Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

ByTrisidium

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

davidLowDavid Low

represents a highly significant component of the history of Celtic FC and consequently a highly significant component of how Scottish Football has panned out in the last 20 years.

As Fergus McCann’s Aide-de-Camp, Low was instrumental in helping him formulate and implement the plans which ultimately allowed control of the club to be wrested from the Kelly and White families. Low also helped McCann to rebuild and regenerate Celtic as a modern football club.

His views are unsurprisingly Celtic-centred, and this interview reveals his ambition for the club to ultimately leave Scottish Football behind. That may or may not be at odds with many of our readers, but the stark analysis of the realities facing football in this country may resonate.

Podcast LogoHe provides a window on the pragmatism of the likes of McCann, Celtic and many other clubs in respect of the demise of Rangers. He pours scorn on Dave King’s vision of a cash-rich Rangers future, and provides little comfort for those who seek succour for our failing national sport, believing that Scotland will find it impossible to emerge from the football backwater in an increasingly global industry.

Agree or not with Low’s prognosis, it is difficult to deny his compelling analysis of our place in the football world.

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.

3,066 Comments so far

Paulmac2Posted on1:40 pm - Apr 26, 2014


whisperer says:
April 26, 2014 at 1:05 pm
…………………………..
Don’t be surprised if that is who Stewart Reagan takes instruction from before he comments 😉

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on1:43 pm - Apr 26, 2014


OT for today…I would suggest Derek McInnes is manager of the year.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:47 pm - Apr 26, 2014


South0fThe Border says:
April 26, 2014 at 11:22 am
ecobhoy says:
April 26, 2014 at 8:44 am

Again if the Record story is correct the ‘merchant acquirer’ had made the decision a month before the first mention of boycott and it was other factors more to do with the financial position at Rangers that caused them to demand security.
——————————————————————————
Looks like there may be a bit of a get out for Wallace:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2523522/Sandy-Easdale-concedes-fans-boycott-sink-Rangers.html
————————————————————————-
I have seen that argument surfacing on trhe Darkside from pro-Board posters. Tbh if that’s all Wallace has as justification for his statement then he’s got a problem IMO.

There has been talk of ST boycotts at Ibrox for years now and it goes no more than frustrated fans blowing off steam.

What makes this one different isn’t the mouth-music in the run-up to the December egm but the formal moves being made by DK and Gough to actually organise a boycott and indeed DK stilled the voices of those fans by his call to give the Board the opportunity to produce their report.

It seems perfectly clear that the ‘merchant acquirer’ made their decision on more pressing financial issues than hot air from fans. I can’t remember who organised the red card protest that the Easdale article mentions but have a recollection it was Sons of Struth.

They were a tiny newly-formed Rangers pressure group with 2/3 activists. Is that really all it took for the credit card company to run away from Ibrox at full speed after having handled their ST business for at least one full season?

If this is coming from the new PR guy then let’s hope he isn’t getting paid a lot and is on a very short contract 😆

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:47 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Just a wee aside to revisit the formally expressed purpose of the IPO contained in the Prospectus.

The “Reason for the Offer / Use of proceeds” included ;
“…upgrades to the stadium (approximately £5.5M)…”
&
“…further upgrades to the stadium (approximately £3.5M)…”

We know it was really for working capital – as per the last entry on the list – but we all saw the Ibrox roof problem. An easy MSM question to Wallace? He can’t claim ignorance on stadium safety and identified upgrades totalling approximately £9M.

http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document
(Page 10)

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on1:55 pm - Apr 26, 2014


@STEVIEBC Good point mate, maybe they got a cheaper option in, did CW not have a roofing firm.. 😆

Maybe the bad state of the roof was why they put their plans of advertising on there on the back burner.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:02 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Allyjambo says:
April 26, 2014 at 11:53 am
South0fThe Border says:
April 26, 2014 at 11:22 am

Yet another good spot by a TSFM contributor, and one a decent MSM journalist would spot before publishing a quite defamatory story. However, the DR piece claims the following:

“At no point in their correspondence with Ibrox bosses on January 23, circulated between senior staff including Wallace and ex-finance director Brian Stockbridge did they mention fears for a season ticket snub…”

Which at first appears to mean they have seen the documentation, but! The sentence quoted above ends with: “– because those calls had yet to be made” and your spot/research lends the lie to that!
———————————————————-
I’m afraid I can’t accept that. You may be correct in stating they didn’t see the correspondence but I think it’s too far to base an assumption that they didn’t on a phrase stating that the boycott calls had yet to be made.

The writer could well be aware of the December mutterings of discontent but just dismissed them as being of no real importance and no likely effect on ST sales and IMO would be correct in assuming that a boycott called for by King with a trust being set-up was a much more serious position.

There is also the point that if I had written the article I would be careful about stating I had seen or had possession of documents/info as that starts to take the journo down routes he might not want to go to either protect sources or nor fall foul of data protection or possibly illegally obtained info/documentation.

As I said in another post this has the smell of the PR machine cranking-up to try and extricate the hook from Wallace’s mouth but the damage has been done and it won’t go away. He’ll be left as damaged goods IMO.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on2:03 pm - Apr 26, 2014


The question at this stage is….who has set up Wallace for this?

First Data asked the question in January?…DK gets the ball rolling in February…Mr. Wallace makes his claim this week the fans have caused the First Data issue…clearly untrue!

The DR have been provided this First Data info…by whom…who knew this would embarass Wallace and show him to be a liar?…who benefits?

