move is CW’s to assert his right to the company.
I have always been of the opinion that CW does indeed have a valid claim to the assets and that if that is so then all that followed by raising the money through an IPO was a fraud for which serious jail time beckons.
Perhaps this is the real reason that RIFC could not raise any funds against the assets.
Only time will tell but if Phil’s new post is an indicator surely they are in the death throws.

On the other hand if everything was above board and the money has been spent surely the shares should be suspended if the only source of trading income which the plc has is going under.
One thing for sure interesting times ahead.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:22 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Just read Phil’s latest piece, as DP says, no concrete revelations, just food for thought and sensible analysis of silence. No take on the CF tapes in court… yet.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/when-no-news-is-bad-news/#more-4388

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on12:28 pm - Feb 19, 2014


john clarke says:
February 19, 2014 at 11:19 am
&&&&&&&
Journalists develop a symbiotic relationship with their sources. They become dependent on a steady flow of stories from the organisations they are supposed to report on. This has evolved into hacks simply attaching their byline to press releases ( Motherwell Born Billionaire, anyone?). As the hacks become more reliant on this steady stream of PR, so the power shifts away from them along with their independence. Hacks now have to tread warily when reporting on the source of much of their day to day material. One slip of the keyboard could see the tap turned off, and, God forbid, they’d have to go out and find stories! The foreign travel, the boardroom hospitality access and the kudos of being in the ‘inner circle’ are also endangered. Media advisers would make it very clear what was acceptable and what was embargoed.
The only explanation for the lack of reportage in relation to CF, either the material itself or the identity and source of CF or that there is clearly some form of high level jiggery pokery going on or even the veracity of the material itself are all newsworthy in their own right.
Journalists, with few exceptions, are more aware of their mortgage and lifestyle than they are of reporting what’s really going on.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on12:40 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Hoopy 7 says:
February 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm

“I have always been of the opinion that CW does indeed have a valid claim to the assets…”
—————————-
That is certainly the message that Charlotte espoused. However, as suggested by others, the whole Sevco 5088/Scotland bust up may have just been manufactured to ensure that CW was distanced from the football club and the SFA. The signing of two different documents by CW on the audio (One English law, one Scottish) does offer the possibility of a divergence of interest that could be exploited. I don’t think this was stage managed. CW may be good but the audio has all the tension and drama of a real life situation. I’d be nominating them for a Bafta if the audio is a put up job. CW obviously didn’t trust a single character in the whole charade and wanted an independent record of the most important transactions. Perhaps he was tutored by a knight of the realm. Smoke and mirrors? Who knows. Need to lift the head up every now and again and have a look around in between bouts of frantic digging.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on12:51 pm - Feb 19, 2014


iamacant says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:44 am
The Record reports “that police last week dropped their objections to the recordings being used as evidence and that Craig Whyte himself had no issue with them being heard”

Would Police Scotland answer the question as to why they dropped their objections or would they hide behind the probable reply of “Sorry we cannot comment on an ongoing court case?”
……………………………………………………………………………

I would imagine they have dropped their objections….due to their investigations.showing no crime committed in how the documents and audio were acquired….as supported by CW having no objection…

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on12:53 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
February 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm
5 0 Rate This

Its times like this you really start to miss James Traynor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope

View Comment

Corrupt OfficialPosted on12:54 pm - Feb 19, 2014


@neepheid.
Thanks for the LBC bud. I am in my phone at the moment, and will get it tonight.
I am not too bright on company law, but I couldn’t help get the feeling the novation doc was a blind alley.
I also didn’t think D&P would be so obvious, to sell to CG. without proper written authority, so u was trying to find another mechanism by which they could do so.
The liquidation sale, was a two part affair, and conditional on the failure of a CVA bid.
If memory serves, 5088 provided the £8.5m funding letter, and paid the security fee, which guaranteed their bidding status.
I was thinking that the deed of release, may have been used to relieve 5088 of that status.
This would free D&P to sell to CG, as they then had no obligation to 5088.
Ticketus had been done over, in a cross border deal, and I feel the legals would have been lax in the extreme to allow another, although the idea it could happen, was planted.
Now we have CG, in possession of two signed docs, gained under a flimsy, but plausible guise, when only one is required.
Patrick doesn’t have to be aware of the scam. All he needs, is for CW to “give him the nod” to issue the Scotland doc. As soon as he hears the 5088, Ibrokes announcement, he would eagerly do so.
Then CG & D&P can complete their deal, free from 5088 encumbrance.
The sale was not complete at the time of the Ibrokes announcement. But the assets were released for sale.
The con hung on the Ibrokes announcement to the media, from which CW gave, at arms length “The nod”
That is why 5088 may be important, but not because novation was required.
I think you are right when you say a legal would be required to examine the scenario.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:01 pm - Feb 19, 2014


On Phil’s new blog

I always felt that Ally didn’t just start carping on about £30m (funny how that figure keeps turning up) being needed to be there to be replaced (put that bit in for you Ryan) to ensure RFC were going to compete at the top.

