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

iceman63Posted on8:38 am - Feb 21, 2014


It does seem fron the selective leaking of the loan for shares deal that we are in the final end game at Ibrox.
They have now publicly acknowledged that there is no money left and no means of borrowing from any external source has been found.
Laxey and Easdales are clearly positioning themselves to acquire the remainder of the unissued shares to gain full control of the assets. The only barrier would be the need to buy up the rest of the shares at a twelve month high hence the built in delay on formally receiving the shares.
Wallace is now caught between a rock and a hard place. He has gained the trust of the berzz – their gullibility has moved beyond embarrassing and cringeworthy to pathetically tragic ( genuinely Greek Classical Tragedy) -he either alows the enterprise to hobble on allowing the spivs to rob the berzz one last time or he calls it quits and gets the club to cease trading as it has no cash to speak of and is trading at a loss. At that point he may find himself cast as patsy number 2 – to follow the MBB into the annals of Bear demonology

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on8:42 am - Feb 21, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
February 21, 2014 at 7:23 am
4 0 i
Rate This

Campbellsmoney on February 21, 2014 at 7:03 am
1 0 Rate This

Regarding who pays for the administration process.
There was a mention on Sportsound last night the Laxey & the Easdale brothers would become the main creditors, in terms of future shareholding, following any loan.

How significant might that be? Any thoughts?

————————————————————————————————————————————-
The significance would be that people on Sportsound don’t know what they are talking about.

Saying “would become the main creditors, in terms of future shareholding, following any loan” is a bit like saying “that thing is yellow, how does that affect the order of smells?”

Being a shareholder (and size of shareholding) is utterly irrelevant to creditor status (main or otherwise).

However, for the sake of completeness I should add that if an insolvency occurs in TRFC (as opposed to RIFC), and the main creditor in TRFC is indeed RIFC, then control of RIFC (which of course is determined by size of shareholding in RIFC) would indeed have some importance.

So it is possible that statements like ” would become the main creditors, in terms of future shareholding, following any loan” can be construed as having some meaning if one is prepared to understand the mentality that allows two different corporate entities (TRFC and RIFC) to be referred to in one phrase as though they are simultaneously (i) one and the same and (ii) different. (Doublethink again).

Given that both RIFC and TRFC continually obscure the differences between them (the use of the ubiquitous term “Club”) whenever it suits them, it is perhaps possible to have some sympathy for the hacks on this one.

Anyway back to the point. The largest (even majority) ordinary creditor in an administration (which would be RIFC in the insolvency of TRFC in my completely hypothetical example) does not get to control the process. That creditor does not get to tell the administrator what to do. That is one of the things that went wrong in the Miss Sixty administration.

The proposals that the administrator puts forward do get voted on by the creditors and accordingly a majority creditor can oppose (and thus defeat) an administrator’s proposals if not happy with them. That effectively hamstrings the insolvency process.

He who controls RIFC gets to appoint directors to the board of RIFC and those directors get to decide how RIFC will exercise RIFC’s votes in the insolvency of TRFC.

But such a creditor does not get to dictate the terms of the administration and cannot make an administrator do something that an administrator should not do.

Take a daft example – the majority creditor says to the administrator – “the main property asset is worth £10m. I am owed £20m. Other creditors are due only £5m in total. Make it part of your proposals that you will transfer the property to me in discharge of my debt or I won’t approve your proposals.”

No administrator can agree to that. An administrator must act fairly as regards all creditors. An aggrieved creditor has a right under para 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 to require the administrator not to act in a way that is unfairly harmful to that creditor’s interests.

Anyway – I struggle to understand the arithmetic by which the making of a convertible loan of £1.5m might (even when added to existing shareholdings) give rise to a majority shareholding in RIFC (or anything near it). In any case that would trigger the 30% mandatory offer provisions – so, as usual, it is a load of half-baked, corporate buzzword, difficult to follow, meant to confuse, squirrel dung invented for their own ends by people who cannot be trusted .

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on8:49 am - Feb 21, 2014


Tuppence worth: I see the term “arrogance” being bandied about. It’s not so much arrogance as narcissism. Best to let such posters continue in their praise of themselves – there will always be others willing to stoke the fires of their self-opinion, and they will simply not accept any contrary views or suggestions. All involved parties are then pleased. Don’t worry about it.

Meanwhile, good to see Caley getting a better seating arrangement in the Emptihad after all.

And – my opinion is that if Mr Wallace is being so forthright in his denial of Administration then there’s a more than decent chance that he’s right. He knows more than us about what’s going on behind the scenes, and I imagine various hooks and crooks are being deployed in order to avoid the situation. HMS Ibrox may well scrape the iceberg on the way past, but they simply cannot afford to enter Admin for what will be perceived as a second time.

There is almost an acceptance here that Admin is inevitable – within weeks, within days. A lot of this is plainly wishful thinking.

View Comment

TommyBPosted on9:00 am - Feb 21, 2014


Is there anything to prevent the people who think they are, simply bringing forward the sale of season tickets?

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on9:01 am - Feb 21, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:

February 21, 2014 at 8:28 am

Unqualified congratulations for ‘adversary’, personal reflection that some of my comments were tedious, selfish and childish, and an unconditional desire expressed to move forward and STILL more TDs than TUs.

The sycophancy on display puts the SMSM to shame.

————————————-

Bryce, if you truly want to continue feeling as if your input on the blog is meaningful, may I suggest to you (and the others who mention it on a regular basis) that monitoring the amount of TU/TD you receive is a pointless exercise that should be dropped. If that is how you measure yourself then you will always feel short changed in a football blog that is not partisan to your team.

Instead, take the individual point, put your slant on it, add in any facts or opinions to back that up and let the others do likewise. It they decide to lower the tone, well that will say more about them than it will about you.

You should however, expect a lot of resistance when you attempt to use technicalities like the old James Traynor line of “he didn’t actually say that, a nod of the head is not the same as saying it”, in my opinion, that would make you no better that than some of the others who may appear to you as arrogant.

You have a lot to offer the blog so don’t take the bait, don’t take things personal and fight your corner if you believe you are right.

View Comment

Famous songPosted on9:07 am - Feb 21, 2014


Surprised in the context that the Sun advert referred to Stirling Albion and not King’s Park, the town’s club until WW2. Their existence was ended by a Luftwaffe bomb (it’s OK, no casualties), in 1941. I sent the Record a letter a couple of years back, asking where I could buy their history for my club, Alloa. Their four Stirlingshire Cups would have enabled us to leapfrog The Albion, ironically, and Dumbarton into third place on the all time winners’ list. The Record sadly had received more worthy contributions that particular day.

