Our 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 đ
The interview was conducted a couple of days before the latest round of Armageddon, when Big Pink and Auldheid felt safe and well đ
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.
No1 Bob says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:36 pm
‘..The survey is open to everyone: …Join in the fun!.’
———–
Naughty boy!
I would , but q.6 kind of flummoxes me , referring as it does to being ‘proud of the long history.”
Seems to me they’re talking about a dead club, and much use that’s going to do them. đ
On the question of the Grim brothers lending some cash ( must have changed their mind about bidding for the Malta transport franchise), there must suddenly have been an emergency call for some readies, and quick.
Can RIFC be being dunned for very prompt payment of, say, social taxes or some such? Anybody?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
February 20, 2014 at 12:25 pm
=================================================================================
Howdy mate, thanks for the reply… Since the outset it has been a bad investment for the majority…As you say maybe some with larger investments need to throw in more now or see little or no return…
What gets me is the lack of bears commenting about the possibility of admin/sequestration, it is almost like they see this is good business strategy… If I supported that team I’d be black-afronted that my team were killed off shedding millions in debt and NOW it probably happening again…
For those about to financially back rangers #3, once bitten twice shy?? Shares, loans, sponsorships, credit facilities…Shirley not..
Ecobhoy – I’ve already acknowledged it wasn’t my finest post on this site, not helped by not explaining myself well, but at the same time you’ve making a lot of wrong assumptions. I can differentiate bear money and spiv money just as clearly as you but, to take an example I challenge you to state from which pot Ian Black’s estimated ÂŁ30000 January salary presumably paid by BACS came. Was it bear or spiv money? Was it IPO or season ticket money?
And your implication that I am not an ordinary football fan was unnecessary, inaccurate, does you no favours and lowers the overall tone of this excellent site.
JimBhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm
0 0 Rate Up
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
February 20, 2014 at 12:25 pm
=================================================================================
Howdy mate, thanks for the reply⊠Since the outset it has been a bad investment for the majorityâŠAs you say maybe some with larger investments need to throw in more now or see little or no returnâŠ
What gets me is the lack of bears commenting about the possibility of admin/sequestration, it is almost like they see this is good business strategy⊠If I supported that team Iâd be black-afronted that my team were killed off shedding millions in debt and NOW it probably happening againâŠ
For those about to financially back rangers #3, once bitten twice shy?? Shares, loans, sponsorships, credit facilitiesâŠShirley not..
======================================
in a similar (though different) vein
I think many of the sevconian supporters have invested so much “emotionally,” that they are prepared to do so again for a third rangers – in fear of getting little/no return for their earlier emotional investment
many friendships have been lost/broken over the old club/new club debate, if it happens again, many will be compelled to go through it all again simply to preserve the myth from the 1st time around
ching ching for the spivs – round 2.
My, that was a fun survey…..
12. What would be the single most important thing Rangers Football Club could do to improve its relationship with supporters?
(A) I take it that this means supporters in general – if so then administration followed by liquidation.
Scottish Football needs a strong constitution.
Ecobhoy 9:19 – putting other differences aside, I’ve seen speculation before about ‘directors’ plural rather than singular. You might be right and it is crucial, but it has been suggested that the plural is a generic description to cover any number of directors from one upwards. Director(s) would admittedly do a better job.
No1 Bob says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:36 pm
A survey squirrel !!!
Why would a clumpany feel the need to announce that it was in negotiations to secure a loan of ÂŁ1.5million?
Unless a heavyweight debt collector was standing nearby with a big stick, ready to bring it down on the head of FC Spivco.
That statement sounded very like: âHonest, Luigi, Iâll get you the cash tomorrow. My uncleâs come into an inheritance and heâs promised me a cut. No sweat. Itâll be sweet. Please call off your guys. Donât hit me, Luigi.â
And what if Laxeyâs tell Wallace: âNo deal. Weâll take our cash now, thanks.â?
Worrying times for the two-year-old clumpany.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:03 pm
I think i posted here a while back that rangers 3 will be the “real rangers” the middle one was just the apprentice boys…Pardon the pun..!! They can shed clubs like they shed debts…Rangersitis is a rabid strain of Teflonitis..!
redlichtie says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:06 pm
My, that was a fun surveyâŠ..
12. What would be the single most important thing Rangers Football Club could do to improve its relationship with supporters?
(A) I take it that this means supporters in general â if so then administration followed by liquidation.
Scottish Football needs a strong constitution.
I was more constructive in my reply. I suggested “they set up a Fans forum not run by bigoted morons”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
nickmcguinness says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Hilarious mate… đ I think Hector is around the corner with a note to paste on the door, a locksmith and a chain/padlock for the big gates..
I have had the feeling for a while that tomorrow will be a significant day….
Why would they put out that they are TRYING to secure a loan for a specific amount when we have known for weeks they have been in the smoke with their begging bowl…. IMO this could be their get out, could not secure the loan, borassic therefore one course of action….
Bryce Curdy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:09 pm
” Director(s) would admittedly do a better job.”
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Director(s) who fulfilled their duties would be a start.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm
wow, inly contacting 1.2M of the 500M supporters â not a huge survey then
=================================================================
The biggest advantage of this kind of mass mailing is that it usually enables you to clear-out at least 50% of the redundant email addresses on your database and you can save a bit on storage costs.
