David 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.
He 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.
My post of April 27, 2014 at 11:52 am refers.
In the interests of fairness and balance, I report that Andrew Smith of the ‘Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday’ has sent me this email in reply:
” Apr 29 at 4:08 PM
Hi John, thanks for the email. I do accept I may have been guilty of using watered-down language on this score at times, but not Sunday. I was using the ‘mismanaged’ word deliberately, because that is what appeared in the review. I was using it against a man who has rubbished that review. I was trying to be smart. Might have failed but there you go. Yet, as you have quoted, I mentioned his convictions. But he did plea bargain away all the money laundering and racketeering , charges, you must remember.
Point taken though and thanks for the mail.
cheers
Andrew “
The SFA haven’t changed, they are a collective of blazers dining out every week on Scottish Football Fans money, they believe they know what’s best for Scottish Football, Gin filled well connected upper class tossers, more interested in making business contacts than seeing schools get fitbas and cones.
Kick up a stink with yer local MSP and ask for no cash to be given the SFA from government funds until. Ogilvie is removed from post.
£3 a month, mon!
A.
John Clark says:
April 30, 2014 at 12:07 am
1
0
Rate This
My post of April 27, 2014 at 11:52 am refers.
In the interests of fairness and balance, I report that Andrew Smith of the ‘Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday’ has sent me this email in reply:
” Apr 29 at 4:08 PM
Hi John, thanks for the email. I do accept I may have been guilty of using watered-down language on this score at times, but not Sunday. I was using the ‘mismanaged’ word deliberately, because that is what appeared in the review. I was using it against a man who has rubbished that review. I was trying to be smart. Might have failed but there you go. Yet, as you have quoted, I mentioned his convictions. But he did plea bargain away all the money laundering and racketeering , charges, you must remember.
Point taken though and thanks for the mail.
cheers
Andrew “
________________________________________
Respect to him for his Tomo like engagement.
And to you for yours.
By such respectful engagement is progress made.
Nice one!
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 29, 2014 at 11:41 pm
0
0
Rate This
ptd1978 says:
April 29, 2014 at 11:23 pm
1
0
Rate This
_____________________________________
Should add that any number of variations on this is possible e.g. relegation need not be automatic, but could by by play off, for example.
The underlying principle that makes it all work though – in whatever embodiment it were to be adopted – is that it is the geograpic location of the (potentially) relegated club that ultimately determines which of the champions has the chance (or certainty) of promotion, irrespective.
So there could be 2/3/4 or more equal regional league winners, who have never played each other or each others league opponents. They start out the season with an equal chance of promotion.
Which of them ultimately gets the nod come the finish is simply determined solely by geographical proximity to whoever happens to be relegated that year – a fact over which none of them has any control or influence.
Seems fair enough to me.
Matty Roth at 10.07pm:
The mention of Arif Naqvi as the man behind Blue Pitch and Margarita was later corrected by Charles Green:
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2451-charles-green-statement
He said the “beneficiary” was Mazen Houssami. He is a lawyer based in Beirut, Lebanon.
His biggest client is Albert “Albertino” Abela. An interesting character.
Other names listed at that time, such as Haddad and Kaisar, are also of Lebanese descent with links to Monaco and the Abelas.
Chris Morgan – who Blue Pitch and Margarita tried to get voted on to the RIFC board – has worked for a number of Abela’s companies.
Morgan has also worked for convicted bank fraudster Rafat Ali Rizvi, who has had business links to Charles Green, Brian Stockbridge and Imran Ahmad.
Matty Roth at 10.07pm:
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2451-charles-green-statement
A Very Early Good Morning.
Burgh Bhoy,
Re my post of yesterday re the LNS rulings and opinions,you set out some very salient jurisprudential points and reasoning in relation to TUPE provisions and indeed the law of “clubs” and possibly even “undertakings” in general, although as has been pointed out the use of the term “Club” can have different legal meaning in different circumstances and context.
Now, I don’t want to bore everyone to death with an in depth legalities debate but there are a couple of points to make and questions to pose.
The intended thrust of my comments from yesterday was all about accountability and if you take the LNS reasoning to its logical conclusion, then no football club, or undertaking if that be the term used to accurately describe a football club in this context, will ever be accountable or held to account for any misdeed or improper acting of any party who runs it because the club itself will always stand wholly separate from the limited company, the board of directors, the players, the officials and even the supporters who run, play for or support that club.
Only a theoretical jurist would really consider that to be the case as in sporting terms a “club” must practically have a defined context and a legal persona to be able to participate in a league or competition.
So, pausing there, let’s take Celtic FC as an example.
If Celtic ( or any other team or club ) are an “undertaking” then when did that undertaking start?
Going by LNS’ purely theoretical thinking, the “club” must have started well in advance of 6th November 1887 as it is illogical to conclude that a whole host of people just suddenly took it upon themselves to turn up at St Mary’s Hall one night and start a football club. The very idea of Celtic must have been discussed and thought of before then. Perhaps Celtic were formed in the barber’s shop in Dalmarnock Street ( now Springfield Road ) where the “idea” of a Celtic Football Club was discussed long before that night in November?
The clear and logical truth is that the “club” in true terms only came into being when it was given legal substance and shape by way of the formal meeting on 6th November where subscriptions were taken and matters were formalised and given a structure..
Now this is important in relation to some of the other arguments, because it is clear that everyone appears to accept that this “club” existed before it ever played a game AND before there was any Scottish League. Further, a club “exists” outwith the rules of the SFA — in fact one club recently applied to join the SFA and play football in the lower leagues — so membership of the league or a sports body or association is an irrelevance in determining the legal status of the club — and if that is so then the entire SFA set of rules could be completely ignored as the Celtic “Club” came into being long before it sought membership of the SFA and outwith any SFA rules — same with many other “clubs”.
Pausing there, it has been pointed out that a “club” cannot incorporate but rather that it changes its legal format from that of an unincorporated association to a limited company — the two being wholly different things. On the face of it, that position would appear to support your contention ( LNS contention ) that a “club” can exist separate to a company, as the club can chose to incorporate or not — and you back that up by begging the question were Celtic the same club post and prior to the incorporation of the limited company.