The overall leaders in this particular pecking order are Falkirk (31 wins). The Bairns are thus The World’s Most Successful Club. When measured in Stirlingshire Cups.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:23 am - Feb 21, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:49 am
And – my opinion is that if Mr Wallace is being so forthright in his denial of Administration then there’s a more than decent chance that he’s right. He knows more than us about what’s going on behind the scenes

————————————————————————————————————————————–
I think that that is a very fair comment. It would be a very odd thing for the CEO of an AIM listed company to issue such a straightforward denial if there was a serious risk of the subsidiary imminently going into administration.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:24 am - Feb 21, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:42 am
5 1 Rate This
———-

Thanks @campbellsmoney.

It wasn’t a direct quote of the Sportsound lads, and I hope I didn’t do them a disservice there. I may have mixed up SSB and Sportsound. My mistake. Me bad.

The discussion was centering on administration (it’s from about 11’30” into the podcast until about 13’30”). What was actually said, by way of a rhetorical question (from Michael Grant, I believe) was “This makes the Easdales and Laxey partners the biggest creditors, I think Roddy …”.

Interesting that Roddy goes on to talk about contingent liability and Craig Whyte. How times have changed.

I just listened back and they (BBC Sportsound) also mentioned something to the effect that the Laxey & Easdale shareholdings would not be diluted, by receiving the payback from existing, available shares.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:29 am - Feb 21, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:49 am
‘…There is almost an acceptance here that Admin is inevitable – within weeks, within days. A lot of this is plainly wishful thinking.’
———–
It’s maybe not so much wishful thinking (although there might conceivably be some who fervently desire that outcome) as bafflement!
The general accuracy of the calculations made on this blog of the new club’s finances seem to be, essentially, undisputed , as evidenced by the recent statements and actions of the club itself and by Ms Lesley among others in the finance world.
On the face of things, the club would appear to be in pretty straitened circumstances, trying to keep afloat.
The CEO is , however, still making public, categorical statements that there will be no Administration, without also indicating the grounds for his ( required!) optimism.
One would think he would be eager to show the grounds on which his optimism is based, if for no other reason than to keep himself free of any later suggestion that the club was knowingly trading while insolvent.
I’m no expert, but I do find that baffling.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on9:31 am - Feb 21, 2014


Should we read anything into the loan “partnership” of Laxey and Easdale?

Laxeys are arguably those with the most interest in the property assets and the Easdales are the main “The Rangersy” types left. So, they do the loan thing to get through to season end and then with some sleekit financial spivery, the Easdale’s end up running a “club” out of Ibrox with initially a peppercorn rent to the Laxey parent until they get back to “where they belong” and can afford to pay more?

Hope that they are not “lax-a-dale-ical” with the documentation.

I’ll get ma Sou’wester…

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on9:34 am - Feb 21, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:23 am

Angus1983 says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:49 am
And – my opinion is that if Mr Wallace is being so forthright in his denial of Administration then there’s a more than decent chance that he’s right. He knows more than us about what’s going on behind the scenes

————————————————————————————————————————————–
I think that that is a very fair comment. It would be a very odd thing for the CEO of an AIM listed company to issue such a straightforward denial if there was a serious risk of the subsidiary imminently going into administration.
_________________________

Ah, but the devil is in the detail. He refers to a second administration, that means there can be a first…

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:46 am - Feb 21, 2014


Para Handy says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:31 am
1 0 Rate This

Should we read anything into the loan “partnership” of Laxey and Easdale?

Laxeys are arguably those with the most interest in the property assets and the Easdales are the main “The Rangersy” types left. So, they do the loan thing to get through to season end and then with some sleekit financial spivery, the Easdale’s end up running a “club” out of Ibrox with initially a peppercorn rent to the Laxey parent until they get back to “where they belong” and can afford to pay more?

Hope that they are not “lax-a-dale-ical” with the documentation.

I’ll get ma Sou’wester…
————

I’m sure it must have been mentioned before, but the Laxey area of the Isle of Man was apparently known for its mining. There was even a mine railway … transporting the valuable goods out on wheels. A smooth operation, no doubt.

Just a bit of Laxey trivia.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:55 am - Feb 21, 2014


Campbellsmoney

Take a daft example – the majority creditor says to the administrator – “the main property asset is worth £10m. I am owed £20m. Other creditors are due only £5m in total. Make it part of your proposals that you will transfer the property to me in discharge of my debt or I won’t approve your proposals.”

Taking your not so daft example – correct though it is always remember it’s often not quite that simple though (and often deliberately so). The asset is possibly worth £10m to the majority creditor because, for instance, he has a particular use for it, or a licence to use it in a particular way. The asset is possibly only worth £2m on the true open market basically as a brownfield site. In this case what the majority creditor is actually saying is the minority creditors are going to get sod all in either event, once the admin’s fees are paid, so why not let me save you the hassle.

“The hassle” is my second point. For the minority creditors to get anything the administrator has to go through the process of CVA being rejected then liquidation to put the asset onto the open market. If that asset has running costs – even just security and pipe lagging, the administrator has a problem. If it has larger problems, and asbestos is a classic, as are mineworks funnily enough 😉 , the administrator has a greater problem. Once he eventually gets it to the market you usually find there’s only one serious buyer, the majority creditor again.

Apologies if that seems simplistic – you are clearly an expert in the field, this is just my experience in the matter.

And for simplicity I mentioned neither the commonwealth games commitments that are looming large or the fact that in a disposal there’s going to be a lot of angry bears inhabiting the shadows. Any buyer knows this.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:59 am - Feb 21, 2014


I don’t know Graham Wallace therefore I don’t know if he is a good man a good CEO or otherwise.
From all his apperances so far he seems a genuine bloke.
However that is the trick for many folk in his type of position.
All smiles and laughs, nice PR and a few buzz words thrown in for the punters, saying hello to the Tea Lady in the corridor etc etc but when it comes to the bit then they are hard as nails and changing direction and being economical with the truth, if it suits their needs, is like water off a ducks back. That is often how they got where they are.

Let us not forget how quickly it took for the change in perception of the apparenlty mild mannered/safe pair of hands Malcolm Murray.

Time will tell if Wallace’s ‘No Admin’ stance is the real deal or another Dallas Cowboys email.

Looking from the outside, for a man who said their operating costs were too high even for the highest division his thumb still seems to be stuck where the sun don’t shine.