Who’s that coming over the hill? He’s got robes, he’s got cash, he’s got a crown he’s, he’s he’s…………………………….HMRC again. 🙁 😳

By the way when’s the sweeper (neat link to Sochi – tough luck girls) for the new clumpany name. Third Rangers?

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:04 pm - Feb 19, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2014 at 10:06 am
13 0 i
Rate This

iamacant says:
February 19, 2014 at 9:44 am

The Record reports “that police last week dropped their objections to the recordings being used as evidence and that Craig Whyte himself had no issue with them being heard”

Would Police Scotland answer the question as to why they dropped their objections or would they hide behind the probable reply of “Sorry we cannot comment on an ongoing court case?”
=========================================================
Much more likely the reason would be that the cannot comment on an ongoing investigation or on operational matters. And quite rightly they cannot comment on such matters
______________________________________________

I may be extremely niaive but what does it have to do with the Police?
And why would the Police want evidence removed from consideration that does not directly involve them?

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on1:06 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Lord Wobbly says:
February 19, 2014 at 12:53 pm
2 0 Rate This

Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
February 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm
5 0 Rate This

Its times like this you really start to miss James Traynor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope
&&&&&&&&
Looking forward to Scotland’s Last Newspaperman’s blow by blow account, fearlessly delivered in that bombastic, ‘brook no fools’ style that was honed over the hot metal in reporter’s shorthand and free from editorial interference.

Anytime ye like Jimbo!!!!!

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on1:08 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Smugas says:
February 19, 2014 at 1:01 pm
&&&&&&&
Then, as now, they will be known as ‘king rangers!

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:13 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Re the McCoist £30million spending quotes –

Whilst Ryan’s comments could be justified on some technical lawyerspeak basis, it’s crystal clear to any rational observer that McCoist’s sole intention is to generate himself a Get out of Jail free card should his team hit the buffers in the coming two seasons on the basis of not having been given enough resources to build a team, Carnoustie ‘treat my players like royalty’ trips et al.

He knows full well he won’t be getting anywhere near £30million or whatever amount it takes to replace £30million worth of players on free transfers (no wages?) and clearly intends to point the finger elsewhere should his team not meet fan expectations. He hasn’t got the cojones to be up front about this – or about his remuneration package – and has shown himself to be an extremely mendacious and sleekit character.

And given that the most well balanced poster of a Rangers persuasion on here immediately leapt to his defence on the subject, McCoist’s £30million worth of players statement seems to be working beautifully.

View Comment

seminalPosted on1:20 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Barcaburster,

A brilliant piece of dedective work. I think you might have nailed it. I have listened to that tape at least twice and never spotted the relevance of that part of the conversation. I think it is vital.

Who ever came up with the existence of a “deed of novation”? I have never seen or heard any evidence of one existing other than on these pages? Was it part of some other Charlotte docs, or was it something someone speculated on once and became part of the canon of groupthink?

I think using a deed of release (signed by CW under false pretences) would make for a “cleaner” scam for CG and avaoids the need of requiring D&P agreement as in the case of a DoN.

Again, Barcabuster, well done for the best piece of original work here for a number of weeks.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:22 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Castofthousands says:
February 19, 2014 at 11:30 am

4

0

Rate This

At the risk of fanning the flames.

ecobhoy says:
February 18, 2014 at 10:56 pm

” Where is there any evidence that Zeus loaned £8.5 million and why would they need to when the price for the Rangers business and assets paid to D&P was only £5.5 million.”
——————————-
Could this be related :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141736878/imran-rafat-craig-aidan-chris
=============================================================
For there to be a connection it would require Rizvi to have been working hand-in-glove with Zeus. Anything is possible but, on the other hand, the moves that Zeus made appear to be all out in the open and can be explained from the documentation that exists.

That is not so easy with Rizvi. To look for his £8 million investor you would need to IMO look at the original placees for Sevco 5088 which are listed in the TRFCLK Board Minute of 31 October 2012. Another area which should be looked at is the initial AR made to Companies House in respect of Sevco 5088 by CW especially with regard to the shareholdings but they also pose further unanswered questions.

There is also the CF provided email from Chad Edmund to Rizvi dated 4 May 2012 which refers to a £12.25 million loan and the £5.5 million purchase price but no mention of £8 million or even £8.5 million. Green was to be forwarded a copy of this email btw.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:30 pm - Feb 19, 2014


No MCP, not my point at all. Based on PMG’s blog…

McCoist’s play was to put it to the loyal that £30m would make them competitive again, on the basis that they were previously competitive (ignoring some minor fracas over some tax, contracts and level playing field nonsense that nobody is really interested in anyway (and on that point THEY had cheap loans and illegal securities anyhoos 😈 )) then lost, nay had ripped from their comforting bosom £30m of players (his valuation, and ignoring that 7(?)m was actually paid for for jellywitch) thus to receive £30m makes them good as new. Well it does if you Ignore, of course, the minor point that with unaddressed annual losses of £14m they’re still dead in the water but heh they’ve not reported it for the last 30 years, why bother now?