However, is it really not the case that a club can only truly exist if it has adopted a legal persona through which it lives and conducts its business, and is capable of trading and competing, and having adopted that persona it is then bound into the legal framework of that persona complete with all the obligations and duties that such a persona brings with it? If that legal persona ( the unincorporated association ) chooses to administer the club by way of a different persona ( Ltd Company ) then it can do so — but surely the club is always attached to the chosen legal persona?
My point of yesterday was that, if that is not the case, then all of the Directors of say Rangers PLC can not only be investigated for fraud or whatever, they can actually be convicted and that will have no impact upon the “club” because the “club” is a separate matter from the Ltd company.
Or taking it further, in the event that the UTT declares that the entire EBT debacle was an illegal scheme, thus making a further nonsense of the LNS musings on that situation ( where he deemed the EBT position to be legal as a result of the FTT decision ) and in turn someone determining that there were rule breaches for a decade which were fundamental breaches of the SFA rules, none of that will fundamentally matter or affect the “club” as the club stands different to and outside the legal persona of the limited company which de facto registered with the SFA — remembering that registration or involvement with the SFA has absolutely nothing to do with the actual existence or conduct of a “club” in this context,
I may have pointed this out before, but not too long ago I was discussing something with a member of the Scottish Judiciary when he suddenly said ” It is amazing what happens when you stop thinking like a lawyer. In a committee of ten, the nine lawyers round the table automatically took a view on the matter and all nine reached the same “legal” conclusion. The one non lawyer then spoke up and said that if you adopted a purely legal stance then practically A, B and C must follow. Everyone else thought about this, agreed with the practicalities he pointed out, and to a man all nine lawyers changed their initial opinion as the consequences of applying the initial legal thinking was both a nonsense and ridiculous.”
And the law is not meant to result in the nonsensical or ridiculous.
If you were to take the LNS conclusions a small step further, it could be argued that Third Lanark ( an underatking completely separate to the limited company which went into liquidation ) have been on the longest unbeaten run in sporting history since 1967!
Further, Clydebank — not withstanding all the legal transfers of goodwill, shares etc and a formal change of name to Airdrie Utd — are existing quite happily in a cupboard somewhere off KIlbowie Road.
Next week, we can discuss the joys of goodwill, depreciation and amortisation and for fantasists we examine The Yeti, Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
April 30, 2014 at 5:29 am
6 0 Rate This
———
Never understood why LNS was involved in the first place. Seemed more logical to use extant football rules and regulations to either punish or vindicate the dual contracts issue. Cowardice?
PS The Loch Ness Monster is big business. A mythical creature with (at least) 500m fans worldwide is an investment opportunity not to be missed, surely 😀
If TRFC go into Liquidation, And someone wanted to start a “CLUB”….”TEAM”.playing out of the ibrox stadium. 😕 What new name would they be called as most have already gone.
ie,TRFC,TRIFC,RFC,Rangers 1872,
Anyone any idea? 😕
Looks like the word liquidation has been removed from the Ibrox English Dictionary. ‘Before we entered administration’. Perhaps a bit of photo censorship will be next, with Whyte and Green ghosted out of historic images — just like Trotsky, they were never there.
Good article.
http://m.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/ally-mccoist-accountability-gap-at-rangers-1-3392216
ptd1978 says:
April 29, 2014 at 11:23 pm
7 0 Rate This
OT, but something that might be a problem in the future if the SFA are left to organise it without oversight from anybody competent.
How will promotion and relegation work from the regional leagues to League 2?
The performance of just about any team allowed in in the last 20 years suggests it might take a good few years before the top regional teams all come through and find their level in the national league, but what if the vast majority of the teams going down all come from (for example) just the lowland league catchment area? Is that okay, or is there a mechanism for balancing the numbers? I don’t think there should be but one or the other regional leagues could become quite a lonely place.
——————
I’m sure I read that the leagues will be rebalanced by moving clubs from a league depending on who gets relegated. For example if a highland league team gets promoted but maybe queens park goes down the lowlands league team that is geographically the furthest north would have to move into the highland league.
As I understood it the winners of the two ‘level 5’ leagues would be playing off against each other for the chance to play the tenth team in League 2 for promotion to the SPFL proper. The geographic imbalance could certainly happen. I’m sure they have thought about that though. 🙂
(Or maybe they are just leaving that for others to worry about)
Rule C33 covers it
highfibre says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:55 am
1 0 Rate This
———
To be honest, the big European money-spinning clubs that have sold their soul are very much alive. For how long, though, is the question. It all looks unsustainable.
Football teams do exist that are based in and built from the local community, your local team may be just such a club. Mine is. The mistake many countries have made, imo, is pandering to a self-styled elite in their super leagues. This has hurt many smaller football clubs that draw players and support from the immediate community or region. It’s bigger leagues for me, with much more relegation promotion, and a large percentage of the total league budget evenly divided in solidarity. A one-off solidarity payment may not mean much to the big boys but what a difference it could make further down the divisions.
If there’s one positive to come from the demise of RFC it’s been the exposure all of the lower leagues have received on telly and in the media in general. Clubs that the broadcasters, and many fans of top clubs, have previously dismissed as diddy have been shown to be well-run, extremely proud, and most with a long unbroken history. On top of that they offer honest-to-goodness fitba of a quality that has surprised many.
We’ll no doubt be seeing more of the same next year with Scottish Championship matches covered extensively. Funnly enough, the media adoration will probably still revolve around a club that can not and will not live within its means. But while the media and the SFA pamper the reprobates we’ll at least get a chance to enjoy more of the teams set adrift in the lifeboats when the SS Scottish Premier League sailed off without them.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
April 30, 2014 at 5:29 am
A very good post and I am probably with you most of the way except for this para:
I really am puzzled that you seem to have difficulty in accepting that the EBT scheme was anything other than legal as far as the FTT Decision is concerned. All parties before LNS accepted this position and the SPL went further and stated that this would remain their position irrespective of any subsequent reversal of the decision by the UTT.