The downside of course is that Mr Wallace is about to start learning that a lot of the history is built on myth including the size of the support who only managed to gather just over 40k signatures for the anti-HMRC petition over a 12 month period when the required minimum target was 100k and the 40k was only achieved by widespread cheating đ
No matter what the press release says this fan consultation exercise will receive a poor response with possibly more Celtic fans completing it than Bears. A bit like the pledges for the IPO where I think 20,000+ pledged was it ÂŁ20+ million with the majority being Celtic supporters. The reality was that only around ÂŁ5 million was allegedly raised by 8k Bears from memory. This is the stark reality of the strength of the support and Mr Wallace is about to discover the hard truth at Ibrox consists of pure Moonbeams
1. JimBhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm
I think i posted here a while back that rangers 3 will be the âreal rangersâ
————————————
âRealâ from a choice of the existing one and a possible new one?
Or real from all 3?
In my mind, there is only one Glasgow Rangers and it is now in the process of liquidation.
The existing one and any reincarnations to follow will still be seen by me as a Rangers, just not the one I remember from the past.
Madbhoy24941 says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Howdy, I wonder if there could ever be a scenario where there are actually 2 rangers (teams) in existence at the same time. One run out from a rented Ibrox and the other maybe groundsharing with St Mirren or Queens park (Queens park rangers)… đ My point being the fans seem split now so could some stick with the current rangers and whatever comes to pass and maybe another fan group get together saying enough is enough let’s create a fan run rangers, back to basics etc… Just a thought..
JimBhoy says: February 20, 2014 at 2:25 pm
“Why would they put out that they are TRYING to secure a loan for a specific amount when we have known for weeks they have been in the smoke with their begging bowlâŠ. IMO this could be their get out, could not secure the loan, borassic therefore one course of actionâŠ.”
TBH the worst possible position to be in is to announce to everyone in the market that you are trying to buy, or arrange a business deal. There’s no way to get worse terms… Is this a death knell?
Smugas says:
February 20, 2014 at 9:34 am
EDIT EXILED â go and do us a favour and edit your link to the herald piece 1 POINT 5 million bailout.
**************
The link is not my creation – its the Heralds! Their copyright………..
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/easdales-and-key-investor-line-up-15m-bailout-for-rangers.23486451
Bryce Curdy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Ecobhoy 9:19 â putting other differences aside, Iâve seen speculation before about âdirectorsâ plural rather than singular. You might be right and it is crucial, but it has been suggested that the plural is a generic description to cover any number of directors from one upwards. Director(s) would admittedly do a better job.
=====================================================================
Yes I have often been regaled with that ludicrous explanation by PR trolls in the past – of course I am not suggesting you are of that ilk. If we were talking about a contract document where critical terms were defined then I am happy to accept it is a possible explanation.
However we are talking about a company Board Minute and in the absence of any definition to the contrary on the minute I think the ordinary meaning of the word must be taken to apply. Therefore director means director and directors means more than one director.
Green was involved in the board meeting and as it has been claimed he was the only director of Sevco 5088 I might have thought that it would have been more usual to identify him as the person who persuaded the original share placees into switching their cash from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland.
Perhaps he didn’t actually want that noted and, if so, even better to further disguise his sole involvement by talking about directors in the plural. However perhaps he is a modest man who didn’t want to claim credit for such a key switch in allegiance especially if none of the placees told CW what he was up to.
But then perhaps everyone – except the Bears – knew all along what the blueprint was and still is as it hirples onwards and quite possibly downwards.
Billy Boyce says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:37 pm
If you provided your personal data to FF and FF have transferred that peronal data to TRFC then it is possible that there has been a breach of the DPA, where you have no reasonable expectation that FF would transfer your personal data in that manner.
However, it would be reasonable for FF to assume that all subscribers are fans, and that it would be in their interests as fans to have their voice heard. Thus a transfer for the purpose of TRFC asking you to complete a questionnaire may not be a breach of the DPA. If that is the rational for the data transfer then FF could rely upon schedule 2, paragraph 6(1) DPA to make the transfer.
Perhaps a more interesting question is – are the people who run FF registered as a Data Controller with the UK ICO? i.e. have they notified? There is a possibility that they do not need to notify, if they are a non-for profit organisation and they only process personal data to support membership services and subscriptions. However, if they collect membership details and then pass these onto a third-party their use of personal data extends beyond that of running a club (so to speak). That level of processing may mean that they need to notify.
iamacant says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Its well known Sevco are skint.
Why use a FREE survey provider available to ALL and SUNDRY when they have a database of season ticket holders and supporters clubs. Surely that would have provided plenty of names and addresses to kick off a genuine fan based survey if that is what they really want to engage in.
Cannot believe that Wallace put his name to this, and heâs allegedly a respected businessman in the city?????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Still to see the evidence that Wallace is a respected businessman in the City
It seems to be a line peddled by the MSM Although I`m curious as to why PMG infers he is a decent man
Any thoughts Phil?
I suggest
There is evidence to the contrary
Like
Claiming to need 120 days and a hired Consultant to sort out a tiny business
………….When his FD Stockbridge was predicting a cash crisis in 120 days
Like
Not firing a duff Manager on ÂŁ800kpa
Like
Not disowning the Loonies
Like
Not selling any players when cash was desperately needed
Like
Not promising to clean up Charity cash fiddles
Like
Not challenging Directors using part owned subsidaries to line their pockets
Like
Not firing everybody who could save short term money net of their redundancy cost
Like
Not immediately recruiting a replacement for the Stadium Mgr (H&S area) fired by Green
Like
Keeping the services of Media House
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I could go on and on comparing Wallace`s actions and inactions with a competent Fergus McCann type doing the same job
But I won`t
The guy is an out an out Spiv
Whatever credibility Graham Wallace purportedly had before has now been lost surely………
Wallace is now 2/3 of his way into his 120 days…………and asks fans at this stage what they think. Its akin to someone from Northern Rock doing a survey of customers queuing up outside the branches while waiting to get their money out…………….