Also just a passing thought. Perhaps the £1.5m is needed to pay the unpaid Bills Phil Mac suggested where hidden at the back of drawers in Stockbridge’s desk.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:14 am - Feb 21, 2014


wottpi says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:04 am
‘andygraham.66 says:
February 21, 2014 at 7:33 am ‘ Ad on the back of today’s Sun
Rangers v Stirling Albion March 9th, Scottish cup quarter final’
————
I don’t see andygraham66’s post?
If the Sun does carry such an advert, then in today’s climate the SPFL ,already guilty of ‘league’ fixing to accommodate the new club, should discipline that new club for their contemptuous and unsporting arrogance and insolence ( or for blowing the gaff that the referee/linesmen have been primed to ensure a victory for the new club over the Coatbridge boys)

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:39 am - Feb 21, 2014


43. Smugas says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:55 am
Apologies if that seems simplistic – you are clearly an expert in the field, this is just my experience in the matter.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
Smugas – absolutely nothing simplistic about that at all. All good stuff. It is virtually impossible for those of us outside the tent to really appreciate all of the factors that will operate (or should operate) on the minds of those who would have to conduct any insolvency that might ensue.

For what it is worth, my feeling has been for some time now that a better to return to creditors would be obtained in a pre-pack liquidation sale (with a compliant SFA/SPFL carefully warmed up) than in any other scenario. No need now for a CVA to even be attempted because of Article 36). But whether anyone who is actually influencing things would really want the best return to creditors is anyone’s guess.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on10:49 am - Feb 21, 2014


john clarke says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:29 am

On the face of things, the club would appear to be in pretty straitened circumstances, trying to keep afloat.
The CEO is , however, still making public, categorical statements that there will be no Administration, without also indicating the grounds for his ( required!) optimism.
——
Quite right, JC. They’re certainly sailing close to the wind. Mr Wallace is evidently fully aware of that … and he appears on the face of things to have a plan which does not involve admin.

I just don’t think we’re in a position here to be able to naysay him. We don’t know why he’s so adamant, but he must have something on which to base his statements. Something which he doesn’t see a need to reveal at this point for whatever reason.

Rumours on RM (I know) that Mr King is about to enter stage right with a large bag of cash with which to “pay off” CW (some argument as to why he would require paying off when he has never had anything to do with TRFC, aye right) and make a ginormous investment in the club. Well … it might happen.

(P.S. OT – have you read the works of Michael Psellus, particularly his Chronography of Byzantine Rulers? Superb stuff.)

View Comment

FinlochPosted on10:59 am - Feb 21, 2014


Nothing that is happening now at Ibrox is random or unforeseen.
The club has been run into the ground.
Right from day 1 when Green became preferred bidder.
No cuts and no sensible long term business plan (if you are a Rangers football fan).
Just madness.
This madness was key to separating the assets from the football club when the money ran out and boy did some people make a good cut from the spending roller coaster.

Wallace was never a saviour.
He was put in to do a job, by Somers who likewise was put in to do a job.
He has bought time beautifully while doing actually nothing and changing nothing.
Nothing!
He has helped shaft the real fans who will have to regroup as tenants.
And as Michael jackson said to Paul McCartney after he had shafted him by buying the Beatles
Back-Catalogue.
“Why are you angry Paul? – Its just business.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:05 am - Feb 21, 2014


Campbells.

We’re on the same page there!

1/ From a ‘club’ perspective I was always of the view that this was the plan B once plan A – SPL continuation – was thwarted. In summary, get them back to full time football (First Division) then let the rangersitis sufferers take over the running and funding since long term it was never to going to be a money spinner for those not emotionally attached. I can only assume their custodians took the view that a combination of distance from the top league, reduced exposure (ha ha) and a factional support gave rise to a risk of armageddon, for one club, and one club only.

Did it need £38m spending on it to avoid that though? Really?

2/ From a spiv perspective, well played lads. That’s really all I can say, especially if they walk off with the assets on top. I salute your shere brass neckery. Nothing but jealous.

3/ From an SFA/SPFL/all clubs perspective. They must have watched the car crash with mixed emotions. I think it is a safe assumption that the lower tier clubs took the view that it was not realistic that they could challenge the full time carnoustie dozers. Similarly the majority of top tier clubs want them back sooner rather than later, albeit their integrity bones, not to mention their season ticket marketing departments must have had several squeaks to quote SAF. That situation will only get worse in the next 6-12 months, unless of course the mythical sugar daddy turns up. At least now the superiority complex can be better hidden in more competitive fixtures and, of course, those carnoustie sleeeps will be better justified. Cup runs will also help in this respect.

My point here is that unsurprisingly ‘the authorities’ for want of a better word have been continually behind the curve. They had the option to dictate the return of the victim, and that’s not to play them down, that’s to say they could have nurtured them back right to the top with a simple set of guidelines. Guideline 1. You have 22m in the bank and no debt (Any stadium issues are your own fault). That would see any club up to the SPL if you are careful. Instead we’ve had the grandstanding walternomics nonsense and the new club has fallen on its proverbial 15 months short.

The authorities next move needs to be very very carefully thought through.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:09 am - Feb 21, 2014


Smugas says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:05 am
“the full time carnoustie dozers”

—————————————————————————————————————
😀

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:10 am - Feb 21, 2014


barcabuster says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:47 am

“… that if the loan is to be satisfied by way of shares, then the repayment must come from the remaining block, if the unsold shares set aside for the fans at the IPO.?”
———————————-
RIFC AIM prospectus advised that 71,943,771shares were available.

http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rifc-prospectus.pdf

Extrapolation of the LSE shareholding figures suggests 65,104,352 were taken up.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816

The AIM allocation of voting shares indicates total shares as 58,160,883

This is just the raw data I had collated historically and I would need to do some review to account for the LSE/AIM difference (though I suppose there were just different categories of share). The figures are also historical so don’t take into account any manoeuvres that may have taken place in the interim.

To my inexpert eye there could be about 7M unissued shares. Divide that into £1.5M and it comes out at just over 20p a share; just below current price of 27.5p.

All back of a fag packet and without insight but others may be able to make sense.

View Comment

Carl31Posted on11:27 am - Feb 21, 2014


Castofthousands says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:10 am

Possibly, then, the £1.5m should not be viewed as a figure needed to pay any particular bill or bills, but instead is an amount that is achievable by issuing 7M shares?

The CEO knows that these shares have not been issued and he is free to do so (is he free to do so?) and could get £1.5m into an operation that needs cash.

One thing that then puzzles me is why the money would be termed ‘a loan’? Surely it would be a sale of shares?

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on11:29 am - Feb 21, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:49 am
———

Re can we believe the Rangers CEO re administration? Unfortunately, standards in business have declined somewhat since globalisation took hold and the amounts of cash these senior managers can rake in has on many occasions made previously honest men ( it’s mainly men) behave badly.