Then, completely separately, and as if by chance, the record exclushive reports £30m is on its way from South Africa.

What is Sammy Mechanic’s obvious response? “Senga, break oot the tea chest, I’m off for ma season ticket” Note, for this policy to work the £30m a/ doesn’t need to arrive any time soon*** and b/ doesn’t even need to state its precondition – which if King has any sense will be in the shape of a secured loan.

McCoist may have unwittingly developed an escape hatch. I do not believe that was his original intention. If it was, well at least he’s learning!

*** however, any chance of a wee advance, yours etc G wallace

EDIT: Meant to add…and on the basis that security no longer seems to be available, or would be a second charge only, that would tie in with the deal falling through. And that leaves GW with just the one option……

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:39 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Smugas says:
February 19, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Absolutely plausible but I still think his main motivator is self preservation/enrichment therefore it is about creating his own deflection shield. Flogging STs is another string to the bow

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:50 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Re: Deed of Novation

I think it worth remembering that most internet bampots including myself got all excited quite some time ago over the fact that a Deed of Novation didn’t exist and by the time the dust settled we realised that the deed of novation wasn’t to do with the transfer of any rights from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland but apparently only dealt with transferring the responsibility for the repayment of Imran’s loan to Sevco 5088 from that company to Sevco Scotland.

Looking back I think that is possibly why we became fixated on the deed of novation and when we realised it wasn’t as important as it seemed we tended to drop it – I know that’s what I did.

So Barca’s find – which I apparently wrongly thought was Neepheid’s – is important and was hidden in plain sight which is always the best camouflage. I assume it came into play when the APA was completed on 14 June 2012 by the three parties: Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland, and D&P. In other words the Deed of Release formed part of the APA.

View Comment

whispererPosted on1:52 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Just a thought re emails and those “carbon copied” in
There is also a “Blind Carbon Copy” option
sDM wouldn’t be hiding in there would he ?
or DK?
maybees aye/maybees naw ?

If someone was to actually receive one directly there was a method to SEE who was in the BCC

Suspicious Mind !

View Comment

Davie BPosted on1:59 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Annual return for Sevco 5088 filed at Co House today – 1 month early – with a statement of capital of £1. From memory this contradicts the earlier filing of 10m shares.

Either CW has his payoff or new forms to be filed I would guess.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:00 pm - Feb 19, 2014


I think it’s important to know whether Green has the legal right to wind-up Sevco 5088 and I have undernoted a post that I did on here last September which deals with the issue. Obviously some bits may have changed since that time but I think the post raises a number of issues which have yet to be answered.

Undernote

. . . the departed but not forgotten Dear Leader Green’s words and, in particular, his thoughts as broadcast on 13 April 2013 by STV at: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/221242-extended-video-of-rangers-ceo-charles-greens-interview-with-stv/

Green clearly states that he was the first and only director and shareholder in Sevco 5088, an off-the-shelf company formed by Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW) for the purpose of acquiring Rangers, and denied that Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley had any role in the company.

Green then explained that ‘as the model unfolded’ and the process changed Sevco Scotland acquired Rangers and not Sevco 5088 and stated: ‘The company that was originally formed wasn’t required and was handed back to Craig Whyte’ and added: ‘That company was never used for anything and it became a dormant company and was subsequently struck-off’.

Lets have a closer look at Green’s statements and see how they accord with the public record and might affect the contents of the overdue Annual Returns. Let’s get a small point out of the way to begin with: FFW didn’t ‘form’ Sevco 5088 although they may well have instructed the actual Cardiff-based formation company 7Side Ltd to do so.

Green wasn’t the first director and shareholder of Sevco 5088 Ltd who are listed respectively by Companies House as the formation agent Samuel lloyd and 7Side Secretarial Ltd. Indeed Green has never been listed as a Sevco 5088 shareholder at Companies House which still lists the sole shareholder as 7Side Secretarial Ltd.

The Rangers AIM flotation document for the December 2012 IPO states Green was the sole Sevco 5088 shareholder but failed to state his directorship in the company nor that it was a subsidiary of RIFC Plc.

Following intense media speculation the official Rangers website on 5 April 2013 quoted Green: “… I had signed a resignation letter and a stock transfer form because it was decided that a Scottish company should buy a Scottish institution. Sevco 5088 wasn’t required.’

On 12 April 2013 the official website stated: “Mr Green was the sole director of Sevco 5088 until he resigned and became the founder director of Sevco Scotland.’