I therefore think it is a poor response with someone who usually has a fine legal mind to describe LNS in what is really quite a derogatory fashion by referring to his ‘musings’ as ‘nonsense’.
The LNS Commission was incapable of holding the EBT to be illegal for a number of reasons which you are well aware of. If it had declared the EBTs to be illegal then the Court of Session would have overturned the LNS Decision and any penalties imposed in the blink of an eye.
And where is your case if the UTT and any subsequent appeal stages continue to rule that the EBTs weren’t illegal? We all know that morally their use was repugnant and also conferred a sporting advantage to Rangers but LNS had to operate within the law and on the evidence presented or be overturned on appeal – it really is that simple.
The second part of the paragraph confuses me somewhat as I think the Bryson Definition – ludicrous and basically unchallenged by the SPL – put paid to any meaningful penalties for the ‘club’ such as stripping titles. Always remember that again at no point did the SPL ask for titles to be stripped nor indeed did they request any specific penalties for anything to be imposed.
Danish Pastry says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:04 am
4 0 i
Rate This
Looks like the word liquidation has been removed from the Ibrox English Dictionary. ‘Before we entered administration’. Perhaps a bit of photo censorship will be next, with Whyte and Green ghosted out of historic images — just like Trotsky, they were never there.
Good article.
http://m.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/ally-mccoist-accountability-gap-at-rangers-1-3392216
“I want as many people to watch Rangers as humanely possible, if I could change it, [the uptake] I would change it, but we just have to play the cards we’re dealt and get on with it. We’ve got to remain half full rather than half empty. We’ve got a great game to look forward to [away to Dunfermline] and then, what a league we could be in next year, so that keeps us going.”
As many as humanely possible? That’s not going to solve their cashflow issues anytime soon
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/qa-rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-3476891 ally speaks
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-buckle-fan-pressure-open-3476768
From the Record today. Are some of the bears awakening from their long hibernation? Here’s a sample-
“RANGERS have caved in to pressure from a fan in a desperate bid to avoid a second police probe.
Shareholder Billy Paterson took the club to task after they initially refused his legal right to inspect the contracts of existing and past directors. Paterson, 49, arrived at Ibrox on Monday afternoon to make the request under Section 229 of the Companies Act 2006 amid growing concern at the financial state of the club.
He was forced to contact police and claim the law had been broken when a club official rejected his request to study the contracts of key officials, including chief executive Graham Wallace and chairman David Somers.
She cited advice from the club’s legal department but Rangers made a dramatic U-turn yesterday and have promised to open the books.”
From Twitter-
moo @moo_ted 47m
Just as I thought. Sevco 5088 voluntary striking off has been suspended ….Again! pic.twitter.com/vXqO235LkM
Danish Pastry says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:04 am
3 0 Rate This
Looks like the word liquidation has been removed from the Ibrox English Dictionary. ‘Before we entered administration’. Perhaps a bit of photo censorship will be next, with Whyte and Green ghosted out of historic images — just like Trotsky, they were never there.
Good article.
http://m.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/ally-mccoist-accountability-gap-at-rangers-1-3392216
Good article from John Clarke’s new mate in the MSM!
I liked this quote attributed to McCoist;
“What a league we could be in next year”
Could be Ally?
What do you know or are you reading TSFM and fearing the worst?!
HirsutePursuit says:
April 29, 2014 at 10:30 pm
neepheid:
===========================
I asked several weeks ago for anyone to send me a link to the legal definition that precludes a “Club” being a company. No-one did, because the myth that club has some sort of strict legal definition is just that, a myth.
===============================
@HP
I wondered whether you had ever considered the position of companies set up by Royal Warrant/Act of Parliament wrt to their ‘club’ basis.
I am particulalrly thinking about the great historical trading companies and would imagine that the likes of the East India Company might have been such an animal as they really began as ‘clubs’ of fellow merchant adventurers.
Could these companies be the missing link in the transition between club and incorporated or are they simply a Piltdown Man fit only for the Bonkers Thread 😆
BRTH……?
Next week, we can discuss the joys of goodwill, depreciation and amortisation….
BRTH……?
So you have exhausted your stock of erudite and interesting posts?
I note that McCoist (like many ‘football’ people) still has his head in the sands with regard to the need for current day managers to have a handle on the need for fiscal responsibility, especially with regard to what players he can bring in.
It is often a criticism that professional clubs should do more to look after young players and ensure they get a decent education and can handle other aspects of life and reality outwith the game.
Perhaps the coaching badges undertaken at Largs by prospective managers should have a few sessions and workshops on fiscal responsibility and the reality of living within your means.
think he said “humanely” last year too.
“characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed”
maybe he’s right.
Matty Roth says:
April 29, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Stumbled over this too,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19376352
Was this just plain wrong or has all the chatter since about the mysterious blue pitch holdings investors been nonsense?
============================================
It is a mystery still I’m afraid although I have written a number of posts wrt to the issue on ScotsLawThoughts – RIP Paul.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/ecojon-on-the-greenmcmurdo-discrepancy-and-mr-naqvis-investment-in-rangers/#more-3025
One of my earlier posts back in July 2012 is also quite useful IMO:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/who-are-the-mysterious-sevcorangers-investors-some-answers-guest-post-by-ecojon/
neepheid says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:53 am
On this basis Billy Patterson does seem to be smarter than the average bear.
Does Section 229 of the Companies Act 2006 allow Billy to reveal what he discovers to other shareholders? Or will we see over the coming weeks shareholders queuing down Edmiston Drive exercising their rights to look at the directors contracts?
neepheid says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:55 am
From Twitter-
moo @moo_ted 47m
Just as I thought. Sevco 5088 voluntary striking off has been suspended ….Again! pic.twitter.com/vXqO235LkM
================================
Well at least those at the top of the marble staircase can now draw a breath as they have been holding it hoping Wee Craigie hadn’t noticed the striking-off notice 😯
No way ❗ Sevco 5088 contains all the aces in the pack or possibly pre-pack and they are well tucked-up CW’s sleeve.
I’m beginning to think this soap opera might actually see me out before it concludes 😆
I hesitate to get involved in the debate about legal entities. But, (deep breath) here goes.