The business track record out of Ibrox has been shocking over the last umpteen years , so I would advise caution and as a default position I would not believe a word that comes out of Rangers. Administration could be days, weeks, months or never. Who knows?

The get out of jail card for Mr. Wallace is that the level of funding promised when he arrived did not materialise, inability to re-negotiate contracts etc, etc Administration the best route forward, more and more Wonga style borrowing will make the problem worst.

I posted many months ago that a team going into Admin should be relegated and that a second occurrence in 5 years demoted to the Lowest tier , and 3 times in 10 years expelled from the league due to the on/ off disruption caused to the league. I suspect Rangers would rather save face and go Wonga (if this is possible) and put off today’s problems until tomorrow (I.e. After the current CEO has left) From the tip of the iceberg , we are all seeing, it appears that the Wonga option is out , there may be some wriggle room for emergency funding from existing shareholders but the rather large wedge they require can only come from:

– Arab / Russian
– Deluded Euromillions winner
– sale and leaseback (£8m or so lump sum)
– bus blokes funnelling money in
– Dave King

First 2 are out, favourite has to be to sell the ground as it is the logical next step ( I know logic has little part to play thus far) , lots of other stuff has been sold-off , with a low rent to start with and options to buy back when they win the Champions league. The bus blokes will the run the show for the club and they will front up for Dave King.

The Rangers first team will remain intact , as they believe it is good enough to win the championship and there will be another share issue to buy players to beat all the opposition in the SPL.

Their DNA is wired to short term fixes to prevent Celtic winning umpteen leagues in a row , however the previous ‘leave no stone unturned – keep spending’ strategy will inevitably be replaced by another ‘keep the money tap on full’ strategy. The seeds for the next failure are obviously all over the club like a rash, if they stumble through avoiding administration then if they go for it again with a few years of Kings money then you would get decent odds on another liquidation event.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:38 am - Feb 21, 2014


Castofthousands says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:10 am
To my inexpert eye there could be about 7M unissued shares. Divide that into £1.5M and it comes out at just over 20p a share; just below current price of 27.5p.

All back of a fag packet and without insight but others may be able to make sense.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
The directors have authority to allot the unissued shares (that was resolution 9 at the general meeting). But without the pre-emption waiver (the defeated resolution 10) they cannot allot to whomsoever they choose.

It has been 15-20 years since I did this kind of corporate finance fancy dan listed company share stuff so I might be missing something.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on11:38 am - Feb 21, 2014


ScotsExpat 1:07 am – I agree with your general comments, although you have incorrectly assumed I am not a Celtic supporter.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on11:44 am - Feb 21, 2014


Sons of Struth re the wonga loan. Seemingly institutional investor(s) in ctc with Sevco’s NOMAD to check legality of loan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngR7f92lg0g

View Comment

scottcPosted on12:02 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Smugas says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:55 am

“The hassle” is my second point. For the minority creditors to get anything the administrator has to go through the process of CVA being rejected then liquidation to put the asset onto the open market.

… or he could add a term to the CVA that if it is rejected the assets would be ‘sold’ to creditor A for £x. But that would be naughty and surely no decent administrator would do something like that

View Comment

EstebanPosted on12:03 pm - Feb 21, 2014


paulsatim says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:44 am

Quite interesting. Who are those gentlemen, and why do they both look like extras from Kubrik’s film of A Clockwork Orange? Is it a uniform? And do they all go to the same coiffeur?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:17 pm - Feb 21, 2014


ScottC

In the interests of accuracy, no he couldn’t permit a conditional secondary sale to creditor A without serious questions being asked. I know what you meant but in that case it would be in the interests of the major creditor, one would have thought, to make the asset purchase/debt write-off PRIOR to it going into administration.

In RFC terms, Sevco 5088, or Scotland for that matter (but then D&P never mentioned them) had no direct linkage (supposedly) with RFC(NIL), nor any creditor thereof.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on12:19 pm - Feb 21, 2014


With regards to Mr King and his possible investment in the govan club. He will not IMO invest unless he gets on the board. This will raise (sorry should raise) from the SFA the fit and proper scenario. He has a questionable past in SA involving funny enough tax non paying issues and was on the board of club now in liquadation. Regarding the possible £1.5 million loan, do you wonder what assurances govan club gave on the 5 way joke concerning financial stability. I have no doubt that behind the scenes the sfa are all over Mr Wallace regarding this financial calamity as like us the sfa will be looking out for what is best for scottish football.
Where have all the squirrels gone?

View Comment

EstebanPosted on12:22 pm - Feb 21, 2014


valentinesclown says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm

Not so sure about the SFA. Word is its chief exec is going on a nice month-long holiday to Australia. Aye, in the middle of the football season. I don’t think he likes football.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on12:31 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Surely if an insolvency event at Ibrox is inevitable prior to the start of season 2015-16 it is in the best interests of all at Sevco (bears and spivs alike) to engineer it in such a way that it happens this season. The idea of a clumpany deliberately overspending in the knowledge that they could absorb the points penalty and still be promoted sickens me to my core and probably trumps any of the shenanigans to date, but it appears that existing rules allow for such a scenario.

View Comment

FUZZYNUTZ1888Posted on12:33 pm - Feb 21, 2014


If indeed if we have all these unsold shares, then why did the Blue Mights ala Mr Paul Murray not take up on these shares giving them a seat on the board of RIFC.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on12:37 pm - Feb 21, 2014


EKBhoy says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:29 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good post. With regard to administration I – Doesn’t it have to happen to unwind the spiv contracts for services etc and lower the employee costs because there is no cash to continue to pay them or buy out the contracts. They can’t continue to rack up unfunded losses at the rate they currently are and borrowing money to fund short term cash flow only adds to the debt and potentially insolvent situation.

A new owner of TRFC could obviously meet the costs or restructuring but then they would be blowing cash set aside to fill Alistairs(or his soon to be successors) war chest and besides whilst shedding costs through Admin TRFC would by then be paying rent to RIFC for the use of Ibrokes.

Any way you look at it they are gubbed.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on12:40 pm - Feb 21, 2014


@esteban is Stuart joining Campbell then. I believe shredder is already there for a month
Could be a photoshop job but this is the sun advert referred to earlier
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg_mcwgIcAAmjf5.jpg

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:46 pm - Feb 21, 2014


With regards to any spare shares you may wish to remember that Charles appeared on STV saying if the fans didn’t take up their full alocation he would offer them back to the market and if nobody took then up he would but them all up himself.