The storyline fed has been that Graham Wallace knew what he had to do – so did he really have to ask the worldwide population if they were adequately satisfied with match day catering?
How long will it now take for the surveys to be collated and information put in a nice tidy folder? And at what expense?
As I said before, if Wallace was interested in austerity, the first thing he could have done is made Ally and the boys (no H there!) drive up to Forfar on Sat morning………….
He didn’t……so it is for the avoidance of doubt that we can now confirm that he is not interested in austerity or making any cutbacks or trimming…………
Long Time Lurker says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:50 pm
LTL, there’s surely also the issue of ‘fair obtaining’ whereby if data is collected for one purpose, it cannot then be used for another purpose.
In my past experience, this was most commonly used to prevent banks using customer-provided data about where their mortgage is held for example (because customers need to give them that so that their monthly direct debit repayment can be set up) to then approach them about transferring their mortgage.
The principle is the same. Maybe not so clear cut in the RFC* survey example but if Billy Boyce receives a season ticket offer or merchandise sale offersd from RFC* then that would definitely be a breach imo.
This wonderful prospective âloanâ of ÂŁ1.5m, seems to be widely reported in terms of âAlthough no agreement has been finalised, it is understood the money would be repaid in the form of shares rather than cashâ.
Now anyone sensible offering a loan on such a basis would likely seek the âequity termsâ to be agreed upfront.
Amongst the issues are
will this be a mandatory conversion of debt into equity at the conversion date(s), or will it be optional on the part of the loanholder
what are the conversion terms, are they fixed now or subject to the share price in the future
if it is mandatory conversion then it is effectively issuing equity now however it will have a higher yield on the loan versus the dividends (laugh) on the underlying shares during the period of the loan. However the loanstock would have rights ahead of the shareholders in an administration
if the future conversion is optional on the part of the loanholder, how will this be achieved? Convertible loan stock or loan stock with warrants are the most likely routes.
Then the equity to be issued, under whatever route is chosen, has to fit within the authorities set out in resolution 9 from the last AGM. Otherwise, another general meeting and delay before the convertible loanstock can be issued. Now a quick calc, market cap is approx ÂŁ18m today, so ÂŁ1.5m loan, depending on the terms, might convert into new shares equivalent to about 8% of the existing issued capital. Assuming the calculation has been addressed and this convertible loan (or alternative arrangement) fits within Resolution 9 it may be that they have all but maxed out within Resolution 9 and that even if more funds were available on similar terms they could not take them up without going to a general meeting.
Finally the pesky professionals will want paid for all this! Debt and equity rights being issued to a director and to significant shareholder. Board may well feel it needs independent advice on behalf of the other shareholders? Fees for the advisers to the loan providers? Ballpark, fees might be of the order of multiples of 10s of thousands, maybe even well into six figures. And those fees are largely fixed, ie similar fees if they were raising ÂŁ1.5m or ÂŁ5.0m.
And if the âconvertible loanâ is issued, presumably the terms will have to be disclosed to the Stock Exchange? Another day of posting overload on TSFM?
Mr Wallace is between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Fail to raise this loan and his credibility is deeply fractured. Raise the loan on onerous terms, pretty similar outcome.
JimBhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:40 pm
I wonder if there could ever be a scenario where there are actually 2 rangers (teams) in existence at the same time. One run out from a rented Ibrox and the other maybe groundsharing with St Mirren or Queens park (Queens park rangers)⊠đ My point being the fans seem split now so could some stick with the current rangers and whatever comes to pass and maybe another fan group get together saying enough is enough letâs create a fan run rangers, back to basics etc⊠Just a thought..
———————
It’s possible, Man Utd fans did it and are doing not to badly. Only one thing, they did it as a matter of principal and didn’t focus too much of things like “History” or “The Big Hoose”.
jockybhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Howdy mate. IMO Someone is pressing them, is it Hector? Can the payrole not be met, the run must be soon I would guess tomorrow or early next week? Are some shareholders seeking clarity over recent rumours? Has the AIM raised a few questions? No safety certificate for the dodgy stand, repair bill? Has the SFA enquired about staff payments (ok that might be pushing things too far)…
They would be heralding the fact that they HAD secured some additional inward investment not that they are ‘TRYING’ to get a specific amount. It suggests to me that the brakes of the bus are not working…
ecobhoy 2:47 pm – the explanation may ultimately be entirely incorrect, but ‘ludicrous’ is a considerable stretch, and quite why such an interpretation would be exclusive to ‘PR trolls’ is beyond me. Speaking personally, I’m genuinely undecided. And I am also genuinely sorry that once again you were unable to reply without feeling the need to throw in a thinly disguised gratuitous insult. My post could not have been any more reasonable.
JimBhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:40 pm
1 0 Rate This
Madbhoy24941 says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Howdy, I wonder if there could ever be a scenario where there are actually 2 rangers (teams) in existence at the same time. One run out from a rented Ibrox and the other maybe groundsharing with St Mirren or Queens park (Queens park rangers)⊠đ My point being the fans seem split now so could some stick with the current rangers and whatever comes to pass and maybe another fan group get together saying enough is enough letâs create a fan run rangers, back to basics etc⊠Just a thought..
=============================================
Anyone know what the deal is between Queens Park and the SFA regarding the use of Hampden. I’m pretty sure that Hampden is now a stand alone entity (National Stadium Ltd) that Queens have the right to play at but does this right only exist as long as they are in the SPFL ie if they get relegated they lose this right.
@TomTom
I actually thought QP owned Hampden..
Interesting post on LSE RFC message board today
================================================
PMG called it rightCreated by JupiterFX – Today 10:39
Today 13:18
saxon8
21
Go to Thread
I’m sure the blue mafia will go out of the way to block my corporate account, but there is no doubt that PMG was 100% correct in all his assertions. RIFC ran out of money on the 10th. The loan is working capital (to pay wages). One million is due next month as part of merchandising outsource deal (this should cover March payroll, with cuts). Will need huge turn out in Scottisg Cup ties to meet April salaries. So if cuts and good cup turn out, then they will limp forward to close season. Then What?
===========================================================
Just a thought – the Tax Havens guy has gone for 2 weeks and will be unable to take the online survey since he is offline and unable to connect to the worldwide web (copyright Adam)……..
Poor guy has been able to give thousands of Peepil hope that the Unseenhand will be seen……..yet his opinion on the match day catering is not going to be noted…………….karma eh!
ecobhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:27 pm
12 0 i
Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm
wow, inly contacting 1.2M of the 500M supporters â not a huge survey then
=================================================================
No matter what the press release says this fan consultation exercise will receive a poor response with possibly more Celtic fans completing it than Bears
———————————————————————————
To be fair, I can see them getting quite a good response from Bears it will not involve any of them having to part with their own money
Phil thinks the ÂŁ1,5m is to formally finalise Wallace’s ‘cost cutting’ exercise, ie administration…
Bryce Curdy says:
February 20, 2014 at 3:07 pm
ecobhoy 2:47 pm â the explanation may ultimately be entirely incorrect, but âludicrousâ is a considerable stretch, and quite why such an interpretation would be exclusive to âPR trollsâ is beyond me. Speaking personally, Iâm genuinely undecided. And I am also genuinely sorry that once again you were unable to reply without feeling the need to throw in a thinly disguised gratuitous insult. My post could not have been any more reasonable.
==========================================
FYI I don’t do ‘thinly disguised gratuitous insults’ – I do the full bhoona and there’s no mistaking it when I serve it up hot and dish it out đ
I specifically stated I didn’t regard you as a PR troll and if you choose to believe I am lying then that’s up to you and I certainly won’t be losing any sleep over what you claim un-named sources are stating with regard to whether Green was the only director who persuaded the original Sevco 5088 share placees to switch their cash to Sevco Scotland and enable that company to buy the Rangers business and assets.
I have previously asked the PR trolls I refer to if it wasn’t just Green who did the persuading then who were the other directors involved in this vital cash switch which enabled the purchase of Rangers by Sevco Scotland despite Sevco 5088 having the exclusive deal to make that purchase and the original Sevco 5088 share placees having a guarantee that their money could only be used by Sevco 5088 to buy Rangers and no other entity could use it to purchase Rangers.
And yet it was so used on the strength of verbal agreements given to a mystery director by, in the main, mystery shareholders. I don’t believe there was more than one director involved unless it was CW and AE. And if it was the latter then they would have been aware of the switcheroo and not duped parties.
That is the real issue that needs addressed here and not whether your feelings are hurt or not IMO.
Long Time Lurker says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:50 pm
————————————–
(and Nawlite) Thank you for your information on data protection regulations and possible breaches – much appreciated.
When the whole sorry Ibrox saga was finally discussed in the media from February 2012 onwards, a number of MSM writers made the point there was much for them to learn after the Murray and Whyte experiences. There was going to be challenges in the future, and there was no way they would just accept official press releases as fact without question.
After the quite incredible trumpeting today of the club from Ibrox ‘trying’ to secure a ÂŁ1.5M crisis loan as a good news story, I have to ask if things have got even worse in terms of how they report.
Imagine a situation where there are 3 directors on the board of a company.
Imagine a situation where 2 of those know that should the company fail and they suffer any financial liability (such as liability for wrongful trading or breach of duties) that a third party will indemnify them.
Imagine that the third director not only does not have such an indemnity but does not know that the first 2 do.
Imagine that the third director says to the other directors “We have to do something about the financial state of this company. Its much worse than I thought and we are about to run out of money.”
Imagine that the first 2 directors don’t care because sorting it out doesn’t fit with whatever plan they or their backers have.
Imagine that the third director says “I cannot continue to be on the board of a company that is heading for insolvency like this. We might all be exposed to liability for wrongful trading – that is what my lawyers are telling me. if we do not get money in now I will have to resign.”
Imagine that the first 2 directors say ” We will lend the company some money to get it through its sort term cashflow difficulties is that ok? ”
Imagine that the third director says ” Yes, my lawyers are telling me that as long as I have a reasonable expectation that you will lend money to the company and that as a result there is a reasonable expectation that we can avoid insolvent liquidation, then I am not at risk of wrongful trading. When can you lend the money to the company? ”
Imagine the first 2 directors say ” We will get back to you on that once we have agreed the terms.”