These two statements confirm the Rangers AIM Prospectus information that Mr Green wasn’t a Sevco 5088 director in December 2012 and ceased to be so sometime between 29 May 2012 when Sevco Scotland was incorporated and 14 June 2012 when the same company bought the assets and business of Rangers from D&P.

However Green didn’t advise Companies House of his resignation from Sevco 5088 at the time and still hasn’t done so even though he wrote a resignation letter and signed a stock transfer form transferring ‘stock’ presumably from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland. But what ‘stock’ was switched and was Green legally allowed to transfer it? According to Companies House there is only a £1 share in Sevco 5088 – not held by Green. So was the ‘stock’ transferred the millions of share options held by the ‘original placees’ who had invested the money to secure and purchase the Rangers assets from D&P through Sevco 5088? The closest we get to an answer is the vague ramble of Green that the ‘model unfolded’ and the process changed whatever that might mean.

A rather curious episode then took place on 27 December 2012 when Green signed a request for the voluntary striking-off of Sevco 5088 which was sent to Companies House by FFW and arrived on 7 January 2013 with the requisite notice posted in the London Gazette a week later. Curiously, Green stated on the form he was the sole director and yet he has stated and the official Rangers website has confirmed that he had ceased to be a director of Sevco 5088 at least 6 months earlier. There is another issue in that a striking-off application must be signed by more than one director unless he is the sole company director.

Things were quiet until a media bombshell dropped on 12 April 2013 that Companies House had received notification that Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley were appointed directors of Sevco 5088 on 9 May 2012 and their appointment forms had apparently been countersigned by Green.

The revelation that Green had apparently been secretly involved with Whyte in the company that had the exclusive right to acquire the assets and business of Rangers blew the already somewhat dodgy roofs off Ibrox Stadium as the Bears quite rightly erupted. In a desperate bid to regain the initiative Green appeared on STV in which became his Ratner moment as he attempted to prevent his gold turning into hoss-sh*t. He should never have taken the PR advice as he hung himself and possibly RIFC Plc out to dry condemned by his own words. However it is up to each individual to view the facts and reach their own conclusions.

Within days director termination forms, countersigned by Green, were submitted to Companies House by FFW in respect of Whyte & Earley which again seems curious if they weren’t directors as claimed by Green. Why not just report the director submissions as fraudulent to the relevant authorities and even stranger why did Green date the director termination forms for the duo from 9 May 2012 the date they were shown as being appointed on the forms previously submitted and countersigned in his name.

The big problem for Green about 9 May 2012 IMO is that it is prior to the earliest date he could have resigned as a director of Sevco 5088 according to his words and the official statements of Rangers Football Club which means that if Whyte and Earley were actually directors on that date and Green had signed their directorship forms then he was in grave difficulty. The Ibrox masses lapped-up ‘clever’ Charlie when he spun tales about how he conned Whyte and strung him along assisted by Imran Ahmad to rescue their beloved Rangers. However it is one thing to make verbal promises with no intention of keeping them and quite another to be a co-director with Whyte in a company exclusively purchasing Rangers.

Green walked away from Ibrox on 19 April 2013 and three days later RIFC announced on AIM that Sevco 5088 was a subsidiary of RIFC on 7 December 2012 when the company’s AIM admission document was presented. It was also announced that their departed CEO had failed to disclose his directorship of Sevco 5088 to AIM. However it again left the question unanswered as to if and when Green had resigned from Sevco 5088.

However, two days later on 24 April 2013 as media speculation continued unabated, RIFC Plc again issued an AIM statement describing Sevco 5088 as an inactive subsidiary which was and is defunct and non-trading. The statement avoided dealing with the thorny problem that their ex-CEO said he had handed Sevco 5088 back to Craig Whyte and resigned as adirector of the company prior to 14 June 2012.

Events moved on and Whyte and Earley contested their removal from office and following an investigation were reinstated as directors of Sevco 5088 and the director termination forms, signed by Green, were ordered to be removed from the Public Register of Companies House. so as far as Companies House is concerned Whyte & Earley are directors of Sevco 5088 and have been since 9 May 2012.

Returning to his 13 April 2013 STV appearance Green made the curious statement on camera that as Sevco 5088 was no longer required it was ‘handed back to Craig Whyte’. But if Green was the sole shareholder and director of Sevco 5088 as he claimed and Whyte had no role in that company why would he hand the company back to Whyte who had nothing to do with it according to Green. I can only draw one conclusion but I will leave readers to draw their own.

Green’s claim during the STV interview that Sevco 5088 had been struck-off is incorrect and Companies House records the true position that the striking-off application, signed by Green on 27 December 2012, had been received on 7 January 2013 but it had not been struck-off. One might consider why Green had any involvement in the striking-off application when he said he had handed the company back to Whyte in May-June 2012.