Similar story was printed in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9602394/Rangers-investors-have-doubled-their-money-says-Charles-Green-ahead-of-20m-stock-market-flotation.html

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:49 pm - Feb 21, 2014


tykebhoy says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:40 pm
1 0 Rate This

@esteban is Stuart joining Campbell then. I believe shredder is already there for a month
Could be a photoshop job but this is the sun advert referred to earlier
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg_mcwgIcAAmjf5.jpg
————–

It was genuine enough. There was a link to an image of today’s back page on twitter.

I hope someone’s told Stirling Albion — what a windfall 😀

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on12:53 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Esteban says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm
………………………

More like the hills have eyes….

On a serious note I did listen to what the chap had to say….apart from the fact it looked like the interview was taking place doon an alley….he did raise some interesting points on other investors not being given the same opportunities….one has to wonder why?

View Comment

iamacantPosted on12:53 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:49 pm

tykebhoy says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:40 pm

@esteban is Stuart joining Campbell then. I believe shredder is already there for a month
Could be a photoshop job but this is the sun advert referred to earlier
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg_mcwgIcAAmjf5.jpg
————–

It was genuine enough. There was a link to an image of today’s back page on twitter.

I hope someone’s told Stirling Albion — what a windfall 😀
—————————————————————————————————————————-

Do you think they have printed 20k programs?
Who prints their programs?
I hope the printer asked for cash up front if they are already printed. 😀

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on12:57 pm - Feb 21, 2014


If Wallace is to be taken literally and is talking about TRFC, the only way he can be sure of no second admin is if the first one is terminal. Is that what he meant? Is he like Charles Green and never tells a lie?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:58 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:53 pm
1 0 Rate This

…he did raise some interesting points on other investors not being given the same opportunities….one has to wonder why?
———–

Was an eye-opener that video. That Struth group seem to have lost the PR battle and been marginalized, which is a pity really.

View Comment

Gee69Posted on1:07 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Famous song says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:07 am

Surprised in the context that the Sun advert referred to Stirling Albion and not King’s Park, the town’s club until WW2. Their existence was ended by a Luftwaffe bomb (it’s OK, no casualties), in 1941. I sent the Record a letter a couple of years back, asking where I could buy their history for my club, Alloa. Their four Stirlingshire Cups would have enabled us to leapfrog The Albion, ironically, and Dumbarton into third place on the all time winners’ list. The Record sadly had received more worthy contributions that particular day.

The overall leaders in this particular pecking order are Falkirk (31 wins). The Bairns are thus The World’s Most Successful Club. When measured in Stirlingshire Cups.

————————————
Dumbarton’s Official history disagrees – 11 times winners beats Kings Park.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25705333@N07/12675398224/

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on1:26 pm - Feb 21, 2014


GeronimosCadillac says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm
——

I suspect the spiv contracts for services are probably small potatoes in the grand scheme of things and that it is the long term largesse of Lord , sorry , Sir David Murray and that the Brogues Taliban will have some cushy salaries with minions to run about for them. I suspect that there was been a small cull of some of lower paid ranks at Ibrox but it needs: Senior Directors and Managers actually to do some work rather than swanning around in chinos and brouges ; mergers of departments; inevitable cull of middle managers.

What none of us know is that in the sporting embodiment of all things funny handshakes , how much of that tendency has permeated the staff roster. Normally, in such an environment , the upper and middle managers will be full of non-deliverers and that the actual doers are at the lower levels and they are first in the queue for the elbow. I suspect the dysfunctional nature of the organisation has eaten away at it’s capability – to do much.

Problems wherever you turn, so as CEO put off as many problems as you can , limp through on the something will turn up ……

View Comment

Corrupt OfficialPosted on1:31 pm - Feb 21, 2014


@castofthousands.
Thanks for doing my “homework” for me buddy, I am a bit behind today. Appreciated, and your figures kind of tie up with my recollection.

@Campbellsmoney 11.38.am. Feb 21.
Hi,mate.
You point out clearly, the difference between res 9/10. And as you say, without res 10, they cannot select where the shares go.
Would calling it a loan, bypass this rule.?
With Wallace’s no admin assertion, I am of the mind that the totally skint route, has been freshly laid with tar. (The inner sanctum don’t appear to be on a mole hunt)
Maybe it is my natural suspicion of all things Ibrokes, but 7m shares, is a fair chunk, and cost around £1.89m. The loan is £1.5m.
I would suggest a more economic and equitable way to raise capital, would have been to offer these shares to ALL the main holders, setting up a mini auction, or tender process.
After all, we are talking about 10% of total issue. Which the board do not have the right to allocate selectively, which they appear to have done.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:35 pm - Feb 21, 2014


highfibre says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:42 pm
………………… what is supposed to happen in insolvencies – how much does the grubby reality tend to deviate from the ideal?

———————————————————————————————————————————————
To be honest it is not all that easy to answer that question. My experience would suggest that in Scotland anyway (and of course in Samoa where I now do most of my work) the grubby reality and the ideal are not that far apart.

Running an insolvency is as much an art as a science. Its similar to running a business. There can be a lot of judgement calls to make and sometimes, taken in isolation, those calls can look a bit strange.

But having said that most insolvencies are pretty pedestrian. There are those where all the insolvency practitioner has to do is shut the business down on day one, close the doors make everyone redundant, put the assets off to an auctioneer and deal with the proceeds and statutory meetings and reports. There are those where a going concern sale might be possible and so there are more difficult choices to make.

Insolvency is a bit grubby by its very nature. There are angry people involved from day one. Creditors lose money, directors are annoyed at insolvency practitioners for asking them to pay back sums that they have taken out, employees lose out – its a pretty adversarial confrontational and emotional process from the start in many ways. Remember though that it is not the insolvency practitioners’ fault that the company is bust – that all happened before the IP ever turns up.

Creditors however are annoyed that the IP get paid before they do. There is a quote about IPs. “An insolvency practitioner is someone who turns up after the battle has been fought and bayonets the survivors.” That about sums up many creditors views of IPs.

But logically IPs have to be paid first. If they weren’t sure of that – they wouldn’t do the job at all and then where would we be as a society in dealing with failed companies. It would be like not having refuse collectors – the rubbish would just pile up on the streets.

But of course – there are good IPs and bad IPs. There have been bent ones and there are straight ones(same as every profession). No hiding that. Enough IPs have been booted out and disciplined by regulatory bodies for me to have some confidence that there is a process and while it can be improved,
that process is workable.