My understanding is this:
A club – has a constitution and a defined purpose, is formed/owned by members who elect a committee and officers to carry out the management functions of the club. A club can be formed for the purpose of putting a football team out on the pitch.
Should that Club then become a Ltd co or PLC – The club is effectively dissolved and a new legal entity has the responsibility of putting the team out on the pitch.
Should the PLC or Ltd co get into financial difficulty. It can be taken over by others and rescued by means of a sale of the Co or PLC to new ownership (take HMFC hopefully coming out of administration). Same company taking responsibility for putting the same team on the pitch, just new owners.
If the Ltd co or PLC goes under then the assets (not the Company) can be sold to a new organisation by the liquidator. That new organisation can then take those assets and put a different team (as per SEVCO) out on the pitch.
The bottom line is that under Ltd Co’s or PLC’s there is team (not a club) playing football on a pitch. The confusion comes because everyone refers to the team they support as the “club” they support.
To my mind it is this simple – or is me that is being simple?
Apologies to anyone who is bored out of their skull by this subject – will fully understand if this contribution is booted to another place.
It’s almost worth 22p to become a shareholder to exercise the right 🙂
The Newclub /Oldclub debate here is distinctly esoteric, but for me the attempt to portray Rangers as a continuing entity has led directly to the present meltdown at Ibrox.
The SMSM narrative of SDM being duped and selling a club with reducing debt to a reckless CW who then crashed it and delivered it subsequently into the hands of not Rangers people is directly behind DK’s delusional obsession with beating Celtic as being their sole benchmark. The Union of Fans and the SMSM appear also to have bought into this madness.
As a direct result, Rangers in any form cannot be run in any way that makes sense and thius it is , effectively, inoperable.
If it seeks to institute austerity and cost-cutting and living within its means, significant portions of its fan base will refuse to accept this reality and, cheered on by a wilfully opportunistic press cohort , accuse those seeking to impose reality of treachery – We saw this as early as summer 2012 when Green’s original plans for a reduced cost base led to a failure to gain any ST sales – only by pressing the old club buttons and mentality can the support for the enterprise be sustained – and that support in financial terms will always lag behind the money needed to generate it.
The only survival they can have is to pony up to buying full price season tickets to watch a team with a vastly reduced cost base. Ally’s recenbt utterings reveal the impossibility of getting the manager to agree to this, and the reaction of Union of fans and other groups show the impossibility of selling this to the fans.
They want a 2011 Jag for the price of a 2003 Corsa – and they won’t be told.
The supporters did not kill Rangers, but their denial of this death, and their grandiose delusions have prevented any viable new entity replacing it.
neepheid says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:53 am
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-buckle-fan-pressure-open-3476768
These are the shareholders who they are relying on to save the club – shows you what the club really thinks of the. Just pay-up, shut-up and be glad we keep the doors open for you seems to be the message.
Apparently there’s been uproar in the Ibrox admin dept this morning. When Billy came in to see the contracts the receptionist asked if he wanted to see the side letters as well? 😆 😈
Smugas says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:46 am
Thanks. A proper belly laugh.
The dying beast has suffered enough and should be HUMANELY laid to rest then the carcass burned so no spiv buzzards can pick at it..
Ecbhoy
Re the FTT decision and LNS’ reliance upon it, perhaps I am not making myself clear — so let me clarify.
LNS, in my opinion, had no choice but to accept the ruling from the FTT as that was the forum in which those issues were discussed, debated, presented and ruled upon. He could not have reversed, interfered with or overturned that decision. Accordingly, he had no option but to accept what that tribunal had said — even although it was a majority decision and subject to appeal.
Further, his terms of reference were such, that he was invited by all parties to simply accept that the EBT scheme was de facto a legal scheme for tax purposes — and so his hands were tied completely in terms of how he looked upon the scheme and the administration of the scheme in so far as it was a tax scheme.
He could have reached various conclusions about player registration, contract disclosure, financial disclosure and so on had there been a full and open enquiry– but there wasn’t. First, the dates of reference were changed which effectively excluded him from looking in any detail at the DOS based scheme ( Which the Murray Group did not even contest and which was deemed an illegal tax scheme ) and which, if considered properly, would have lead to the conclusion that players were paid wages which were not disclosed to the SFA.
Further, for reasons which to this day remain inexplicable, he was fed the uncontested registration gymnastics from Mr Bryson which were apparently accepted as gospel by one and all– thus closing the door on a whole raft of possibilities.
Accordingly, in purely legal terms and within the four walls of the court and the terms of reference provided, the LNS decision is, in my opinion, judicially sound.
However, at the same time it is, and may very well soon be pointed out to be, completely ludicrous in reality.
It is a decision that is premised on the EBT schemes being legal. Those schemes were only ruled upon at FTT level within a narrow legal compass and it may very well be the case that the UTT declares that the majority judges in the FTT misdirected themselves in their approach and so reverse the decision.
Then again they may not — that is always possible with appeals.
However, if they do, then we have a position where the LNS opinion ( musings if you like ) are predicated upon an incorrect presumption in law — a presumption he was obliged to make at the time but an incorrect presumption all the same.
Further, With all due respect to Rod McKenzie at Harper McLeod — he conducted that enquiry on the instructions of his client. The terms of reference, the matters for cross examination and contest are determined by the client, the evidence to be accepted and challenged are determined by the client and so on and so forth.
It was not an open enquiry in that sense and I doubt if many of the readers of this forum would readily accept the restrictions imposed upon Rod in conducting the enquiry, as those restrictions obviously restricted Nimmo Smith in turn. Most here would want to see the Bryson evidence challenged, and greater consideration give to the effect of being able to pay for players which the club clearly could not afford had they been forced to pay tax on the sums contractually due.
The overseeing and licensing roles of the SFA appear to have escaped any meaningful scrutiny altogether.
Essentially, Nimmo Smith could turn out to be a complete waste of time and be shown to be a wortlhless ruling as it is based on incorrect fact and law and all that follows there from thus rendering it useless as an exercise.