It all appears choreographed to fit a plan…but whose plan?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:09 pm - Apr 26, 2014


StevieBC says:
April 26, 2014 at 1:47 pm
‘but we all saw the Ibrox roof problem.’
——–
A good reminder of the less-than-totally-honest drafters of the IPO document.
I think I mentioned that the Commwlth Games people said that there will be no actual ‘danger’ to Commwlth games visitors to the stadium.
But that is a far cry from spending millions on ‘upgrades’.
Dishonesty, obfuscation and huge incompetence seem to be as much the hallmark of any Board of RIFC plc /TRFC as they were of the Board of SDM’s day.

View Comment

61patrickPosted on2:09 pm - Apr 26, 2014


What is the cut off date for going into admin and incurring a points penalty this season rather than next for sevco.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on2:12 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Lets not lose sight of the fact this is a Company on the stock market..and such detail being released in such a way questions the legality and protocol of such detail being provided as well as the trading impact it will have…

There is no other industry I know of where this behaviour would be tolerated…let alone go unchallenged or uninvestigated by the media.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on2:15 pm - Apr 26, 2014


61patrick says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:09 pm
…………………
SFA rules state…points deducted this season if they enter admin before the end of this season…and next season if the enter after the end of this season…but no clear definition as to what happens if they enter admin before the end of this season and continue into next season?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:17 pm - Apr 26, 2014


A question occurs to me, that may have already been answered: does the Castlemilk-born convicted tax evader’s season ticket Trust Company have a Credit/Debit Card backer?

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on2:20 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Can we assume that BBC Sportssound will also provide live coverage of the games involving the league winners of Division 2 Peterhead and the Championship winners?

Just asking?…or do we assume that they will only do this for 1 club in the 4 divisions?

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on2:23 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Record story suggests that source of First Data story comes from inside Ibrox

The correspondence…..circulated between senior staff including Wallace and ex-finance director Brian Stockbridge did they mention fears for a season ticket snub “

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on2:25 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Saw this post on an Arabs website which seems clear and accurate on the possibility and problems of a share issue.

http://arableague.co.uk/single/?p=8036685&t=8575442

Evening Times seems to have been the source of the story.
Quote:
 
“The loan from James Easdale, who is a director of Rangers International Footbal Club plc, and Sandy Easdale, a director of Rangers Football Club, and Laxey Partners would be up to £1.5m, and the repayment in shares would be happen at some point in the next 12 months.”

So. This is an emergency fundraising to last between now and a proper fundraising. This is important.

At its AGM last December, RFC shareholders rejected the “disapplication of pre-emption rights” special ruling. Pre-emption rights mean that, if a company wants to raise money by issuing new shares, the shares must be offered to current shareholders first. Pre-emption rights block the idea that Dave King or whoever could rescue RFC by buying a stake, because all other shareholders would have to offered the new stock before Dave. And, having raised cash in December 2012 with a share issue at 70p apiece, it simply isn’t an option for RFC to go back to existing holders with a share issue priced below 20p apiece. Everyone involved would be taken out and shot.

Therefore, RFC now needs to survive for long enough to call another shareholder meeting, where investors will get the threat: “either give up your pre-emption rights or the club’s dead.” That’s what this (theoretical) £1.5m is for. I’d guess it would give them three months to get everything sorted.

That confirmed and clarified what others were talking about here yesterday.

Is there any reason existing shareholders would again block the disapplication of pre-exemption rights?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:33 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:20 pm
‘..do we assume that they will only do this for 1 club in the 4 divisions?’
————-
As well as the rules of Scottish Football being distorted and arbitrarily applied, the long-hallowed conventions of BBC Radio Scotland football commentary broadcasting ( which previously paid little attention to any clubs not in the top division) have been cast to the wind.
This can only be due to the need the head honchos have to continue the very, very deeply ingrained and long-established bias that the Sports department has had as a matter of course.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:34 pm - Apr 26, 2014


JC I’m quite sure that King does not have merchant services arranged…
or a call centre
or a website
or staff
etc…
That would take not an insignificant upfront amount of money to set up.

King has registered a company with him and Gough as directors. That might cost a few hundred quid if he got someone to do it for him. And IMO, that’s as far as his Trust nonsense will go.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on2:38 pm - Apr 26, 2014


To be fair to the BBC, there is a very high public interest in The Ibrox Club whatever division they are in, so I can understand why they get more coverage than a diddy club in the 3rd tier would normally expect. Public service and all.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:42 pm - Apr 26, 2014


ecobhoy says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:02 pm

Sorry you were led, by my (lack of) writing skill, to think I was categorically stating that the writer of the piece was making an assumption based solely on the timing of the DK call for a boycott, but I was merely trying to point out that the first part of the quote would suggest they had seen something, but then they covered that by qualifying it with the known fact of the dates involved. This was written in light of Daveythelothion’s post showing the boycotts had been threatened much earlier. My whole post was meant to show that, regardless of who said what, when, that unless the ‘journalist’ had seen documented evidence of the reason why the provider had pulled out, or been told by a valid source, then it was yet another assumption. It might have been useful if he’d made it clear what he was basing his claims on.

Regardless, either Wallace was telling porkies, or the writer was making assumptions based on timings. Just another nonsensical part of all this nonsense!