And finally – the courts have an supervisory jurisdiction in all insolvencies in Scotland so its not just a dirty wee world that no one else can see into. Courts can and do intervene in many aspects of how insolvencies are run (including fees) but the courts do not see their function as being to dictate to an IP how an administration should be run. That is what the IPs are supposed to be qualified to do, so the court will not pretend that it knows better on matters of commercial judgement.

On balance – I think we can be pretty proud of our insolvency system in Scotland. There are some shockers but on the whole I don’t see too many.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:40 pm - Feb 21, 2014


barcabuster says:
February 21, 2014 at 1:31 pm
I would suggest a more economic and equitable way to raise capital, would have been to offer these shares to ALL the main holders, setting up a mini auction, or tender process.
After all, we are talking about 10% of total issue. Which the board do not have the right to allocate selectively, which they appear to have done.

——————————————————————————————————————————–
Its called a Rights Issue

View Comment

andypandimoniumPosted on1:43 pm - Feb 21, 2014


I have been mulling over the £1.5M “loan” which has been described with various levels of opacity by the MSM and several things confuse me, not least of which is why they didn’t just ask Alistair for a loan? He would have been easier to deal with than those named benefactors, wouldn’t he?

View Comment

whispererPosted on1:44 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Re the SUN ad
if you go to the rangers bbc page
the fixture says rangers v albion
if you click on that you get
Stirling Albion 2 – 0 Albion Rovers

So should it no be

Rangers v Stirling Albion Rovers ?… Naw ? How NO ?

Yeeha it’s Friday !

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:49 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:49 am
‘…Mr King is about to enter stage right with a large bag of cash with which to “pay off” CW …’
————–
As you say, Angus, it might happen. And it would be very interesting to see how the spivs would react to having King as the man standing in their way in respect of control of the main assets. Always assuming of course that Whyte still has some significant control at the moment.

(OT, I’m familiar with Psellus through references to him. I have now bought a paperback copy (Amazon, second-hand ‘as new’) of his ‘Chronography’, although he deals mostly, as far as I can see, with a later period than the one I’m primarily interested in.)

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:55 pm - Feb 21, 2014


I have been leaving the Bear Land ‘Experts’ alone recently as their State Aid case has been crumbling about them and I don’t believe in kicking anyone when they’re down.

However I noticed the latest post of Fth this morning and confess to being amused and also saddened at the drivel being fed to Bears IMO to deflect them from concentrating on the future for Ibrox and the possible imminent financial collapse of Rangers.

Fth have declared me a liar because of my statement that coal mining was historically carried out on the Westthorn site purchased by Celtic and therefore constituted ‘abnormal ground conditions’ which could lead to a reduction in the sale price of the land.

This morning the increasingly frantic person behind Fth has declared: ‘There are claims that there was coal mining on Celtic’s purchased Westhorn/Westthorn land. This a lie.’

The writer then explains that the 1828-29 Post Office directory gives three entries for Westthorn Colliery all at 41 Dunlop St and that Dunlop Street no longer exists but is now known as Corbett Street which is situated in Tollcross in Glasgow’s East End and he adds: ‘Celtic’s land is miles west of the colliery.’

Well that’s me told then: Fortuitously, unlike Fth, I know my history and I know that the only Dunlop Street within the Glasgow Boundary at the time in question was the Dunlop Street which still exists to this day tucked between the St Enoch Centre and Clyde Street and the Broomielaw. Back in the 1800s the area was the hub of Glasgow’s commercial activity especially because of the worldwide shipping trade with bustling docks and wharves a few minutes walk away.

However, unlike Fth, I don’t jump to a conclusion just because it fits in with my obsessions and long before Fth turned to the 1828-29 Post Office directory I had been there but, unlike Fth, I didn’t just check the first directory in the series viz 1828-29 but annually from 1828-1912. I also researched the Glasgow Directory annually from 1799-1828. I can assure Fth that Westthorn features more than 3 times in these directories ❗

However without labouring the point I discovered that the Westthorn Colliery Office was variously located at 386 Gallowgate; 89 Trongate; back to 386 Gallowgate; 190 Trongate; Broomielaw; 41 Dunlop Street, and 66 Broomielaw. Anyone with a knowledge of Glasgow will realise these office addresses are all very close to each other in Glasgow’s commercial hub of the 1800s. The changing names of the agents are also listed. I can assure Fth that none of these locations housed a coal mine and that includes 41 Dunlop Street ❗

Yes we are back to 41 Dunlop Street!

Fth has been very economical with the truth in stating: ‘In the 1828-29 Post Office directory there are three entries for Westthorn Colliery all at 41 Dunlop St’. I won’t call him a liar – however the entries are not for ‘Westthorn Colliery’ but for Westthorn Coal/Colliery Office’ and there really is quite a difference.

Remember that Fth relies on The Glasgow Post-Office Directory for 1828-29 to prove that Dunlop Street is actually in Tollcross far from the City Centre. However what he deliberately hides is that the directory actually states that Dunlop Street runs from: ‘Argyle street to Jackson street’. This is the Clydeside location of the agent’s office for Westthorn Colliery at that time. There is no other Dunlop Street listed in Glasgow and none for Tollcross which I haven’t checked but was probably outwith the Glasgow Boundary at that time.

The same directory lists 41 Dunlop Street as the Westthorn Coal Office and names a W D Green & W D Kirkpatrick who are probably the agents for the colliery owner. It doesn’t state that 41 Dunlop Street is a colliery as Fth would have us believe preposterous as it might seem when rationally examined. The directory further reveals that the Westthorn Colliery Shipping Office is located, minutes away, at 66 Broomielaw on the banks of the Clyde where coal would no doubt be loaded onto vessels either as cargo or to fuel the new-fangled steam engines. The directory also lists the various other businesses and enterprises located in Dunlop Street but no coal mine 🙂

The last word on the idiocy or wilfull distortion of the truth practiced by Fth is perhaps best summed-up by his final nonsense: ‘Dunlop St doesn’t exist any more’. If he cares to leave the internet world of his dark fantasies and obsessions and takes a walk down Dunlop Street he might even hear the echoes of the trains from the Old Dunlop Street Station which was replaced by St Enoch’s Station which too has faded into history.

And if he takes a short walk onto Clydeside he should ponder at the statue raised in memory of Dolores Ibárruri which commemorates the British members of the International Brigade who fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War where 65 Glaswegians gave their life.

La Pasionaria is perhaps remembered best by her stirring proclamation:

‘Better to die on your feet than live forever on your knees’

What most people probably don’t know is that Mexican Revolutionary Emiliano Zapata was the first to utter those words and Dorothy first used them during the Spanish miners strike in Asturias in 1934. Perhaps Fth might reflect on those words when he looks at the numerous occasions he has twisted the truth to fit his obsessive claims of corruption aimed at Celtic and many public servants.