And it’s worth pondering his statement that Sevco 5088 ‘was never used for anything’. The minutes of the TRFCL Board meeting on 31 October 2012 states that Sevco 5088 paid a £200k exclusivity fee to D&P to be the sole acquiring party for the assets and business of Rangers. We also know that the company had received substantial investment funds and share placing letters concerning ‘original placee’ investors were issued predicated on Sevco 5088 being the acquiring company of Rangers. And we also know that Sevco 5088′s written permission was required to allow the switcheroo that allowed Sevco Scotland to subsequently become the acquiring party. Many claim that millions of pounds raised by original Sevco 5088 investors were also paid to D&P prior to Sevco Scotland becoming the acquiring party. I don’t inhabit Green’s world of high finance wheeler-dealing so perhaps Sevco 5088 was just a Cinderella who got nothing – it might be worth remembering how that story ended of course.

The TRFCL minute continually refers to ‘directors’ of Sevco 5088 in the plural which sits uneasily with the claims that Green was the only director and is of particular importance when considering that there is apparently no written authorisation for switching Sevco 5088 share placement letters to Sevco Scotland as the authority given by the ‘original placees’ is described as oral given to un-named Sevco 5088 ‘directors’ who remain a mystery.

RIFC Plc has stated to AIM that the directorship applications of Whyte and Earley were ‘falsely’ filed with Companies House. But if Whyte & Earley were directors of Sevco 5088 and were fully aware of the switcheroo why would they agree to it or was it the ‘mystery’ directors who did it and have since faded even further into anonymity. To echo a favourite son of Ibrox: ‘We demand the names’ and others may well be making the same request a little more forcefully quite soon.

So I believe I understand why RIFC Plc might have difficulty in providing Companies House with the Annual Return for Sevco 5088 – perhaps like the rest of us they have been left with a puzzle and unsure where the truth lies. There is a fine line between what is legally acceptable between taking someone for a pre-IPO ride like Whyte and a public company making official statements to AIM and Companies House. Still I’m sure Green will assist them in their predicament.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:14 pm - Feb 19, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2014 at 1:50 pm
3 0 Rate This

Re: Deed of Novation

I think it worth remembering that most internet bampots including myself got all excited quite some time ago over the fact that a Deed of Novation didn’t exist and by the time the dust settled we realised that the deed of novation wasn’t to do with the transfer of any rights from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland but apparently only dealt with transferring the responsibility for the repayment of Imran’s loan to Sevco 5088 from that company to Sevco Scotland.
===================
I can’t access all my old stuff right now, but I do remember clearly the missing deed of novation, which in the end just related to Ahmed. However I am as sure as I can be that the same leaked minutes of a board meeting did confirm that the assets of RFC found their way to Sevco Scotland by way of a deed of novation. And given that the original agreement for sale was between D&P and Sevco5088, how could it have been otherwise?
Could anyone provide a link to those board minutes?

View Comment

youtawknabootPosted on2:39 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Administration by Duff and Duffer! ( who claims the copyright?)

That’ll be myself thank you John 🙂
And very lucrative it is too…!!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:49 pm - Feb 19, 2014


I’m right in saying that in a football sense (whilst its still early in the first half) that IF it’s voluntary liquidation and asset sale to a new company then its up to 25 points deducted from TRFC – and for simplicity just assume they get to the end of the season and then, as part of the asset sale the transfer of the membership/licence (sorry auldheid!) is “at the board’s discretion” yes? My question obviously being, from a footballing sense, is the league of entry also subject to the boards decision or is assumed promotion automatic?

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on2:55 pm - Feb 19, 2014


‘A propos’ Phil’s latest, am I the only one scratching my head at the idea of the IPO money running out, and the £2.5 million credit facility being used up? Sevco have income and they have expenditure in the same way all of us do. They either have cash or they do not have cash. The idea that (for example) Ian Black’s salary is paid from money raised from the IPO while the electricity bill is paid from the credit facility is utterly ridiculous.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on3:02 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Peter Jung’s Soundcloud file is currently unavailable. Hopefully its just some maintenance on the site rather than it having been ‘burned’. Even if it has been taken down, readers may have downloaded the file for their own delectation. I’m a bit reticent about posting too much stuff in case it just identifies its source location and leads to it mysteriously being deleted. Again, many readers may have a copy of documents and this may allow conversations about them to take place without the document location itself being posted.

Perhaps this is why Charlotte ceremoniously deleted her tweets, to cover her tracks whilst still leaving the imprint sitting out there in cyberspace.

Barcabuster, neepheid.

Another slant on the separate 5088 and Scotland documents is that for a contract to be valid, consideration (payment) would have to be made. CW had the funds channeling through Simply Stockbroking, where Imran Ahmed was ensconced. The speculation concerning novation likely arose since not only was CW’s right to buy RFC (IL) apparently stolen but the funds to execute the deal were similarly annexed. I don’t think Charles Green necessarily had the £5.5M in readies lying around to do the deal himself. So if CW arranged the funds then he would perhaps be able to show where the consideration for the deal was coming from and that he was in control of said funds.