View Comment

OldcobrokemyheartbycheatingPosted on2:50 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Listening to Sevco tear itself apart I must say I am going to enjoy for purely selfish reasons, their inability to take their medicine is crazy. Clyde 1 yes we shouldn’t, glad I did today though, as it just sums up the attitudes that will kill them again. Not to worry though every things going to be Dave Kingey, that is what they cling too just like they used to purr at David Murray’s moonbeams. Been lurking for a long time became tired of what Scottish football had become, hopefully this week the winds of change will change the footballing landscape for the better. Thanks to Ecobhoy as well reading your educated rebuttal’s of the land claims, over the last few months has been superb patience of a saint.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on3:09 pm - Apr 26, 2014


rougvielovesthejungle says:
April 26, 2014 at 12:43 am
Wallace is in an impossible position now-he is trying to make the best of it and get out without a major blot on his CV

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on3:12 pm - Apr 26, 2014


rougvielovesthejungle says:
April 26, 2014 at 12:43 am
No his level of dissatisfaction was no Am Dram act-he realized he had been sold a pup.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:24 pm - Apr 26, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
April 26, 2014 at 3:09 pm
‘…he is trying to make the best of it and get out without a major blot on his CV’
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
April 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm
‘..he realized he had been sold a pup.
———
Issuing a ‘review’ of the kind we have seen IS a major blot on his CV. What prospective employer would not think’ What a plonker to put his name to that farrago of nonsense and contradictions@
And for such an ‘experienced’ operator in the football business world to come the SDM-‘I was duped’ line is a further indication of his less than razor-like business acumen and/or an indication of gutlessness.
He has irreversibly made himself an arse.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on3:25 pm - Apr 26, 2014


abrahamtoast says:
April 22, 2014 at 2:22 pm
I stand by the story-rock solid sources.
It might be possible to reveal more in the coming period -there are source protections issues though.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on3:56 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Sevcos must have produced a business plan, financial projections, FPPs and commitments to fulfil obligations under the SFA – and to provide enough evidence to justify the duffers `sale`
Then there`s the financial credibility paperwork for AIM, Nomads, IPO and all the Legals – and there`s plenty of Legals.

I remember reading the IPO in detail
– but don’t remember the bit inside describing a total catastrophic financial situation to be expected in 18 months.

Now the Jolly Good News – is that all these August bodies charged with upholding Legal, Financial and sporting probity – will all now have mission statements – and Codes of Conduct – probably conforming to all UK/EU directives such as ISO accreditation – Hell wouldn`t be surprised if some even have Sustainable Green credits – and best of all;
– all covered by PI[I] – that is very expensive Professional Indemnity Insurance. Works for CB

Golly 😉

[That`s a hint bears]

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:13 pm - Apr 26, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
April 26, 2014 at 3:25 pm

Would be interesting to know if the leak to the DR occurred before or after Mr Wallace admonished Mr Easdale for speaking out of turn :mrgreen:

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on4:20 pm - Apr 26, 2014


The issue of the assets is so crucial in this panto. If they were owned by the board/ investors then I imagine this would aid some sort of finance/loans (at the present not a penny). I am aware that there is a court case in the future with CW and CG concerning this matter (Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland, Deed of Novation blah blah). Mr Brown (real rangers man) on the steps way back then alluded to the legacy of who owns the deeds. He has been kinda quiet since those days. John Greig (real rangers man) left Ibrox never to return, again silence. Walter (real,real rangers man) left Ibrox and again silence. Why so much silence, as they all must have been privy to some info within the marble staircase and walls that the fans would like to here (or maybe not). If the real rangers men do not protest then why should the fans? In real rangers men they trust. If the next real rangers man Mr King does eventually take over Ibrox then it is all they deserve. As already in their eyes he settled with SARS, not as the truth would say. The Govan club was liquidated and failing to pay tax was a contribution so getting a leader who does no pay tax is about par for the course.. Not to worry the SFA will step in??

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on4:21 pm - Apr 26, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Such cynicism in one so young…

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:21 pm - Apr 26, 2014


I haven’t seen much comment regarding Deloittes and the mysterious £2m facility which eventually disappeared, but which allowed Deloittes to sign off the RIFC accounts to 30 June 2013 on a “going concern” basis. Some poor souls will have bought shares in RIFC on the basis of that audit certificate.

Anyone seen any comment from Deloittes? It seems to me that either they were materially mislead by whoever was supposedly behind this facility, or they have failed in their duty as auditors of a publicly traded company. I wonder what cast iron assurances they received regarding this facility? And how can it be that poor Mr Wallace arrives 3 months after the accounts were signed, to find that the facility doesn’t exist? Some questions worth asking of Deloittes, I think.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on4:24 pm - Apr 26, 2014


neepheid says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:21 pm
It was £2.5M

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:26 pm - Apr 26, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:21 pm

Cynic:- Term of abuse used by an optimist to describe a realist :mrgreen:

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:31 pm - Apr 26, 2014


@Neepheid Speculation at the time was that DK put that option up around the time he was trying to get on the board… Mather and Shockbridge had a wee SA excursion to negotiate with the great man.. Once he lost that option the money was withdrawn.. Not sure it is fact.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on4:42 pm - Apr 26, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:26 pm
I like that :mrgreen:

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on4:52 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Someone called ‘Con D Scend @apocryphal5′ sent two Twitter messages this morning. The first was:

“Page 3 of Herald Sport – dear God, does this superficial little scribbler have any idea how far out of step he is in this Rangers saga?”

followed by:

“Then again he remains in awe of the deposed PR guru. They enjoy lunching together.”