And the third director says “But you will lend the money won’t you?”
And the first 2 say “Oh sure, yes – and we will make sure that it is reported in the press that we are looking at this so if the issue ever arises then you can later claim that you were acting reasonably as at February 20, 2014 in having a reasonable expectation that we would make the loan – after all the whole world knew about it.”
Might that explain what has been going on over the past couple of weeks perhaps?
Based on what Phil says in his latest blog (http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/blown-off-course/), and Campbell’smoney (did you take it from the MacDonalds BTW?), this could be the start of the end for this incarnation.
Presumably (and perhaps Phil can enlighten?) they started this process after shopping for a loan in London recently?
Why would they have gone to London begging if they knew they could get cash from Laxey/Easdales?
I may pop into the Bow St Wine Vaults again and see if Malkie has an opinion…
Alan Brazil declaring to the world â well the diners of a certain steakhouse in EC2R 8DU â that he loves Celtic AND Rangers
Mmmm is that Sandy Easdale sharing a glass of champers next to him??? It couldn’t be , could it
Campbellsmoney says:
February 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Para Handy says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Merit in that hypothesis but now I’m wondering if the press release was to put pressure on the Easdales to progress this.
If they don’t then “look, some big boys didn’t do it and ran away, not our fault”.
Gen Congrats to the stv youngster â Royal Television Society no less; Peter Smith
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/264788-peter-smith-wins-rts-award-for-scotland-tonight-rangers-report/
đ
ecobhoy 3:32 pm – I will allow others to read your post from 2:47 pm and decide for themselves whether or not it was a thinly disguised insult. I apologise if you were being entirely matter-of-fact but rightly or wrongly that was not my initial reading.
Equally ‘un-named sources’ seemed to be implying something disingenuous. I don’t have any sources per se whatsoever. I did read speculation about the significance of ‘directors’ plural not singular, most of it probably on TSFM! The notion that this was a generic term that could encompass a singular director struck me as plausible if less than completely convincing rather than ‘ludicrous’. I was merely playing devil’s advocate.
And my feeling are not hurt in the slightest. I am in total agreement about the issues needing addressed. All I’m trying to do is engage in constructive debate.
The REAL story IMHO is where and who to 20 odd million went in circa12 months
And – why isn`t there some action about that
.
Oh my â that`s not the agenda
Wonder why not
:slamb:
Blimey
Time for a bit of unpopularity I think.
In his latest blog (as in earlier blogs) PMG talks about his financial contacts. His latest blog talks about three (a “highly-paid trio”) who “would move in the same milieu” as Messrs Wallace and Nash. Those three think that the most likely use of ÂŁ1.5m at the moment would be to fund an administration.
There are lots of highly-paid people in the City (and elsewhere). There are lots of people involved in finance. Some people are both highly-paid and work in finance. Just because you are one of those does not mean you know the first thing about insolvency.
The financial analysis of this whole affair has been bedevilled by the comments of so-called finance experts opining on insolvency. Neil Patey is the obvious one. Ernst & Young have loads of insolvency people – but Mr Patey is not one of them. He appears to know as much as a layman when it comes to insolvency matters.
The ability to raise funds in the market or from banks or to do any amount of fancy corporate finance dazzling in the “City” (I really hate that word) does not mean a thing when it comes to how insolvencies work.
A highly-paid trio who move in the same “milieu” as Wallace and Nash (whatever such a “milieu” might actually consist of) may or may not know their arses from their elbows when it comes to insolvency. Wallace and Nash don’t strike me as insolvency experts – so is there any reason to think that the inhabitants of their milieu would be?
Para Handy – as many have said before, we owe it to posterity for this site to be a bastion of accuracy. In that regard, I would like to point out it’s the Bow Wine Vaults – as in Bow Lane in The City as opposed to the West End’s Bow Street. We’ve had a Christmas lunch in the Wine Vaults last couple of years and very nice it’s been too…
I thankyew.
JockyBhoy
Pretty straight-talking BBC report:
ÂŁ1.5m should be a sizable sticking plaster for any ‘debt-free’ medium sized business but all sides seem to agree it’s purely to cover costs before ST renewals.
Mebbe it will but I think it more likely that a pie in the sky interpretation of ‘debt free’ is about to be brought crashing back to earth.
Some of the analyses and questions raised on here today really cuts to the chase and again highlights the apparent wilful woeful inadequacy of the Scottish media.
It would be so refreshing if at least one major media player shone a light on Wallace’s back of the sofa search for cash to keep his club from sinking.
Unlike Wallace I guess I won’t be holding my breath.
In the past I’ve been reluctant to pay much attention to the spivery talk on here. Feel stupid now though as there can be no other explanation for the series of events going back to the Murray decision to offload to Whyte.
Fans of the Ibrox club must be feeling increasingly poor and even the slowest seem to be realising that it’s all happening again.
If they have any sense at all they should cut the ties with the tribute act and set up an alternative club run upon sustainable lines.
If they don’t then I can’t see any other future except repeated financial crisis and/or insolvency.
It’s all becoming tedious and it’s particularly irritating that it is only being sustained by a complicit media who are providing just enough oxygen for the current incarnation to continue breathing through a very long straw.
Apologies for the rant but ffs!
Campbellsmoney says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:38 pm
blah blah blah
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Intemperate rant over for the moment.