Whether the 5088 or Scotland document was used, the money was still required to make it happen. Simply Stockbroking were registered in England I suspect, so even if the assets being purchased were in Scotland, if the money was held in an English company then would English Law not be applied to assert the rights to these assets?

I’m not sure which board meeting you are referring to neepheid. The one on 9th May 2012 makes no mention of a novation. What it does say is “Debenture waiver in the event of a CVA”. Debenture was mentioned in the audio as well when CW was signing the papers. I wonder what this debenture does?

Campbellsmoney, what is a debenture for?

View Comment

futbolPosted on3:05 pm - Feb 19, 2014


neepheid says:
February 19, 2014 at 2:14 pm

I can’t claim to follow the discussion re the lack of a deed of novation (can’t access sound files presently which would no doubt help!) but I previously noticed the following in the published clumphany accounts:

“On 14 June 2012, Sevco 5088 Limited entered into agreements for no consideration to legally reassign its beneficial interest in funding placing letters held and to novate the trade and assets purchase agreement with RFC 2012 plc (in administration), to Sevco Scotland Limited (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd).”

Does this help or hinder the current thinking?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:06 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:

February 19, 2014 at 2:55 pm

I don’t have a clue what you are getting at, Bryce. I can’t find anything in Phil’s blog that could give cause to write that last sentence. Could you explain it? Ta.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on3:12 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:
February 19, 2014 at 2:55 pm

“The idea that (for example) Ian Black’s salary is paid from money raised from the IPO while the electricity bill is paid from the credit facility is utterly ridiculous.”
—————————
The four people that have currently given you a thumbs down probably agree with you entirely. However their hand gesture is incapable of making the fine distinction in the interpretation of the word ‘ridiculous’. ‘Ridiculous’ might be construed to mean that such a preposterous scenario is highly unlikely to occur. It could equally be taken to mean; ‘what kind of world are we living in when apparently respectable businesses conduct their affairs in such a manner.’

I myself have no definite opinion on the subject.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:15 pm - Feb 19, 2014


” Debenture” can mean many things.

In this case I would imagine that it means the floating charge. “Debenture” is used by English lawyers to denote a security document granted by a company containing securities over all of its assets. In England you can create all sorts of charges that you cannot do in Scotland. These charges (which will include a floating charge) are contained in one “debenture” in England. So when the English talk about a “debenture” in respect of a Scottish company they are invariably forgetting that Scottish companies can’t grant debentures in the way that English companies can.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:17 pm - Feb 19, 2014


futbol says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:05 pm
1 0 Rate This

neepheid says:
February 19, 2014 at 2:14 pm

I can’t claim to follow the discussion re the lack of a deed of novation (can’t access sound files presently which would no doubt help!) but I previously noticed the following in the published clumphany accounts:

“On 14 June 2012, Sevco 5088 Limited entered into agreements for no consideration to legally reassign its beneficial interest in funding placing letters held and to novate the trade and assets purchase agreement with RFC 2012 plc (in administration), to Sevco Scotland Limited (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd).”

Does this help or hinder the current thinking?
==========================
That’s exactly what I was looking for- thanks!

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:18 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Castofthousands says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:02 pm
Another slant on the separate 5088 and Scotland documents is that for a contract to be valid, consideration (payment) would have to be made.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
That is not correct. There does not always have to be consideration. Scots law and English law are different on this (Scots law does not require consideration and English law does not always require it).

View Comment

peterjungPosted on3:19 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Castofthousands says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:02 pm

Peter Jung’s Soundcloud file is currently unavailable.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Just checked…still up and available……

And the original file is always in a safe place……

https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/charlotte-fakeover-charles-1

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:20 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:
February 19, 2014 at 2:55 pm
0 10 i
Rate This

‘A propos’ Phil’s latest, am I the only one scratching my head at the idea of the IPO money running out, and the £2.5 million credit facility being used up? Sevco have income and they have expenditure in the same way all of us do. They either have cash or they do not have cash. The idea that (for example) Ian Black’s salary is paid from money raised from the IPO while the electricity bill is paid from the credit facility is utterly ridiculous.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
That’s right Bryce it is ridiculous – just as well no one said it.

Moving on now.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:22 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Smugas says:
February 19, 2014 at 2:49 pm
2 0 i
Rate This

I’m right in saying that in a football sense (whilst its still early in the first half) that IF it’s voluntary liquidation and asset sale to a new company then its up to 25 points deducted from TRFC – and for simplicity just assume they get to the end of the season and then, as part of the asset sale the transfer of the membership/licence (sorry auldheid!) is “at the board’s discretion” yes? My question obviously being, from a footballing sense, is the league of entry also subject to the boards decision or is assumed promotion automatic?