Could ‘Con D Scend’ be referring to the saintly Spiers who penned this puff-piece in his Herald column today? Surely Graham must have been bribed to write such tosh? It’s the most blatant piece of ‘brown-nosing’ to have come from him so far. Mr Wallace will be heartened to read that he has such an admiring fan in these troubled times. It goes:

“You can say this for Graham Wallace, a Rangers chief executive facing one of the toughest jobs in British football right now: on those rare occasions when he raises his head, such as yesterday, he looks calm, solid, a man of substance. Wallace’s long-awaited review of Rangers’ business was finally published and, within moments of it arriving, the internecine sniping started among supporters about Wallace, the club, the current Rangers season-tickets rumpus and much else.

Wallace surely found his previous role as chief finance officer at Manchester City a serene picnic compared to the hornets’ nest of Ibrox. He finds himself in an invidious position. In his six months at Rangers he has picked up the financial debris left by the post-IPO madness under Charles Green. That’s behind him. In front of him, meanwhile, are threats of season-ticket boycotts by rebel Rangers fans, at a very time when the club remains in a kind of financial intensive care and is crying out for income.

The blunt truth is the Rangers family – for want of a better phrase – is fractured and fractious. Some fans want to back Wallace and give him a chance, while others view him as a puppet of a detested regime. Wallace himself can only plough on, trying to restore Rangers to health while this vitriolic battle rages around him.

His review made for stark reading. Their position remains “precarious” and Wallace basically argued that the club had squandered tens of millions of pounds of the £70.7m it generated between May 2012 and December 2013.

Redundancies are forthcoming, and the public warring around Rangers has resulted in debit and credit card facilities being unavailable for season-ticket renewals, a consequence, Wallace claimed, of the merchant acquirer needing “extensive security” over Ibrox, which Rangers appear resolutely against. In truth, it seems that every time Wallace tries to take a step forward, some further, red-ash issue is thrown in his path.

The subject of Rangers fans’ loyalty has been debated in recent days, and was aired again yesterday as Wallace faced the media. This is a thick knot needing to be untangled. Some supporters, led by the Union of Fans, are urging a withholding of season-ticket money, part of their Dave King-led campaign for regime-change.

Season-tickets monies are a weapon for any group of supporters. The problem is, such a boycott can hurt the club you profess to love. Other Rangers supporters argue the precise opposite of the Union of Fans. They want to renew their tickets, give Wallace and this new Rangers board a fighting chance, and will not tolerate anything that might hinder Rangers reaching the top flight by the summer of 2015.

Wallace’s stark view yesterday that the club could not continue trading if there was a substantial decline in season-ticket sales sounded alarm for many supporters. So the argument rages on over what represents the greater good. Wallace must also know that the Dave King challenge will not go away. The South African-based businessman, barring one of his abrupt U-turns, appears hell-bent on acquiring major equity in the club. Right now, that road is blocked, but Wallace once again yesterday suggested that, via a future rights-issue, King might get aboard.

In terms of public performance, Wallace scored well yesterday. He seemed convincing and he exuded authority. But that authority might easily be diluted in time, as it becomes obvious how successful or otherwise he can be in raising fresh capital for Rangers. Everyone agrees that Rangers need further external cash. Wallace has set out a plan to deliver on that. But can he?”

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on5:03 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Fantastic afternoon’s football today with big wins for Dundee Utd, Ross County and Dundee. If Dundee beat Dumbarton next week they’re back in the top tier. Meanwhile Ross County’s win sees the bottom six tighter than ever.
Aberdeen’s stagger towards runners-up spot continues, in the backwash from the Scottish Cup semi disappointment. All the same, a draw with Dundee United and a win over Motherwell will see them there, whatever else happens…

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:07 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Billy Boyce says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:52 pm
===============

From the atrocious Spiers article posted by BB-
“The South African-based businessman, barring one of his abrupt U-turns, appears hell-bent on acquiring major equity in the club. Right now, that road is blocked, but Wallace once again yesterday suggested that, via a future rights-issue, King might get aboard.”

Can someone take to me one side, please, and explain to me how a rights issue helps a non shareholder to “get aboard”?

View Comment

DenPosted on5:08 pm - Apr 26, 2014


I haven’t had the opportunity to read the Wallace review in its entirety. What I have seen of it would seem to confirm the initial question: why did he need 4 months of research when the issues were obvious and immediate. The Clumpany was in a dire state and needed hands on care, not a protracted review.

His response to questions on being in line for a bonus did great damage to his reputation. A straight YES would have been damaging to his position but at least a straight answer. A NO answer would say something about probity of the man and possibly,by extension his colleagues. If he isn’t on a bonus he would have just said so.

The evasive answer was the worst option for his reputation.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on5:16 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Wallace did NOT deny board getting bonus and lied about the reason they were denied credit/debit card facilities…Has he been economical with the truth regards Admin/Sequestration..?

View Comment

twopandaPosted on5:16 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Nail some more Pants

A rights issue – for 30m?
They can`t flog STs in instalments
Who`s turn is it for the Leccy?
Blimey

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:36 pm - Apr 26, 2014


One for you guys.

From Twitter

TheythinkChazisaway ‏@Tighe77 3m
@TomGoalie33 ;)get your teeth into this.Why has the Oldco Rangers just become a subsiduary of Murray International? pic.twitter.com/vPoGB2bDv9″”

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:39 pm - Apr 26, 2014


neepheid says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Billy Boyce says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:52 pm
===============
From the atrocious Spiers article posted by BB-
“The South African-based businessman, barring one of his abrupt U-turns, appears hell-bent on acquiring major equity in the club. Right now, that road is blocked, but Wallace once again yesterday suggested that, via a future rights-issue, King might get aboard.”