He is actually becoming a severe embarassment to many Bears – especially those from Glasgow who know Dunlop Street well and know it is still there and never ever moved to Tollcross to be renamed Corbett Street. Keep digging Fth you truly should be awarded the Comedy Gold Trophy of the decade 😎

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:57 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Re King’s entry

Surely then its poker time. You say you’ll shift the assets before he arrives. He says he won’t buy without the assets. You don’t give a flying monkeys if a team continues successfully or not, the saviour king will have a lot of explaining to do if he backs off. Not really the definition of a buyers market TBH!

But never forget he who controls the fans has the power to make the brownfield site virtually worthless albeit to do so is to destroy the very attachment they love. Thats the bit the spivs are attempting to leverage for the final payday.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:04 pm - Feb 21, 2014


danishpastry – a while ago you asked me if I had obtained ny money from MacDonalds. I was mightily confuddled about that question. It was reference to 1692 wasn’t it?

View Comment

100BJDPosted on2:06 pm - Feb 21, 2014


I have been extremely busy so not doing much more than speed reading although I have some time today to reflect on things at Ibrox. My last post some months ago centred around a few issues which are still unresolved-:
Craigiebhoy controlled the admin process to a large extent because his shares were vital to the original CVA. I wrote at the time that he would have covered both bases in assigning his shares to the Chico camp. Therefore his deal, whatever it was, worked in an unlikely CVA or liquidation. He was royally shafted by the advent of Sevco Scotland. The novation of the asset of 5088 namely the sole rights of the deal document has yet to be explained. Undoubtedly the Duffers had to see a proper novation or they legally could not sanction the deal. Therefore they saw something presumably signed by Chico. The big issue here is the potential “ultra vires” nature of the transaction.This is presumably why Craigie and Earley were claiming to be directors so that they could claim they did not agree with the transaction and therefore the deal was fraudulent. I equally assume that other interested third parties such as potential lenders will be having the same issue which may explain why there appears to be a problem obtaining funds.

I also in my last post decided, without enough information obviously, that a second administration would be neccessary. I cited at the time that the cost of reconstructing the business was simply too expensive for them. Add to the mix the raft of spiv related contracts that are absolutey certain to be there and in my opinion you need to press the reset button and do what the Duffers should have done on their watch. I also thought that the extra £2.5m loan mentioned in the accounts could have been used to create an enforceable debt and allow the debtholder to create a winding up order and appoint and attempt to control and administrator in a prepack operation.
Events have overtaken me here as apparently the £2.5m has been used up although the new alleged loan could still fall into the same category. The debt may also be an attempt to reach the 75% creditor agreement position to secure a new CVA.

I also detailed my views on Laxey and they have not changed much either. Laxey and Easdale will not want Kings money as King will want a new share issue which will dilute them hugely. They are also running out of cash and in any ensuing administration the importance of cash is crucial because without cash the administration will not last long and Rangers will be gone…again. Laxeys are never going to trade out their position on the stock price so they will probably have some low options on the original 1p investors shares, held as irrevocables, and not notifiable until transacted, in Daniel Stewarts safe which will mean that they can bump the subsidiary and have a major share in the top company. I presume their unlikely bedfellows the Easedales will get a piece of this action and provide a safe pair of hands for the new Ibrox lease. Murray Park is the jewel in the crown for these boys in my opinion, no matter what planning conditions exist. They will have done their homework. They are no fools! So for me still admin2, Ibrox leased to the Easedales ( who will be spun by Jack as saviours), Murray Park offski and a team/ club with a very poor balance sheet……….not good and I fear the fans will not continue their support in this scenario.

And then they Laxeys etc will wait a bit and do a public/private transaction to complete their hand.

View Comment

Famous songPosted on2:07 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Gee69 at 1:07, sorry if my meaning was unclear, or my research inadequate. Alloa’s 14 Stirlingshire Cups, added to King’s Park’s 4, would put us ahead of The Sons on 16, according to Wikipedia. It would make up for recent gubbings at their feet. And our joint success in a county we don’t inhabit should be a lesson to all in what can be achieved, if you only bend the boundaries a bit.

View Comment

arabest1Posted on2:15 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Dundee United continue the feel good factor ….

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/sport/dundee-united/dundee-united-announce-six-figure-profit-1.234234

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:30 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Campbellsmoney on February 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm
1 0 Rate This

danishpastry – a while ago you asked me if I had obtained ny money from MacDonalds. I was mightily confuddled about that question. It was reference to 1692 wasn’t it?
——-

I don’t recall asking you about McDonalds. Sure it was me? If I did it must have been part of a joke.

1692?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:34 pm - Feb 21, 2014


arabest1 says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:15 pm
‘..Dundee United continue the feel good factor ….’
————–
And that makes me feel good, too, about the future of our game, as other clubs begin to match their aspirations to the financial realities. And even the big boys in European Football ( God Almighty-Wayne Rooney about to sign a 5-year deal for £300,000 a week is being reported!!) will be brought low eventually to realistic dimensions.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:36 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm
——-
Please go to Mr Ecobhoy’s remedial history classes, now! 😀

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on2:41 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 1:35 pm

On balance – I think we can be pretty proud of our insolvency system in Scotland. There are some shockers but on the whole I don’t see too many.
===================================
I know zilch about insolvency, and accountancy is not my profession. However, in terms of being ‘proud’ of the Scottish system, I feel let down that in the case of Rangers significant assets were sold for a pittance, to the extreme detriment of creditors. Surely that is just wrong on every level, and shouldn’t there have been something to force an auction to the highest bidder?

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:42 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Ooops – it was Para Handy – see below

Para Handy says:
February 20, 2014 at 4:09 pm

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?),

Para Handy – so is that a 1692 reference by any chance?

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on2:43 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Danish you’ve been away too long,……Glencoe.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:52 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Sorry guys, thought it was a reference to the Golden Arches. For some reason my O level and highers history began in 1789 … the year after Scotland last qualified for a major tournament (approximately) 🙂

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:56 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:52 pm
‘..For some reason my O level and highers history began in 1789 .’
———
By gum, you’re pushing on a bit,DP. Were you at thatgame? 😮

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:56 pm - Feb 21, 2014


john clarke says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm

Danish Pastry says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm
——-
Please go to Mr Ecobhoy’s remedial history classes, now! 😀
=======================================
The only entry qualifications are an open mind, the courage to reach a balanced and rational conclusion and the humility to accept it being ripped-apart by your classmates. Oh and an apple for the teacher 😎

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on2:56 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Disclaimer.
I am a numpty when it comes to financial matters, amongst other things.