However, personally I would have wagered on Third Lanark winning the Champions League before betting on the SPL and the SFA placing their procedures, rules and compliance in front of a completely open enquiry conducted by a High Court Judge with full powers of enquiry..
Nimmo Smith is a bright and intelligent man — it is not his fault that his decision is a nonsense and nor is it a crime to have a difference of opinion on the law or even to get it wrong.
However, it is verging on scurrilous and unlawful behaviour to announce an enquiry and then set the terms of reference in such a way as to prevent any proper open enquiry taking place.
And that, in a nutshell, is where I think we are.
Could one obtain a copy of the full business review the same way (not the abridged ‘we’ve no money, but we’re gonna conquer Europe’ version) ? Or do you have to be a “major” shareholder to get that?
‘I want as many people to watch Rangers as humanely possible’ – now that is really pushing it! Even those attending Ibrokes say they can hardly ‘bear’ to watch most of the time! Maybe they should set up a Society for the prevention of …. (suggestions please) They could make it secret too…..! 👿
In the Graham Wallace review it states:
“The Club has entered into a number of contracts that are onerous and not delivering value on price or service. In several instances it appears that the Club did not use lawyers to protect its interests. Work is in progress to terminate or re-negotiate these as appropriate.”
Why would the major shareholders, who are themselves or their friends the main beneficiaries of some/all of these contracts, allow Graham Wallace to do this?
Cluster One says:
April 30, 2014 at 6:59 am
14
1
Rate This
If TRFC go into Liquidation, And someone wanted to start a “CLUB”….”TEAM”.playing out of the ibrox stadium. 😕 What new name would they be called as most have already gone.
ie,TRFC,TRIFC,RFC,Rangers 1872,
Anyone any idea? 😕
___________________________________________
I was thinking that they could rename an insolvent TRFC as ‘Rangers Then Ltd’, and any newco could be ‘Rangers Now plc’. Thought about ‘Rangers Forever Ltd.’ as well but this would almost certainly be rejected under the OFT ‘misleading Names’ legislation. 😀
The SFA are not fit for purpose but this has always been the case. You need this badge and that badge to move up this invisible ladder. Regardless of ability, regardless of quality of teachers on these courses, nobody goes anywhere until they’ve been anointed by their ‘appropriate badges.’
It brings to mind the episode where Andy Roxburgh asked someone to use the correct colour of tape round their socks and when the correct colour couldn’t be found, polish it. Am I havering, but I remember one or two football players calling it quits internationally when Roxburgh and Brown were given the reins.
There has got to be competent coaches on these courses, so where is it all going wrong? Answers on a postcard to respective head honchos please.
Donegaltim says:
April 30, 2014 at 11:13 am
The sock tape may seem a bit over the top but that is the type of OCD thing that cycling’s Dave Brailsford would have done. Sounds daft but if the wee things are all sorted the bigger things take care of themselves. e.g British cycling and Sky just use a water bottle once to avoid viruses etc getting passed around the team. How many times do football teams come down with bugs (ICT at the weekend) and what chance they are swapping spit at the training ground by plucking random bottles out of the crate.
Never a big fan of Roxburgh or Brown but my guess is that they were trying to operate a reasonably professional outfit.
Many footballers and especially some of the duffers we have in Scotland don’t have the level of professionalism that is required to succeed at the top level. My guess is that some of the managers don’t give a lot of consideration to such things either.
Although a different country and a different sport, compare and contrast the decisive nature of the NBA’s leadership with that of any football association:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27214773
The debate is also interesting from the perspective of many instances of “private” comments made by directors, managers and players here in Scotland which have been dealt with inconsistently at best.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:20 am
Ecobhoy
Re the FTT decision and LNS’ reliance upon it, perhaps I am not making myself clear — so let me clarify.
===============================
You’re clarification agrees with everything I have said from Day 1 about LNS and I thank you for your lengthy explanation that your phrase: ‘thus making a further nonsense of the LNS musings on that situation’ didn’t actually have the plain English meaning that I took it to have at face value 😀
PS – just for the record I don’t like the use of ‘musings’ especially when further qualified as ‘nonsense’ when applied to the LNS Tribunal Decision which you seem to accept, as I do, was almost inevitable.
Giovanni says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:52 am
5
0
Rate This
In the Graham Wallace review it states:
“The Club has entered into a number of contracts that are onerous and not delivering value on price or service. In several instances it appears that the Club did not use lawyers to protect its interests. Work is in progress to terminate or re-negotiate these as appropriate.”
………………………………..
Would those be financial contracts the CLUB has entered into?….Would this mean the club would be responsible for reporting revenue and expenditure…and does this mean it would be possible for the CLUB to become insolvent should its finances crash?
Just asking as some would have you believe a CLUB as a separate entity in such a way as it cannot go bust!
On April 14th 2014, the ‘Sportswriter of the Year’ began his synopsis of the 2013/14 season with the following….. ‘So now that the football’s finished for another season’. The fact that there are still 4 clubs competing for European places ……….. fails to register, the fact that we are witnessing the most exciting finish to the 2nd tier for years…fails to register, the fact that 5 teams are separated by a minimal number of points in the battle to avoid playoff place….fails to register! For KJ Celtic have won the league, and neither Celtic nor Rangers will win the Cup……the showpiece event of the season…… the oldest challenge trophy on the planet…. the outcome of which is now an irrelevance for our number 1 sports journalist. This is bad and bad enough, but I doubt I’m alone in sensing the entire apparatus of the SFA appear wedded to similar sentiments. The integrity of the national trophy was drowned like a helpless kitten in a bucket of pyss the moment Ibrox was selected as the’ neutral’ venue, when genuinely neutral venues were ignored as alternatives. Now we have this Scottish Cup ticketing fiasco, leaving fans of the finalists in no doubt where they stand in the grand scheme of things…… diddies who should sit nice and be grateful for what they get. Not for the first time I find myself wondering if I can continue to justify my participation in this ‘sport’.
@OCCAM The prevention of Bear Boredom..?