Can someone take to me one side, please, and explain to me how a rights issue helps a non shareholder to “get aboard”?
==============================
As I believe anything is possible when it comes to things ‘Ibrox’ could it be that Wallace is being subtle and actually indicating that DK is already aboard? Stranger things than this have happened in this saga 🙄

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on5:46 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Night Terror says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:25 pm

“Is there any reason existing shareholders would again block the disapplication of pre-emption rights?”
—————————————–
My sketchy memory tells me that it was the requisitioners of the Extraordinary General Meeting (i.e. not the RIFC board) that attempted to have the ‘disapplication of pre-emption rights’ motion carried. I presume this was in order to provide a method of diluting the current board’s power. If the pre-emption rights had been disapplied then a new share issue could have been taken up in the majority by a new bunch of shareholders. If these new shareholders had enough shares then they might have been able to influence the current board.

Since the motion for disapplication did not attain the required threshold (66.7% ?) then the motion was not carried. This means that new shareholders cannot place influence on the board by buying up shares in a new rights issue. Instead these new shares will first be offered to existing board members thus allowing them to preserve their stake in the company even following an overall share dilution.

So to answer your question, there is every reason to believe that the current board would block any future attempt at a disapplication of pre-emption rights. They did so previously. The current board want to retain their power and are willing to purchase new shares themselves to maintain their position.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on6:40 pm - Apr 26, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm

The plot thickens!
However how could a company/club, currently in the process of Liquidation, be sold?
I would have expected the last chance for that to be done was the CVA.
The CVA failed and that company/club was handed over to the liquidators.
If it has been sold back to the Murray Group what have the liquidators been charging for and more importantly I assume they are now liable for the ‘wee tax case’ bill and the money owed to all of the other creditors.

Finance eh who would have thought it!
It really is a dark art!

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:46 pm - Apr 26, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm

‘Tis True, the deid club is now subsidiary of MIH

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC192523/MURRAY-INTERNATIONAL-HOLDINGS-LIMITED/group-structure#group-structure

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:55 pm - Apr 26, 2014


To be fair to spiers and his type. It is bound to be confusing. Previously you wrote a

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:57 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Pathetic fawning pro RFC board piece and got sports writer of the year. Now it doesn’t even get you in with the bears, never mind anyone else!

View Comment

scottcPosted on7:19 pm - Apr 26, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 6:46 pm

nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm

‘Tis True, the deid club is now subsidiary of MIH

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC192523/MURRAY-INTERNATIONAL-HOLDINGS-LIMITED/group-structure#group-structure

To be honest it has probably never actually ceased to be an MIH subsidiary as far as the records go. Probably just another thing that CW failed to get round to

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:26 pm - Apr 26, 2014


scottc says:
April 26, 2014 at 7:19 pm

Possibly, but, the byzantine nature of both individuals makes the paper trail a pain in the ass

View Comment

Palacio67Posted on7:31 pm - Apr 26, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 6:46 pm
2 0 Rate This

nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm

‘Tis True, the deid club is now subsidiary of MIH

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC192523/MURRAY-INTERNATIONAL-HOLDINGS-LIMITED/group-structure#group-structure
——————————————————-
It does say dissolved though, can it be un-dissolved 😉

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on8:08 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Re RFC 2012. I would be very surprised if this information is correct. Shares in a company that is in lliquidation cannot be transferred without the consent of the liquidator.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:15 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Billy Boyce says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:52 pm
‘..and the public warring around Rangers has resulted in debit and credit card facilities being unavailable for season-ticket renewals, a consequence, Wallace claimed, of the merchant acquirer needing “extensive security” over Ibrox,’
————
Can’t blame any columnist for being ‘scooped’ by a rival rag . ( Well, actually, you probably can)
But I think it’s only fair that a columnist who so uncritically sings the praises of Dupe 2 on the very day said Dupe is exposed as something less than Washingtonian in his attitude to Truth, ought to apologise on his knees. Especially a columnist who has previous in terms of eating succulent lamb doled out by Grand Dupe 1
It’s not just directors of football clubs that never seem to learn, is it?

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on8:27 pm - Apr 26, 2014


JimBhoy says:

April 26, 2014 at 12:54 pm
If you have a little less than the suggested amount in the bank in December why did you need to secure £1.5m in loans last month?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Heres a possible explanation
Firstly
They dont have a proper bank
So any money they claim to have in cash is lodged with fellow Spivs in a spiv Bank
Secondly
They do not reveal how much of the “cash” is already spoken for
–the £1.5m in loans
–Wallace`s fixed price “salary and bonus” and
–Extraordinary payments due next week
eg Bonuses for playing staff Ally et al for winning league
PAYE overdues
etc etc

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:37 pm - Apr 26, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 6:46 pm
5 0 Rate This

nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm

‘Tis True, the deid club is now subsidiary of MIH

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC192523/MURRAY-INTERNATIONAL-HOLDINGS-LIMITED/group-structure#group-structure
————

Is this something to with that judge who has been branded (indirectly) a biased Celtic supporter?

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on8:50 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Palacio67 says:
April 26, 2014 at 7:31 pm
3 0 Rate This

scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 6:46 pm
2 0 Rate This

nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm
=====:::
Can smoke be made into coal?