However, reading the above posts re the £1.5 m “loan”, it strikes me that it is not about the money, but about share control.

If their Res10 had been passed, then there would have been no need for this latest exercise.
They could have passed the shares to their preferred shareholders.

That it is LaxDale who are involved in this, then it would appear that they are those preferred shareholders.

Since the AGM,there has been share movement, which may indicate that the afore mentioned were the buyers, giving them the required majority to push through Res10.

If so, then can we expect an EGM soon, which will. Pass the resolution, at which time, the loan will transfer into shares.

Apologies if this I rubbish.

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on3:00 pm - Feb 21, 2014


arabest1 says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:15 pm
6 0 Rate This

Dundee United continue the feel good factor …
——————————
I felt strangely mixed emotions when reading about United’s results for the year to June 2013. One part of me thinks well done Stephen Thompson. Big kudos to you with turnover up, wages reduced, profit made, bank debt since eliminated by a restructuring, DUFC heading in the right direction and every reason to be proud to be an arab.

Then another part of me thinks that there are people out there who think that this way of running a business is for mugs. You should blow money you can’t afford on a ridiculously high player salary out of all proportion to the competitors in your League, raise £22m in a share issue and have used it all to fund an unsustainable business model within about 15 months, risking another insolvency event just two years after your club went bust stiffing creditors left, right and centre. Use a football club to see what you can get out of it, certainly not for what you can put into it or any benefit the club could have for the community.

If that was how my club operated, for me it would have to be out of the question, whatever emotional tie I felt to the club, to continue being a supporter for as long as it took until honest, decent businessmen were in to run it properly. Am I just less of a supporter for it? You may give your child unconditional love but a football club?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:01 pm - Feb 21, 2014


upthehoops says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:41 pm
‘…shouldn’t there have been something to force an auction to the highest bidder?.’
———-
I certainly think there should be some regulation preventing Administrators entering into ‘exclusivity’ deals aimed at selling assets at knockdown prices.
And heavy jail sentences for those who would collude in conspiracy to engineer such exclusivity deals.
Not that any such thing has happened,of course.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:07 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

February 20, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Allyjambo – there is only one type of administration
_________________________
Does that mean the idea that the loan of £1.5m will not be used, as others suggested, to fund an administration?

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:11 pm - Feb 21, 2014


upthehoops says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:41 pm
5 0 i
Rate This

Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 1:35 pm

On balance – I think we can be pretty proud of our insolvency system in Scotland. There are some shockers but on the whole I don’t see too many.
===================================
I know zilch about insolvency, and accountancy is not my profession. However, in terms of being ‘proud’ of the Scottish system, I feel let down that in the case of Rangers significant assets were sold for a pittance, to the extreme detriment of creditors. Surely that is just wrong on every level, and shouldn’t there have been something to force an auction to the highest bidder?

————————————————————————————————————————————–
upthehoops – why do you feel let down? Are you a creditor?

If so – your remedy was to apply to the court under para 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. If you are not a creditor I struggle to see why your (or my) views on the conduct of an insolvency in which we do not have a pecuniary interest is of relevance. The insolvency is for the benefit of creditors not football fans. As to why any creditor who did felt aggreived didn’t avail themselves of this option, I don’t know. Its a question for the creditors. If they didn’t care enough about their own interests, why should we?

We are all indirectly creditors by virtue of being taxpayers – ask the question of HMRC.

Who should have done something to force an auction?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on3:11 pm - Feb 21, 2014


john clarke says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:56 pm
1 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:52 pm
‘..For some reason my O level and highers history began in 1789 .’
———
By gum, you’re pushing on a bit,DP. Were you at thatgame?
———

Very droll John 😀 As you know, I prefer football in an age of enlightenment.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on3:12 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm

danishpastry – a while ago you asked me if I had obtained ny money from MacDonalds. I was mightily confuddled about that question. It was reference to 1692 wasn’t it?
=======================

It was I who asked Campbellsmoney, and yes, it was in reference to 1692. 😛

With my roots in Inveraray, I too have it as part of my heritage…

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:14 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Allyjambo says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:07 pm
0 0 i
Rate This

Campbellsmoney says:

February 20, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Allyjambo – there is only one type of administration
_________________________
Does that mean the idea that the loan of £1.5m will not be used, as others suggested, to fund an administration?

————————————————————————————————————————————–
No it doesn’t necessarily mean that.

If an admin is on the cards and “the plan” is for it to be trading admin, and they have no cash to cover a period of trading, this cash could be used to fund trading for a while.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on3:16 pm - Feb 21, 2014


john clarke says:
February 21, 2014 at 1:49 pm

OT

(OT, I’m familiar with Psellus through references to him. I have now bought a paperback copy (Amazon, second-hand ‘as new’) of his ‘Chronography’, although he deals mostly, as far as I can see, with a later period than the one I’m primarily interested in.)
——
Indeed he does, but I can assure you it’s an excellent and entertaining read. His writing (in translation) is lively and full of humour, and you do get a good feel for the later Eastern Empire and some of its intrigues. It’s only recently that I’ve taken an interest in Byzantine history (a visit to Ravenna helped) – there’s a lot more to it than I’d previously thought.

There are full-text versions of the Chronographia available on the tinternet.

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on3:22 pm - Feb 21, 2014


I know zilch about insolvency, and accountancy is not my profession. However, in terms of being ‘proud’ of the Scottish system, I feel let down that in the case of Rangers significant assets were sold for a pittance, to the extreme detriment of creditors. Surely that is just wrong on every level, and shouldn’t there have been something to force an auction to the highest bidder?

As Charles Green never tired of telling anyone, he and his partners were the only bunch who actually stumped up the cash. The Blue Knights and Brian Kennedy made even more derisory bids. The lifelong Rangers fan from Singapore (whose name escapes me) got cold feet. Only Bill Miller seemed serious and he bailed when his financial guys identified the annual 10million hole in the business. I daresay the adverse fan reaction to him can’t have helped either.

So the Spivs won (or at least defeated some other people who may or may not have been spivs) and Green went on to prove that there is always money to be made in telling people what they want to hear.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:22 pm - Feb 21, 2014


Para Handy says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:12 pm

It was I who asked Campbellsmoney, and yes, it was in reference to 1692.

With my roots in Inveraray, I too have it as part of my heritage…
————————————————————————————————————————————
And Para Handy, wasn’t yer man Munro himself from Inveraray?

View Comment

Leave a Reply