I mean no discourtesy to Phil (who I know reads and joins in here). I very much value and appreciate his contribution to the debate (I have his book đ ). He is one of the real leaders in how this farrago is viewed and understood – I just meant to say that I hope his contacts are really insolvency savvy.
Campbellsmoney,
Was the statement from Wallace a way of trying to convince auditors to sign off on accounts?
Or was it a case of saying: âWe need ÂŁ1.5million to survive. And weâve not got it yet. HELP!!!â
Campbellsmoney says:
February 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Imagine a situation where there are 3 directors on the board of a company.
Imagine a situation where 2 of those know that should the company fail and they suffer any financial liability (such as liability for wrongful trading or breach of duties) that a third party will indemnify them.
Imagine that the third director not only does not have such an indemnity but does not know that the first 2 do.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Campbell
You may well be right
Itâs a very coherent description of what may be going on at Ibrox.
Maybe Wallace is the smart Spiv and the Easdales are amateurs. People more used to bottom fishing than City style Spivery. For sure nobody will be trusting anybody on the Board.
I wouldnât be a bit surprised if the Easdales plan all along was to use the wrongful trading issue as leverage to get Wallace to resign without paying up his contract. If so, this story about a loan may well be a pretence to keep him on board until he is totally compromised
What would be more significant would be the consequences of taking the Admin date to the wire threatening an abrupt end to TRFC. Against this background the Easdales could announce that without a fresh injection of ST monies the club was finished. Wallace would walk immediately or be fired by a Friendly Administrator without his terminal bonus
This would probably be enough of a shock for Bears to pony up a few ÂŁm in advance STs payable to RIFC to keep TRFC going to the end of the season. However RIFC would be entitled to keep a proportion of this cash if it could be offset against TRFC debt to RIFC
.So the Bears would be buying advance STs in a panic not knowing whether they would be honoured next season
A right fine mess
twopanda says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm
“…… and has covered the developments at Rangers since the club went into administration in February 2012. ..”
——–
But why the heck can STV not say “went into liquidation”? They just will not acknowledge it, even while apparently praising one of their own for being good at asking questions.
Thinking further ahead and purely hypothetically
Any of the accountancy types on here want to have a stab at how, if RIFC was ever sitting on some cash further down the road, that cash would best be evacuated from RIFC back to the shareholders?
With my Pooh Bear sized brain, it looks to me as though dividend might be difficult given the losses that must be in RIFC (assuming TRFC never repays RIFC back for everything it has advanced so far). Would it have to be an MVL or is there another way?
Bryce Curdy says:
February 20, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Cheers, Bryce đ
john clarke says:
February 20, 2014 at 5:10 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
twopanda says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm
ââŠâŠ and has covered the developments at Rangers since the club went into administration in February 2012. ..â
âââ
But why the heck can STV not say âwent into liquidationâ? They just will not acknowledge it, even while apparently praising one of their own for being good at asking questions.
———————————————————————————————————————————
It really is quite simple – its Doublethink – the ability to simultaneously hold two mutually exclusive opposing viewpoints in your head and not see the contradiction.
The club went into admin. But by the time RFC 2012 went into liquidation, the club was elsewhere (it was in Sevco). So in their heads they can say, “the club went into admin but not liquidation”. Utter rubbish of course.
Or they are feart.
So what we have is a “holding statement” that negotiations are “ongoing”. Nothing is agreed “yet”.
Presumably they are indeed out of cash then.
I was always told by my old commerce teacher many years ago, and I know this is slightly old fashioned, that to borrow for investment is good business sense but to borrow to survive is suicide.. What we have is precisely that.
I see no business plan, no, cost cutting, no, eh, intelligent business practice being applied whatsoever, no sign of a 120 day plan being applied other than a ballsed up attempt a players pay cut, no vision, no action, no engagement with the Bears, no coherent media policy đ ,
Many regulars on here could have come up with 20 Minute plan and implemented it in a day. A yes in addition to the above list would be nice for a change?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/20/barcelona-charged-tax-fraud-over-neymar-signing
Would never happen here. Sadly.
Danish Pastry says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:45 pm
I see the BBC have decided to go with the opinion of Maureen Leslie of MLM Solutions who in the past IIRC talked a whole lot more sense that the ever present Neil Patey.
Once again another clear warning to the Bears that they need to keep their eye on the ball. If only they would take a hint.
From the world of Rugby League in Yorkshire, how to deal with players who bet on games they play in. Maybe I should copy it to the SFA?
http://www.batleynews.co.uk/news/batley-bulldogs-to-stand-by-banned-duo-campbell-and-faal-1-6451181
jockybhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:44 pm
1 0 Rate This
Para Handy â as many have said before, we owe it to posterity for this site to be a bastion of accuracy. In that regard, I would like to point out itâs the Bow Wine Vaults â as in Bow Lane in The City as opposed to the West Endâs Bow Street. Weâve had a Christmas lunch in the Wine Vaults last couple of years and very nice itâs been tooâŠ
I thankyew.
JockyBhoy
—————————–
Thanks JockyBhoy. My only defence is that I have never left the place not in cups….
Also I am remiss in not thanking upthehoops about his correction regarding Aidan Smith. I do find it strange that a Hibee (or anyone really) should appear to be supporting the Sevco/Old Firm/Armageddon mythology… Or have I read it wrong?
john clarke says: at 5:10 pm
twopanda says: at 4:19 pm
ââŠâŠ and has covered the developments at Rangers since the club went into administration in February 2012. ..â
âââ
But why the heck can STV not say âwent into liquidationâ? They just will not acknowledge it, even while apparently praising one of their own for being good at asking questions.