View Comment

indy14Posted on8:56 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Can smoke be made into coal?
—————-
Apparently, if you blow it up the &ss of the gullible

View Comment

indy14Posted on9:18 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Just saw a tweet and it triggered something….if you pay by credit card you as the consumer have protection, chargebacks are possible for services or products not provided or supplied….so…the removal of CC services for TRFC means that those fans who pay by any other means…are in their entirety…unsecured creditors…they are openly screwing their own fans should an insolvency eventhappens

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on9:22 pm - Apr 26, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
April 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm

No his [Wallace] level of dissatisfaction was no Am Dram act-he realized he had been sold a pup.
——————————————–
How is it that people who get themselves into such significant positions in this saga seem to do so without having checked out the things that everyone on here knows? Do they seriously take what they’re told over a business lunch as gospel and put their career as an honest business person at risk on the basis of someone’s sales pitch, without asking around? That level of naivety (if that’s what it is) in in itself pretty damning on someone’s business record.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on9:22 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
April 26, 2014 at 8:08 pm

That’s what i thought, but company check have it as a sub of MIH, go figure maybe someone got their £1 back :mrgreen: But, yes, wouldn’t be the first time that computer records were incorrectly associated.

EDIT

Plot thickens a little

http://t.co/cMxQzvQDae

View Comment

indy14Posted on9:35 pm - Apr 26, 2014


ok, I’m a livewire tonight! Are the SFA and SPFL opening themselves up to scrutiny and possible litigation should TRFC be granted a license and fail to complete the season? just wonderin if as companies themselves they are complicit in “wrongful trading” I mean they must be fully aware of the situation now, and without external funding despite promises and guarantees, TRFC cannot perform the season…or am I barking?

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:41 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Indy14 – that’s right – its s75 (or maybe 74?) Of the Consumer Credit Act. If you pay by credit card and you don’t get what you paid for, the credit card company give you your money back and the credit card company are a creditor of the debtor instead of you.

Merchant services providers (the people who provide retailers with the wee machines you put your credit card into at the till) hold back money from the retailer for a period to cover the risk of chargebacks from credit card companies.

View Comment

indy14Posted on9:43 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Merchant services providers (the people who provide retailers with the wee machines you put your credit card into at the till) hold back money from the retailer for a period to cover the risk of chargebacks from credit card companies
———
😀 I work for one!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:47 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
April 26, 2014 at 8:37 pm
scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 6:46 pm
nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm

‘Tis True, the deid club is now subsidiary of MIH

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC192523/MURRAY-INTERNATIONAL-HOLDINGS-LIMITED/group-structure#group-structure
————
Is this something to with that judge who has been branded (indirectly) a biased Celtic supporter?
============================
Nope the company is in liquidation and companycheck records haven’t been correctly updated. I never trust these 3rd party company info vendors anyway and always check with Companies House Webcheck facility.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:48 pm - Apr 26, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 26, 2014 at 9:22 pm
‘.. but company check have it as a sub of MIH,..’
—–
‘Companies House’ record simply shows that what had been The Rangers FC plc ( incorporated in 1899) changed its name (but not its company number, SC004276) to RFC 2012 plc on 31/07/ 12.
That company’s ‘Status’ is still ‘LIQUIDATION’.
In so far as what we now refer to as RFC(IL) was a subsidiary of MIH (or Murray Group) it will still be a ‘deadish’ subsidiary of MIH,now the MG.-who are therefore picking up the tab for its UTT legal costs, as part of the MG legal costs.
BDO are not finished yet. Nothing new has happened. No judge has authorised anything.Nothing to worry about.
As I (no expert,mind you)understand matters.
[I don’t think the ‘Company Check Co.’ can be technically correct at present in using the word ‘dissolved’ until all the formal legal processes of liquidation(which can take years) are at an end.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:50 pm - Apr 26, 2014


ecobhoy says:
April 26, 2014 at 9:47 pm
——-
By a short head! 😀

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:57 pm - Apr 26, 2014


It is a matter of public AIM record that Wavetower acquired the shares in RFC 2012 Limited. If the shares in that company are now held by a Murray group company then it can only be because the shares have recently been transferred with consent of BDO. It is not impossible but it would be extremely unusual. I still think its a mistake. If it is correct it would be because something very important has happened that we are not aware of.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:58 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Indy,

Yes there’d be limited odds on the possibility you describe that the clubs could ‘sue’ if TRFC go phut mid season. There is a much more even chance of a ST fuelled Sevco going bust, surprise surprise no institutional funders will look near them so the fans are told pony up (again) or we can’t play on Saturday, never mind till May. One would be forgiven for thinking the SFA should perhaps take an interest now in that emotional blackmail not occurring. But how? Revoke licence ? Hands the initiative back to the Sevco board. A bond a la livi? With what?

View Comment

justshateredPosted on10:14 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Having looked through the figures released yesterday it looks as though there looks to be roughly an annual £6M shortfall between what is brought in and what is currently spent.
Now if cuts are made, players released or even better sold, then the shortfall is reduced. Perhaps even the reduction of the coaching staff or even a permanent wage reduction could theoretically get them over the line along with an increase in season ticket prices.

I’m attempting to give the benefit of the doubt here but the problem still remain and should be emphasised that all of this is TO STAND STILL. There will be no squad improvement on this strategy. ‘The Rangers’ will constantly be scrambling around players coming out of contract. Now it could be that over a period of time they may get a good player through their ranks and sell him on for a good profit or unearth a gem and sell him on. The problem there is that for this to happen there needs to be a reasonable scouting network and there isn’t one. To put one in place will cost money. Money that is not there. Add to this there is always unexpected costs like repair bills or a new lawn mower for Murray Park.
Remember that Ally McCoist’s wage is only temporarily reduced and the players salaries are also increasing.