———————————————————————————————————————————–
Article 36 again. The division a newco would play in would be down to the board’s discretion.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:26 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

February 19, 2014 at 3:20 pm

That’s right Bryce it is ridiculous – just as well no one said it.

Moving on now.
__________________________
Campbellsmoney,
I thought you said, just the other day, that you can never say anything in less than 144 (or thereabouts) words. Here you said what I tried to say, rather clumsily it now looks, in much less words than I did 🙄

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:31 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Castofthousands says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:02 pm

I’m not sure which board meeting you are referring to neepheid. The one on 9th May 2012 makes no mention of a novation.
==========================
Having just read Ecobhoy’s post at 2.00pm, I think the relevant minutes are those on 31 October 2012. I’m still searching!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:47 pm - Feb 19, 2014


neepheid says: February 19, 2014 at 3:31 pm
—————————-
From the minutes of 31/10/2012 (there may be some typos – it was converted from an image to text by an OCR convertor program)

There is no mention of the word novation other than in relation to the Imran Ahmad Loan Facility

5.2 It was noted that prior to completion of the APA various investors (“Original PIacees”) had signed placing letters for the allotment of ordinary shares in the share capital of Sevco 5088. The Original Placees had advanced placing monies for the allotment of placing shares in Sevco 5088 conditional upon the completion of the APA by Sevco 5088 as the purchasing entity.It was noted that a few days prior to the completion date of the APA on 14 June 2012 the directors of Sevco 5088 had, following the receipt of tax advice and considering the commercial objectives for the acquisition of Rangers, decided to establish the Company for the purposes of making the acquisition of Rangers pursuant to the CVA or APA. The directors of Sevco 5088 established the Company on the basis that the shareholding and board structure would be the same as existed for Sevco 5088. The Company entered into the APA and acquired Rangers (with Sevco 5088 and the Administrators of RFC 2012 plc being parties to the APA in addition to the Company to provide written consent to the change of acquiring entity).

5.3 It was noted that the Original Placees had given their oral consent to the directors of the Company prior to completion of the APA for the assignment of their placing letters from Sevco 5088 to the Company and the transfer of the placing monies from Sevco 5088 to the Company for the purposes of enabling the Company to acquire the assets and business of Rangers pursuant to the terms of the Offer Letter.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:57 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Again from the Board minutes of 31/10/2012

8 Loan Facility & Letter – Imran Ahmad
8.1 It was noted that on 11 May 2012 Imran Ahmad advanced a £200,000 Ioan facility to Sevco 5088 with an arrangement fee of £50,000 for a term which was extended until 16 May 2012. The loan facility having been advanced in order to enable Sevco 5088 to pay a £200,000 deposit to the Administrators of RFC 2012 plc required to be paid by the Administrators of RFC 2012 plc at the time of signing the offer letter for the acquisition of the assets and business of RFC 2012 plc on 12 May 2012 in order to secure exclusivity. lt was noted that a meeting of the sole director of the Company had been held on 7 June 2012 (the “7 June Board Meeting”). At the 7 June Board Meeting the Company documented that it had approved the novation of the loan facility of £200,000 from Imran Ahmad with an arrangement fee of £50,000. The 7 June Board Meeting also considered and approved the allotment to Imran Ahmad of 2,200,000 new ordinary shares at a placing price of £0.01 per ordinary share, such allotment being offered in consideration for the provision of the loan facility and such shares were subscribed for by Imran Ahmad and paid for in full in cash. It was noted that the minutes for the 7 June Board Meeting contained some omissions. The 7 June Board meeting did not append the form of deed of novation to transfer the obligations from Sevco 5088 Limited to the Company in relation to the loan facility. The Company acknowledged this deed could not currently be located and a new draft was tabled at the meeting for approval and ratification (the “Deed of Novatlon”).

8.2 It was acknowledged that the balance of the loan facility together with the arrangement fee had been repaid in full on 15 August 2012.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:37 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Easyjambo,many thanks for that.

I would interpret the last paragraph of 5.2 of the minutes as referring to a Novation agreement, although it isn’t actually called that. I simply don’t see how the switch could have been legally carried out without a Novation agreement.

The following is an extract from a post by Newtz, dated 8 September at 4.31pm.

=======================
Further supporting Notes from RFCL Board meeting 31th Oct 2012

5.2
It was noted that prior to completion of the APA various investors (“Original Placees”) had signed placing letters for the allotment of ordinary shares in the share capital of Sevco 5088.

The Original Placees had advanced placing monies for the allotment of placing shares in Sevco 5088 conditional upon the completion of the APA by Sevco 5088 as the purchasing entity. It was
noted that a few days prior to the completion date of the APA on 14 June 2012 the directors of
Sevco 5088 had, following the receipt of tax advice and considering the commercial objectives
for the acquisition of Rangers, decided to establish the Company for the purposes of making the
acquisition of Rangers pursuant to the CVA or APA. The directors of Sevco 5088 established
the Company on the basis that the share holding and board structure would be the same as
existed for Sevco 5088. The Company entered into the APA and acquired Rangers (with Sevco
5088 and the Administrators of RFC 2012 pic being parties to the APA in addition to the Company to provide written consent to the change of acquiring entity).