.
Valid JC â but PS did deliver straightforward questions difficult to weasel out off
Don`t start me on the MSM đ
As for the liquidation thing â I take the long view
In a couple of years there`ll be a perfunctory report in the Edinburgh Gazette â followed by some sort of CoS thing â followed by the filing of papers in a vault â followed by the realisation that Company termination dissolution is permanent â and it cannot now be stopped. That`ll be difficult to fudge will that in a couple of years. It will simply not exist.
History will not be kind to all the assorted miscreants behind this mess
wottpi says:
February 20, 2014 at 5:27 pm
3 0 Rate This
I see the BBC have decided to go with the opinion of Maureen Leslie of MLM Solutions who in the past IIRC talked a whole lot more sense that the ever present Neil Patey.
————
I’m not that genned up on the who’s who of financial pundits, but did think she was a breath of fresh air. Whoever sought her opinion is to be applauded.
Bryce Curdy says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:27 pm
I was merely playing devilâs advocate. I am in total agreement about the issues needing addressed. All Iâm trying to do is engage in constructive debate.
====================================================
Playing Devil’s Advocate can be a useful tool on occasion although it can be overused IMO and can become merely fence-sitting at its best. Personally I would rather put my case clearly and in simple language often after I have looked at opposing opinions and decide what my position actually is.
That allows other posters to see where I’m coming from and gives them the opportunity, if they so wish, to state their views either in support or opposition. That’s how I personally attempt to engage in constructive debate – what you see is what you get from me and I seldom play Devil’s Advocate as I find, in my experience, it is often used for time-wasting and deflection by trolls on a number of blogs..However over a period of time such posters become identified and ignored.
As I previously stated I have neither said nor implied you are a troll and if I thought you were I would clearly state my opinion and then permanently ignore you as you would not be carrying on a constructive debate and I would therefore have no interest in any ‘games’ that you were playing. However I look forward to your engagement in constructive debate which is the reason most of us are here.
GoosyGoosy says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Cannot believe that Wallace put his name to this, and heâs allegedly a respected businessman in the city?????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Still to see the evidence that Wallace is a respected businessman in the City
It seems to be a line peddled by the MSM Although I`m curious as to why PMG infers he is a decent man
=============================================================================
Goosy….come now dear chap…surely the fact that he is a CA must at least get him on to the lower scale of business reputations…but wait, were there not a few other CA’s or equivalents around in the last few years…?
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m sure it’s been pointed out previously that a company can’t just issue shares just because the directors want to, or even need to. They have to offer them to all shareholders, or hold an EGM to have it passed. Could this be today’s plan, try very hard to find a solution to the cash crisis by getting directors and a major shareholder to agree a loan to be paid back in shares, get agreement, but just as the documents are about to be signed, they discover they can’t, at this time, assign the necessary shares, and, well that’s all folks! Administration is the only answer. They have previous, of sorts, in this, ie the ‘realisation’ that Sevco 5088 couldn’t be used because it was an English registered company so they created Sevco Scotland (I know, they changed the excuse at a later date but that was what was trumpeted at the crucial time). It would get the Easdales out of a difficult ‘living amongst the bears’ hole as they could demonstrate they tried their best and were willing to put up the money. Or it could be that the same result would be achieved by the faceless (to most people) Laxeys refusing to agree the deal, again leaving the two bears free to live amongst the family of bears.
Maybe a bit far fetched, but if I’m correct that they can’t assign the shares as things stand, then they won’t be able to set up the loans as anything other than repayable in full, and I doubt they (TRFC) could possibly afford to do that.
Allyjambo says:
February 20, 2014 at 6:25 pm
It would get the Easdales out of a difficult âliving amongst the bearsâ hole as they could demonstrate they tried their best and were willing to put up the money.
=======================================================
The flaw I see in the argument is that I don’t think the Easdales would have have any probs âliving amongst the bearsâ no matter what course of action they decided on đ
Allyjambo says:
February 20, 2014 at 6:25 pm
3 0 i
Rate This
Someone correct me if Iâm wrong, but Iâm sure itâs been pointed out previously that a company canât just issue shares just because the directors want to, or even need to.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
They can if the pre-emption rights have been disapplied. Wasn’t there some sort of vote about that in the run up to Christmas? đ
Of course maybe the loan is to be made to TRFC not RIFC. Maybe the shares would be in TRFC. Maybe the loan would be secured by a floating charge from TRFC (which would give the right to appoint an administrator) . Maybe that is what all needs to be discussed.
ecobhoy says:
February 20, 2014 at 6:36 pm
You are probably correct on that, not that you are often wrong, but you perhaps have an advantage over those like myself hailing from the other side of the country, and never having heard of the brothers Easdale before they became embroiled in our favourite saga. Still, I’m sure that even they would prefer to be hailed as the would be saviours, even behind their backs, than knowing that those fawning bears (do bears fawn, or is that dears) are actually thinking ‘you turds’. As it’s not going to cost them anything, they might as well try it… or not, as the case may be đ We’ve seen a few fall guys in the past few years, maybe the brothers feel they don’t want to be the next, even though they still might be, but don’t know it!
Para Handy says:
February 20, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Also I am remiss in not thanking upthehoops about his correction regarding Aidan Smith. I do find it strange that a Hibee (or anyone really) should appear to be supporting the Sevco/Old Firm/Armageddon mythology⊠Or have I read it wrong?