I’m still of the mind that this is headed for a brown field site although Phil mentioned last night that Dave King could buy Ibrox in a liquidation sale. The key word there is ‘liquidation’. That is ‘Do Not Pass Go’ territory. If liquidation occurs in mid season then it truly is game over. I don’t think the clubs in Leagues 1 and 2 would be too happy having a new club taking the place of another club, above them, midway through the season. This is before you even get to the clubs playing in the same league. I would think even Regan, Doncaster, and Ogilvie would know that the game was up. They would be looking to protect their own backs. At the end of the day £95K can only buy you so much support!!

Would ‘The Rangers’ fans be content to make another journey up through the leagues ‘making friends’ for a second time in three years.
I think not.
This is the nightmare scenario I predicted last night.
If administration and a separation of property assets and club does not occur before the season ends, whenever that date is seems to be open to debate, then without external finance this is a real possibility.

If that scenario does come to pass then the fans battle for justice like 2012 will have to be fought again. This time however our individual clubs will already have our season ticket money and the outcome will not be guaranteed.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:38 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
April 26, 2014 at 9:57 pm
‘….. If it is correct it would be because something very important has happened that we are not aware of.’
———-
Sadly, It’s doubtful that anything of any legal import involving transfer of ownership of a liquidated company’s assets could have been kept under wraps.( I was enjoying the fantasy that the whole ‘Administration’ and the ludicrous sale to CG might have been declared null and void, and CW being declared the rightful owner of the assets: who promptly kept to his bargain with SDM and signed them back to him! And enjoying the fall-out from that happening: everything that had taken place since CG took over- the the SFA membership, the IPO, the whole shebang having to be unwound back to first day of declared insolvency!
While that could theoretically happen, legally, it could not happen in anything less than years, and certainly not in secret.
But still……. 🙄

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on10:53 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Castofthousands says:
April 26, 2014 at 5:46 pm
8 0 Rate This

Night Terror says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:25 pm

“Is there any reason existing shareholders would again block the disapplication of pre-emption rights?”
—————————————–
My sketchy memory tells me that it was the requisitioners of the Extraordinary General Meeting (i.e. not the RIFC board) that attempted to have the ‘disapplication of pre-emption rights’ motion carried. I presume this was in order to provide a method of diluting the current board’s power. If the pre-emption rights had been disapplied then a new share issue could have been taken up in the majority by a new bunch of shareholders. If these new shareholders had enough shares then they might have been able to influence the current board.

Since the motion for disapplication did not attain the required threshold (66.7% ?) then the motion was not carried. This means that new shareholders cannot place influence on the board by buying up shares in a new rights issue. Instead these new shares will first be offered to existing board members thus allowing them to preserve their stake in the company even following an overall share dilution.

So to answer your question, there is every reason to believe that the current board would block any future attempt at a disapplication of pre-emption rights. They did so previously. The current board want to retain their power and are willing to purchase new shares themselves to maintain their position.

With all due respect, my memory and the voting patterns indicated the opposite …

Notice of AGM…
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11785392

AGM results re here…

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11812355

Memory was that those backing the board rather than those backing the rebels/requisitioners could only get approximately 30% of the vote, see resolution 11,12,13,14.

The board (backed by the maority of shareholders) wanted resolutions 9 & 10.

Resolution 10 being a special resolution needed a higher percentage and failed (i think it needed 75%).

Resolution 9 passed, at the time and now, i do not fuly see the logic.

The only logic i will opine is the current shareholders (well 67% of them anyway) wish to dilute their shareholding without just asking themselves, for a purpose of getting others peoples money in.

Anyway, resolution 9 allows 43 million shares (nominal value 1 pence) to be issued, these would raise 43 million times aproximately 25 pence at RIFC share price today ( i am being generous!) so would only raise about 11 million pounds. Enough for one season all other things being equal in RIFC/TRFC current rate of over-expenditure.

Of course the efficient market hypothesis says that as RIFC are currently valued at 66 million shares times 25 pence, 16.5 million pounds.

If i bought all 44 milion shares currently unissued, I would be stupid to pay more than 40% of the companys current worth (i.e 40% 0f 16.5 is 6.6 million) for the lot. So theoretically they can only raise 6.6 million from those 43 million shares. Not enough for season 2014/2015.

Of course I am not an accountant and could be widel wrong, not a lot in the RFC/SEVCO 5088/SEVCO SCOTLAND/TRFC/RIFC fiasco makes any sense to me.

Buddy

PS: Thanks to all on RTC/TSFM for educating me to this level , even if wrong should add to the debate!

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on11:18 pm - Apr 26, 2014


redlichtie says:
April 26, 2014 at 11:37 am
20 0 Rate This

ecobhoy says:
April 26, 2014 at 8:44 am
“Again if the Record story is correct the ‘merchant acquirer’ had made the decision a month before the first mention of boycott and it was other factors more to do with the financial position at Rangers that caused them to demand security. It would appear the SFA might think Rangers can complete its fixtures next season but it appears the ‘merchant acquirer’ has other thoughts and, at the end of the day, they will have a very insightful and independent view of the Ibrox financial situation.”
================================================================
Maybe the SFA should look at outsourcing their licence evaluation/fit and proper person test to people like this. They seem to have the ‘cast of thousands’ or whatever real resource is needed to carry out such detailed evaluations.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

Absolutely right on the money.