5.3
It was noted that the Original Placees had given their oral consent to the directors of the
Company prior to completion of the APA for the assignment of their placing letters from Sevco
5088 to the Company and the transfer of the placing monies from Sevco 5088 to the Company
for the purposes of enabling the Company to acquire the assets and business of Rangers
pursuant to the terms of the Offer Letter.

Note:(newtz)
D&P (as officers of the court) would need to be provided with documentation demonstrating with a ‘high hurdle of proof’ that such a switch was legal. This document has never been produced.
Is written consent sufficient. Who were the signatories

[Extract from the Final Claim Document (Worthington)

The transaction (either disposition of the assets or the benefit of the CVA Agreement) would also appear to have been carried out in breach of s190 of the Companies Act 2006 which requires shareholder approval for a transaction of that value with a company connected with a director. That means the transaction is voidable on the application of Sevco 5088 unless the rights of a bona fide purchaser without notice would be affected. Clearly Sevco Scotland is not a bona fide purchaser without value.

It is important to note that Green has never provided a proper and accurate explanation of the transaction between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland. He should be asked to provide that explanation and provide a copy of the relevant agreements, which belong to Sevco 5088.

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

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:58 pm - Feb 19, 2014


As a probably not very relevant aside, someone bought 140,000 shares at 27.50p today. Would rumours about a £30m injection of cash to Ibrox stimulate an appetite for shares?

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on5:17 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Tom Nairn in 1970, adapted from Diderot said “Scotland will be reborn the day the last minister is strangled with the last copy of the Sunday Post.”

Maybe Scottish football will be reborn the day the last SFA president is strangled with the last copy of the five way agreement.

Just a thought.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on5:19 pm - Feb 19, 2014


peterjung says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:19 pm

“And the original file is always in a safe place……”
——————————–
I have a well developed sense of paranoia. Your spliced and cleaned up version is far more palatable than the original fragments. Don’t suppose you have any more of a similar fine vintage?

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on5:32 pm - Feb 19, 2014


futbol says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:05 pm

“…Sevco 5088 Limited entered into agreements for no consideration to legally reassign its beneficial interest in funding placing letters held and to novate the trade and assets purchase agreement…”
—————————–
That was a good spot futbol. I’ve never felt entirely comfortable that this statement sits happily alongside Craig Whyte’s Letter Before Claim (Action). It depends on whether this is a real dispute or just smoke and mirrors. Ticketus (Octopus) pursuit of CW could similarly just be a method of providing legal basis to claim whatever assets CW might possess that would satisfy their damages.

I’m not even sure we should be doing the Royal Courts and SMSM work for them but it is a strangely fascinating pursuit.

Campbellsmoney, thanks for keeping me right.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:34 pm - Feb 19, 2014


1. I have received a reply to my email to AIM about non-disclosure of Ally’s salary in the IPO prospectus.
The salient point appears to be..
“…Although the London Stock Exchange (the “Exchange”) has the power in certain specific circumstances (in accordance with AIM Rule 4) to authorise the omission of information from an AIM admission document, this power does not apply if the admission document is also a prospectus approved by the UK Listing Authority (“UKLA”). The guidance to AIM Rule 4 states that: “[w]here an admission document is also a prospectus under the Prospectus Rules, application for such [an omission] should be made to the UKLA. The Exchange itself may not authorise exemptions from any legal requirement under the Prospectus Rules.
As you may already know, because the Company’s admission to AIM involved a public offer of shares, it was required to publish a prospectus that was reviewed and approved by the UKLA prior to the Company’s admission to AIM. Accordingly, questions you may have regarding compliance with the Prospectus Rules should be addressed to the UKLA as the competent authority, details of which are set out at…:”

So I’ll need to fire off another email to the UKLA (which is, I think, under the Financial Conduct Authority -to one half of which I (incorrectly) first sent a query! )

2. I also received an acknowledgment of my email to the IPA ( Insolvency Practitioners Ass.) about dodgy ‘administrations’. They will reply in due course.

So, both AIM and the IPA get high marks thus far for civility and prompt responsiveness.
They leave organisations like the SFA looking distinctly even more amateurish, frightened, besieged and hostile in their reluctance to respond to supporters’ emails and/or letters.

View Comment

sarantseville 03Posted on5:39 pm - Feb 19, 2014


Ecobhoy at 2.00pm
Thanks for the reminder.
Why is no one of a blue persuasion(and MSM / SFA) interested in all of this??? I’ll answer…because the whole house of cards would come tumbling down. Thanks to all our super sleuths for continually exposing this on going sham. The truth will out.

View Comment

Leave a Reply