From Companies House this morning as others have noted :
SOAS(A) 29/04/2014 VOLUNTARY STRIKE OFF SUSPENDED
GAZ1(A) 04/03/2014 FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE FOR VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF
AR01 19/02/2014 17/02/14 FULL LIST
19/02/2014 19/02/14 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL;GBP 1
DS01 18/02/2014 APPLICATION FOR STRIKING-OFF
TM01 14/02/2014 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR LAW FINANCIAL LIMITED
TM01 14/02/2014 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR CRAIG WHYTE
TM01 14/02/2014 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR AIDAN EARLEY
AP01 13/02/2014 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR CHARLES ALEXANDER GREEN
On 24 April 2014 RIFC issued a statement to the London Stock Exchange (http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/301) that included this text :
“In view of recent media speculation, the company wishes to clarify that Sevco 5088 is not an active subsidiary of the Rangers International Football Club plc. It is and has been a defunct non trading company over which termination proceedings began last year and which would have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies had false claims of directorships not been filed recently at Companies House. Sevco 5088 was listed in the company’s announcement dated 22 April 2013 to comply with the AIM Rules for Companies requiring disclosure of directorships held by the directors of the company both currently and during the preceding 5 years. Sevco 5088 was not the acquisition vehicle which purchased the assets of Rangers Football Club.”
I await our intrepid MSM quizzing RIFC over both the failure to have this company struck off and the continuing involvement of Mr Green who was reappointed in February of this year – all of this in a company that has an outstanding Letter Before Claim against RIFC, of sufficient concern that it was noted in the Annual Accounts for RIFC as a Contingent Liablility.
Or are they waiting for Mr Whyte to reassume his directorship of Sevco 5088?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Resin_lab_dog says:
_____________________________________
The underlying principle that makes it all work though – in whatever embodiment it were to be adopted – is that it is the geographic location of the (potentially) relegated club that ultimately determines which of the champions has the chance (or certainty) of promotion, irrespective.
————————————————————————————————-
Not sure I like this – it sounds like geography is a determinator of whether a team can be promoted or not (and not even the geography of the successful team, but that of the unsuccessful team). To me this has an unfortunate echo of the 1970s when Ferranti were voted into the league ahead of perhaps worthier alternatives. Such a proposal could be self-perpetuating – a duff team from the No-lands being replaced by another team from the No-lands, and so on, with a much better team from the Other-lands never getting a look-in.
Of course, the current proposal of “rebalancing” looks flawed, I think on current form Queen’s Park would slot in comfortably into the Lowland League, but if it were an HFL side that replaced them in the SPFL, then who would move north from the Lowland League? Stirling Uni? Spartans? Would they play in the North of Scotland Cup or the Aberdeenshire Cup? That would be farcical IMO.
Arabest2 says:
April 30, 2014 at 12:33 pm
… Now we have this Scottish Cup ticketing fiasco, leaving fans of the finalists in no doubt where they stand in the grand scheme of things… diddies who should sit nice and be grateful for what they get.
=================================================
Arabest2, I agree that any decent marketing man would have done what it takes to get as many people as possible into Celtic Park for the final but I think it’s worth noting that ‘non-diddies’ have also been screwed regularly over the years because of the demand for seats. The treatment of Rangers fans by the last three owners of the club playing out of Ibrox would suggest that they’ve been mugged more than most. What will the RST be thinking If the the FoH bid comes off? They apparently worked with Supporters Direct when buying shares in the IPO but didn’t have the wherewithal to take the next step – a commitment from just 0.01% of their worldwide fanbase would have seen them take control easily. Complacency, expectation and a sense of ‘right’ has completely disempowered them.
PMcG has a new post out..
This is the bit that I have a problem with for the following reason.
Unless you identify a football club as an entity that, somehow, spans the two organsiational/legal forms of
1. Unincorporated association, and
2. Limited Company,
…then – clearly – post-incorporation you have a NEW football club on your hands. That the out-working of that logic, and it clearly leads to absurdity eg. Celtic Football Club is clearly an entity that dates back to 1887-8, not 1897.
In a wider context of general business, this continuity problem is addressed (for the purpose of protecting employees) by TUPE law which tackles it by recognising an entity (the business/undertaking) which is comprised of “an organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity”, distinct in its own right from a company, and which “retains its identity” despite transfer between legal entities. The applicability to the context of football is clear.
It’s a problem faced by Football associations, who word their rulebooks so as not to tie their member clubs to particular legal forms/legal entities, and adopt a “transfer of membership” rule to allow for continuity of their competitors (member clubs) between those forms, which is utilised, for instance, at incorporation.
Until you acknowledge the existence of this third category of entity – not the company, not the team, but the business/undertaking (“club” is applied to all three typically, so let’s leave that to one side for a second) then you will not be able to explain the continuity of the football club through the incorporation process, let alone newco scenarios as played out – forgetting Sevco – dozens of times across UK/europe.
No one wants to be forced into the bizarre position of “Celtic football club isn’t really a football club”, nor to say the likes of Leeds United, the club today, didn’t exist 10 years ago because it was a different legal entity back then, and no-one needs to if they look beyond this ‘club/company are indistinguishable’ folly.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/as-bad-as-each-other/
WRT the lack of payment options for ranger SBs, I wonder how many fans they have outwith Scotland who would normally buy an SB and after all the crap coming out recently and the crud they have endured on the park, will just not bother to make the journey with their brown paper bag of notes. This could be a fairly sizeable chunk of the support. IMO there will be less than 10k SB sales by the window close, I think shortly after that period we will see the Admin decision announced. AND of course those 10,000 have lost their cash before a ball is kicked…Couple of indicators to look out for, 1mill shares being quickly sold a few days before and Waldo (and ceo) being removed paid for by the 10k SB money.
Burgh boy,
As a simpleton layman there appears to be a very simple answer to your conundrum. Club A incorporates. Does original club A become Club A Ltd? On the basis that it effectively carries everything forward then I would say that they do regardless of the legal merits of the club is club and company is company arguements. From a fans perspective its a no brainer (assuming all fans are in support of the incorporation of course) and from an authoritative legal standpoint you would have thought it fairly straightforward also ie. in the incorporation process did the original club carry forward as much of the old club ‘stuff’ as it could? Obviously the personal liability didn’t since that is normally the purpose of the incorporation but everything else? Could there perhaps be a prioritised list, relevant to the sporting event to which the old and new entities wished to partake, drawn up to check? Did Old Club A carry forward the following items – kit bags – check, tops – check, debt…….ah!