As long as all companys lodge accounts without any caveats, then a lelve of confidence in the company/club is given, subject to the accurate disclosure by the company/club and their auditors of the true position.

Obviously the accounts are a historical fact, events will move on in the lag of about a year.

Hence the importance of accounts/annual returns being posted on time.

Which takes us back to the RFC (NIL) accounts which where due if i remember december 2011, their absence should have immediately triggered proper disciplinary action, serious immediate action of the you are fined all your oints for the season action.

And again the late posted TRFC accounts and missing first annual return which remain an indicator that the current TRFC are not a licensable entity due to the dubiety over TRFC formaton and ownership.

Obviously in light of the sorry financial scandals with ENRON and others and the financial collapse of 2008 I actually have less belief in the auditors in the role of whistleblowers than i have in terms of the SFA/SPFL as regulators/administrators.

Buddy

View Comment

indy14Posted on11:20 pm - Apr 26, 2014


on KDS – this post

Spotted a couple of interesting comments in today’s Herald piece on Sevco…I thought the Lying King had cleared up his issues with the SA taxman!!! Anyone got anymore info on this?

the tax guys in South Africa are now chasing Mr. King for his previous 12 years tax returns, which are still to be submitted and nothing paid to date.

Reports in the South African press last weekend indicate that the tax authorities there are losing patience with Mr. King, and seem to feel he is reneging on his promise ( at trial ) to submit his outstanding tax returns for the past 12 years. These remain outstanding despite his lawyers’ promises of these being submitted ” expeditiously “. Given past experience the amount required to be paid will be very substantial or it will be back to the courts again.

Return of the King? aye to the courts again! is he really that dumb? HE certainly appears glib and ever so slightly shameless about the need to do what he said he would do, now would that suggest he might have been lying?

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on11:24 pm - Apr 26, 2014


upthehoops says:
April 26, 2014 at 12:08 pm
91 1 Rate This

broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
April 26, 2014 at 11:49 am
=================================
You are a legal man, I am not, but my layman’s view is the SFA don’t really care whether the club from Ibrox meet the criteria or not, because they have granted immortality to the club from Ibrox and will bend or even break their own rules to keep it playing. I may be wrong in that assertion but it seems pretty clear to me judging by their actions so far in this entire debacle.

– The SFA did nothing about the previous Rangers not paying tax or N.I despite knowing months before the rest of us.

– The SFA tried to force a new Rangers into the SPL then Division 1, despite there being no rules to do so, or precedent of any kind.

– The SFA currently sit in silence as the financial carnage at Ibrox unfolds around them

It’s completely sickening and an insult to every other club, but that is where we are.

Utterly agree and something I cannot see changing, no matter how much I would like it to,

I understand why others have walked away from their clubs/scottish football because of the role of the SFA/SPFL/their club in the omnishambles of RFC(NIL)/SEVCO 5088/SEVCO SCOTLAND/TRFC/RIFC.

Bizarrely it is one of the things which keeps me involved, I feel the need to keep on in spite of horrendous odds of acheiving a transparent/well governed Scottish Football.

Or maybe I am just a scottish football masochist.

Buddy

View Comment

AquinasPosted on11:50 pm - Apr 26, 2014


Buy, hire, and support nothing with SFA on it, tainted, institutionally rotten to the foundations.
Not one thin dime from me to the Sevco Forever Arseholes!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:02 am - Apr 27, 2014


buddy_holly says:
April 26, 2014 at 10:53 pm
‘..PS: Thanks to all on RTC/TSFM for educating me to this level , even if wrong should add to the debate!’
————-
And I agree with you as to the ‘awareness level’ that this blog has raised us to.
I’m sure you and I are not the only ones who, whatever our own personal backgrounds and current or previous life and work experience may have been, have had our eyes opened and our minds directed to many murky areas which we in our innocence did not think to question or examine.
Now,if the Ibrox faithful had had an RTC equivalent:
if they had even listened to what was being said by RTC at the really critical time
if they had read and asked the questions that Phil asked
if there had then been- what we are now seeing too late- the kind of readiness on the part of intelligent supporters of the club to question the guff that David Murray , the real killer of their club, fed them as pap through the ‘succulent lamb eating’ hack-pack
if they had listened to ‘bomber’
if they had looked at the idiotic serial endorsement by McCoist of a string of charlatan directors, and questioned the contradictions
IF…..
then they would have not been led like lambs to the slaughter.
Their awareness of what was actually happening would have been raised to the point where it might have been possible for them to influence the outcomes.
Sadly, they had no RTC, no TSFM, no Phil.And they believed the crap daily fed to them by award winning ‘journos’ and parisan BBC phone-in phonies lining themselves up for (in the event) short-lived jobs as PR men for the spivs who continued to rape the club.

What they did have, and still have, though, is the track record of SFA support for them, whatever!
And, as day follows knight, the support of the SMSM, including the ‘impartial’ gurus of BBC radio Scotland..
As oor Wullie ( Shakespoke, that is) had a character say: ‘Tis true, ’tis pity,
And pity ’tis ’tis true’

View Comment

BrendaPosted on12:02 am - Apr 27, 2014


Are the SFA required to comment on goings-on at ibrox or will they just look the other way (as per) and hope it will all go away 😉 if only 😉

View Comment

Comments are closed.