========================
Cheers Para. Not sure I remember the article you refer to, but my intervention was solely because I knew, as an ex-Scotland on Sunday reader of many years, that Aidan Smith was a massive Hibee!
Incidentally, I ceased to be a Scotland on Sunday reader when they gave Chris Graham a platform three weeks in succession to spout totally subjective, some would say paranoid, nonsense. Among other things I recall him alluding to ‘rumours’ of a relationship between Stewart Regan and Peter Lawwell going back some time. I thought it was a low point for S.O.S, and as Graham had been in the paper three weeks in a row spouting similar claptrap I simply stopped buying it. I don’t demand they be a cheerleader for my team, but I certainly object to the subjective views of Chris Graham being forced on long time readers.
There’s a nice invitation to the united press corps at the bottom. It even includes a ‘please’:
So “Rangers” is a company after all?
Campbellsmoney says:
February 20, 2014 at 6:40 pm
They can if the pre-emption rights have been disapplied. Wasnât there some sort of vote about that in the run up to Christmas? đ
——-
There was a vote (‘Resolution 10’), but it failed to achieve the required 75% majority to pass.
However, I think Wallace (or was it Somers?) stated after the AGM that they would try again to get it through at a later date.
Graham Wallace stated categorically this club will not go into administration for a second time.
Correct, as it will be it’s first time.
@Campbellsmoney
‘They can if the pre-emption rights have been disapplied. Wasnât there some sort of vote about that in the run up to Christmas? đ ‘
__________________________
But there is no guarantee that the disapplication of pre-emption rights would be passed at an EGM, and until it is, surely it wouldn’t be possible to proceed on the assumption that it will be. If we are correct that they need the money now, and if they do have to wait until it is possible to issue new shares before they can proceed with the loan(s), then they aint getting it now!
Just catching up with the day’s events.
In summary, The Rangers are after the equivalent of a log book loan to either a) just get this month’s payroll out or b) fund Admin 1 (or 2, depends on your opinion).
With the exception of the rarely on the money Keith Jackson, most commentators have pointed out that this is quite a bad sign. Neil Patey is nowhere to be seen.
I’ll just wait and see how it all pans out…
from McMurdos blog
______________
February 20, 2014 – 30 Comments
THREE LITTLE PIGS
THE THREE LITTLE PIGS
By Billy Grimm
Once upon a time in Fairytale Land there were Three Little Pigs who were fans of a football club. They were having a hard time with the Big Bad Wolf constantly at their door, huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the club away. This had happened once before and the pigs were fearful it could happen again. So they decided they had to build a stronger club but they could not agree on how to do it.
So the First Little Pig decided the fans had to put their money together and buy the club. He held a meeting where he outlined the plans and asked everyone to put in money every month and eventually there would be a big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Some fans agreed to do this. Some said they had no money so couldnât. Some said it was a good idea. Some said it was crazy. A fight broke out with some fans accusing others of being closet supporters of the rival club. It all got very messy. The First Little Pig slid away out into the night, his dreams in tatters, his nightmares returning of the wolf at the door.
The Second Little Pig heard of this debacle and snorted. He had a much simpler idea. He would phone The King of Fairytale Land and ask him to give them squillions and squillions of money to save their club. The very next day The King rode up on his white horse. He looked magnificent, his armour shining in the sunlight. He gave an impassioned speech. The assembled crowd of fans cheered and said The King had helped in the past with even more squillions so he would do it again. He made promises. He made heart-felt pledges. His oratory lifted the crowds to new heights of frenzy. Then he reared up on his white steed and headed off into the sunset. And where he and his horse had stood was his gift to the club. âWhat is that?â asked one little boy. âThat,â replied the Second Little Pig âis a pile of shiteâ.
So the Third Little Pig decided perhaps what was needed was not idealistic clap trap but some straight-talking, no-nonsense investors. He had heard of two brothers who were not renowned for their oratory or their bullshit but who got things done. He phoned and invited them to his little house. The very next day a big blue bus pulled up at his window. Two men got out. They were Big Brother and Very Big Brother. The Little Pig invited them in and they sat in his little chairs. With difficulty. âSo,â asked Little Pig âwhat can you do for the club?â âSimples,â replied Very Big Brother, âfirstly you need to get rid of the people in the club who have been mismanaging and overspending.â âAnd you could do that?â asked Little Pig. âAye,â said Big Brother. âNext,â said Very Big Brother, âyou bring in people who are respected, who have a proven track record of good management and who you can trust to look at the books and begin to make plans. In particular you must have a good leader running the club, someone with integrity, someone who will balance the books by making cuts if need be and preferably someone who has run a football club before.â âBut would you be able to find someone like that?â asked Little Pig. âAyeâ said Big Brother. âBut what if the club is needing investment now to get things onto a strong footing?â asked Little Pig. âWe would be willing to put money into the clubâ said Very Big Brother. âYour own money?â asked Little Pig scarcely believing his ears. âAye, no problemâ said Big Brother. They sat staring at The Third Little Pig. They were not very smiley and a little scary. âIs that it then?â asked Very Big Brother. âWell I suppose so,â said Little Pig. âThank youâ. âNo problem,â replied Big Brother. Little Pig showed them to the door and as they boarded their big blue bus he distinctly heard Very Big Brother say to Big Brother âso letâs go and find that fucking wolf.â