@Pmacgiollabhain: Approximately 2000 season tickets sold by Sevco?
It would appear that Dave King’s cunning plan is working.
Have paid a wee donation into a trust fund to be released to you when I receive the ownership papers for TSFM.
Apparently it’s all the rage
James’s piece on the Glasgow Cup debacle. I honestly believe the police should step in to these games and declare that they will in future be played behind closed doors, or open only to home fans. And I don’t mean just the U17’s. If the current version of Rangers ever make it to a game at Celtic park I dread to think of the damage the stadium will suffer. As many of you will know, I am not a Celtic supporter but htis is just building up year on year. I fimrly believe that someone could easily die during or after their first encounter with Celtic
scottc says:
April 30, 2014 at 3:10 pm
Celtic supporters have died previously because of these games.
I (and many like me) would be happy if we never played them again.
iceman63 says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:35 am
52 1 Rate This
… The supporters did not kill Rangers, but their denial of this death, and their grandiose delusions have prevented any viable new entity replacing it.
——–
You are so correct iceman63. It’s proving to be a very expensive myth. Think of all those ‘real Rangers men’, some of them actual legneds, who could have started a sustainable newco. Turns out now though, that most of the Murray-era directors and staff were milking it for they could as well.
Courtesy The Rangers Standard..
The Old Firm: Action and Reaction
By Alasdair McKillop
4
Monday night’s under-17 City of Glasgow Cup Final at Celtic Park was overshadowed by the lighting of flares, smoke bombs being set off and seats being torn out. The dangers of using such pyrotechnics, particularly when there might be young children in close proximity, really shouldn’t need to be explained yet football fans of many teams seem to think they add to the occasion. They do not. Dangers aside, it is obnoxious to use something that is intended to distract attention away from the football on the pitch. Such was the atmosphere that the police recommended that representatives of the media in attendance should stay in the press box.
It is worth underlining that this was a game involving school-age teenagers. For many this would have been the pinnacle of their football career to date. For others it might well be their greatest achievement in the sport as a result of injury or the pursuit of a career away from the game. In short, this should have been a special occasion for the players and their families and yet they had to contend with two sets of fans who were seemingly more interested in hurling abuse than in encouraging the young participants. Reports ahead of the match claimed 2500 tickets were to be given to schoolchildren. Interpret that comment as you see fit.
The obsession with those on the other side of the police line is a damning indictment of both sets of supporters. It validates the arguments of those who claim supporting Rangers or Celtic is more about hating the other than supporting your own team. Why would you pay money to primarily go and abuse someone else rather than back your club? It’s a mind-set that is hard to fathom.
The most we can do is provide some context for what happened on Monday night. With Rangers consigned to the lower leagues for at least three years, the two clubs don’t have the chance to meet on a regular occasion and this has perhaps resulted in passions building behind a dam. That doesn’t adequately explain, however, why some people so desperately need to release these emotions on a regular basis. Old Firm games shouldn’t be some sort of social necessity. Scenes at last season’s match at Firhill would also have been uppermost in the minds of some, not least Police Scotland which probably explains the decision to escort fans to the ground. The kick-off for that match was delayed as fans threw smoke bombs and ripped up seats. Arrests inevitably followed and there have been reports that three fans have already been detained as a result of last night festivities. At the 2012 match, Celtic fans ripped up seats and ignited flares at Ibrox. Pride was restored last night, with reports Rangers fans ripped out seats on leaving the stadium. The club will pick up the bill for that vandalism.
Fans on either side of the Old Firm divide must now surely dread the staging of the real thing, which could happen as early as next season depending on the developments in the Scottish and League Cups. While the heart might desire an encounter between the two old adversaries, the head can’t help but imagine the outcome of such an encounter if things don’t improve. Following Monday’s game, Billy Kirkwood was quoted as saying: “There’s going to be a time when Rangers are going to play Celtic at first-team level and all I can say to that is, oh dear.” It’s now two years on from Rangers insolvency crisis and the passions roused by associated events don’t seem to have been extinguished. Social media is much to blame and Rangers fans continue to bridle at Celtic fans (and media enablers still coming up with ways to avoid saying Rangers) droning on about Rangers being dead. One Celtic fan said to me on Twitter recently “never mind, your grandchildren will all be Celtic fans anyway.” Sympathy is certainly there but it can be hard to find amidst the bitterness. Perhaps some level-headed Celtic fans should examine exactly what this behaviour is achieving and how compatible it is with the club’s much publicised charitable ethos. Peter Lawwell laying a wreath in memory of Sandy Jardine should really be taken as an opportunity to reassess relations between the two clubs and sets of fans.
Perspective is lacking on all sides. For Rangers fans, last night’s actions were the equivalent of standing out in the back garden shouting at the neighbour while your house and all your possessions burned down behind you. Taking all of the above context into account, we still don’t have an excuse for the behaviour of those who participated in a charade that has resulted in yet more negative headlines. We need to learn that in the Old Firm universe that not every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. Even more importantly, we shouldn’t be responsible for initiating activity that will result in negative headlines and have financial repercussions for the club.
The haste with which a national summit was convened following events at the Scottish Cup replay in 2011 was rightly derided and the treatment of fans since, including at the recent Ayr United game, has contributed to a general rise in tension at football grounds across the country. But a low-key stakeholder summit in advance of the next first-team meeting might not be an entirely bad idea given the scenes at youth games in three consecutive years. Rather than considering draconian restrictions on the activities of fans, it should start from the position that they are capable of acting like adults and focus on coming up with ideas to reduce the tensions between the two sets of supporters while there is still the luxury of time.
The author of the above article from The Rangers Standard also wrote an encouraging chapter in the book Football, Bigotry and Scotland in terms of finding ways to remove the hate.
I hope his voice gets heard across and in both sides of the divide.
As a Celtic supporter I would say this.
To all those who have followed their respective Under 17s sides throughout the tournament I hope your enjoyment of the Final wasn’t ruined.
To all the others on both sides who attended. Why were you there?
I know that Bawsman and I fear it will happen again. It’s appalling really.
Good sensible article
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On another note
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/10797048/Manchester-City-hit-by-Uefa-with-Champions-League-squad-size-cut-and-fine-for-breaching-financial-rules.html
Interesting sporting punishment being proposed.
Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain 7m
From an excellent source: Communications between Graham Wallace and the SFA are “frantic”.
P.I. Paul @MTHForum 3m
I was told today might have been an announcement about Admin, now hearing the SFA are trying to stop it from happening, how? I dunno
paulsatim says:
April 30, 2014 at 4:17 pm
0
0
________________________________________________
P.I. Paul @MTHForum 3m
I was told today might have been an announcement about Admin, now hearing the SFA are trying to stop it from happening, how? I dunno
_________________________________________________
Well, there’s one sure way: They could stump up £30m to GW. I mean why not? They’ve done just about everything else and broken about every other rule that exists to keep Ibrox on the go!
@SCOTTC
I agree, I would suggest each of the boys in the squads gets 20 tickets each and the club get another 100 each for other youth team members etc. Played at a smaller ground. It probably cost Celtic a lot of money to host the game. I also think the police and stewards should be able to isolate the individuals doing the daft stuff and haul them out, give them a night in the cells and them or their parents a £1000 fine. That would soon stop this before someone gets seriously injured.
paulsatim says:
April 30, 2014 at 4:17 pm
I now have a mental image of the SFA board queuing up to take turns at sticking their finger in the dyke.
scapaflow says:
April 30, 2014 at 4:23 pm
LOL, your mental image makes me think of (edit- them) queuing up to take turns at sticking something in the goat!!! 😆
McCaig`s Tower says:
April 30, 2014 at 1:05 pm
9
0
Rate This
Resin_lab_dog says:
_____________________________________
The underlying principle that makes it all work though – in whatever embodiment it were to be adopted – is that it is the geographic location of the (potentially) relegated club that ultimately determines which of the champions has the chance (or certainty) of promotion, irrespective.
————————————————————————————————-
Not sure I like this – it sounds like geography is a determinator of whether a team can be promoted or not (and not even the geography of the successful team, but that of the unsuccessful team). To me this has an unfortunate echo of the 1970s when Ferranti were voted into the league ahead of perhaps worthier alternatives. Such a proposal could be self-perpetuating – a duff team from the No-lands being replaced by another team from the No-lands, and so on, with a much better team from the Other-lands never getting a look-in.
Of course, the current proposal of “rebalancing” looks flawed, I think on current form Queen’s Park would slot in comfortably into the Lowland League, but if it were an HFL side that replaced them in the SPFL, then who would move north from the Lowland League? Stirling Uni? Spartans? Would they play in the North of Scotland Cup or the Aberdeenshire Cup? That would be farcical IMO.
_____________________________________________
Geography as an arbiter is imperfect,true, but it is – at least – impartial.
Good enough for the Champions league, no?
I picture shredding machines with smoke pouring out of them and CO trying to push a heavy roller over the carpet!
@PAULSATIM The Sfa are rewriting a new clause into the 5 way agreement that says if there is an admin for the new rangers within 2 seasons all the debt goes back to sevco5088, it was all CW’s fault after all.
I just hope the SFA are not putting up funds early or a crisis loan.. Regardless if there is another admin there will be no chance of any interest from outside investors (like Sandy eluded to).
I just hope everyone on here will feel as sick as me that a team who grossly overspent to win the league get to keep that and get promoted..
Hang on. Personally I hope the SFA are doing all in their power, above board of course, to help a club that has fallen on hard times to limp to the end of the season to avoid disturbing the rest of the league(s).
I hope that all 41 other clubs can expect similar help if they fall into similar circumstances.
I hope the club in question didn’t forward a business plan that has been proven to be recklessly false.
I hope the club in question didn’t forward a business plan that was true, and reckless, and not acted upon.
I hope.
Scottish Football needs a stairlift, for Campbell.
Strangely enough no Bill McMurdo blog today…
No, can’t let this go.
Why would the SFA be frantic?
1/ The league apparently is unsponsorable, so no sponsors to lose. They’re not in a cup and the ground isn’t being used for the final.
2/ As said many times (and relative to where they currently are) I can only see a quick and clean admin as a good thing for a genuine RFC since they can absorb the points deduction and still go up (wrong in principle though that absolutely is). Need to be quick though.
3/ Regarding the promotion issue – it was put to the clubs in January and they baulked – for whatever reason, genuine or not.
3/ Admin is inevitable if you lose more than you, erm, find. Surely the SFA didn’t buy the King coming over the hill crap?
4/ Why would King now come over the hill anyway. Like the old bull in the joke, why not wait on the other side and wait for the SFA to come to him.
5/ Tell me “frantic” is not simply a response to fear of having to tell the blue hordes (who’s anger this time will have my full support – to a point) some home truths.
6/ Alternatively, Please, please, please tell me its due to fear of the response to some home truths about the SFA possibly emerging coming the other way, if an ‘event’ is experienced.
I don’t think that even the SFA are stupid enough to provide financial assistance, even if they had the money, which they don’t. They are corrupt enough, I don’t doubt that for a second, but a straight “bung” would be too risky.
Any pillow talk between Wallace and Ogilvie most likely relates to the amount and timing of any points deductions for this season and next. This is where the powers of the world’s greatest football administrator will be utilised to full effect. In the event of an insolvency event at Ibrox, be prepared to watch the elastic of the SFA rule book being stretched as it has never been stretched before. This is going to make the 5 way agreement and the rest of the shenanigans around the birth of Sevco look like a model of good football governance. You ain’t seen nothing yet!
It is a criminal offence to trade a company when you know it is insolvent. There are substantial penalties for any directors of a company who do so, including jail time.
The auditors note was a huge red flag to everyone involved, directors and investors.
tick tock ……….