Turnbull Hutton
is the chairman of Raith Rovers. He has been lauded by TSFM readers as a man of courage and integrity who shares our views about the game – and who has never shirked away from calling out those who don’t.
But what motivated him to take on the largely thankless challenge of devoting himself to his local team?
What are his plans for Raith Rovers? What are his views on the SFA, League reconstruction, Armageddon, and a whole load of other things.
Not to mention the savouring of a still-fresh recent cup win.
It would I think, take an earthquake of Jovian dimensions to disconnect Hutton’s connection to terra-firma. Born and brought up in Burntisland, he is wedded to plain speaking and of course to Raith Rovers.
My sense is of a man who eschews the Scottish Football Blazer culture, who is instinctively suspicious of politicians and other bandwagon jumpers, and who has a sense of optimism about the future of our game.
Like many other directors at clubs across the country, he and his colleagues are often required to dig deep into their own pockets to keep their clubs alive, their sole reward being the satisfaction of doing so (and the occasional cup win!).
Before retirement he was joint managing director of Diageo Operations Scotland, and in that role he helped facilitate the Bells sponsorship of Scottish football.
Just short of buying a Rovers Season ticket, I couldn’t have been more charmed, but had I expected a dewy eyed idealist with zealot’s agenda over the sins of the authorities, I would have been wrong.
Hutton is very much pragmatist. He knows exactly what has gone wrong, but feels that the game most urgently needs some of Auldheid’s “Truth & Reconciliation” before it can sort itself out.
Hutton is a somewhat reluctant hero. He is flattered when I tell him of the regard he is held in here, and complimentary about the level of debate on TSFM, where is a regular reader .
When I spoke to Turnbull at his Edinburgh home, I was treated to a warm welcome by him and his wife Margot, as well as coffee, biscuits, chat, and a lesson in the dynamics of running a championship club; from leading a debt-ridden Rovers into profit last year, to the dilemmas inherent in boardroom redecoration 🙂
I listened to the latest Podcast this morning , and have to give credit to all concerned.It was a terrific listen. It’s a sign of the times , and of how much change has occured , that a prominent Chairman of a long established Scottish Club consents to support this blog and give his time to share his experiences.
I thought Turnbull spoke really well, demonstrating the passion that is so important to our game. He gave an insight into the challenges of running a provincial club . A look at Raith Rovers Accounts with an ultimate holding company of New Raith Rovers Ltd, and Raith Rovers Holdings Ltd as well as Raith Rovers Football Club Ltd shows that not only is it challenging to keep a Scottish football club on the tracks it is also incredibly complex in comparison to previous generations.
I generally don’t judge people by whether they agree with me or not, on a single topic . I prefer to judge them on their actions and their views on a wide range of subjects. I didn’t find myself in agreement with everything Turnbull said , but based on his actions and his wider views it’s hard not to like and admire the man.
More of the same would be very welcome. On which note , a small recommendation to a similar Podcast on Celtic Underground where Richard Gordon was the guest. Terrific stuff and Richard came across as a genuine guy who clearly not only has a passion for the Dons, but also for Scottish Football as a whole
neepheid says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:02 am
0 0 Rate This
From Twitter
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 17m
Sky Sources: Champions League gives Man City £50m fine & limits size of next season’s squad to 21 players for breaking Uefa finance rules
========================================================
so, club spends too much money to gain access to UEFA competition which helps it pay for and attract best players in world.
UEFA’s actions….ask them for more money
Why not simply ban them from the tourney and give them a transfer embargo until wage bill is reduced to the required level.
Also, the fine is over 3 seasons and would be LESS than they get for taking part in UEFA compeitions (should they qualify for next 3 seasons)
What is the point….really? utter nonsense.
(by the way, glad to be back……had a hectic couple of months as Mrs NTHM just fired out a wee sprog, looks like my return has come at just the right time for exciting developments in the sevco saga)
‘Fired out a wee sprog’….I’m sure Mrs NTHM would be delighted with that description of her labours.
Many congratulations and welcome back.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
May 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Here you go.
https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Well that’s me pledged my £500, (under a good scottish name).
All that needs to be done for me to honour my pledge, is for the imperishable club to come clean on wrongdoings, apologise for same and admit their new club status.
Don’t think I’ll need to “ringfence” these funds though!!!!!!!
I also tried to buy a RR shirt from the link below, but unfortunately my size is sold out. The Kirkcaldy pies must be addictive????????????
http://www.ticketwolf.co.uk/collections/raith-rovers/products/away-shirt-2014-2015
References above to UEFA’s proposed sanctions against Manchester City including a £50 million fine.
Daily Express this morning “report” that City are preparing a £164 million bid to Barcelona for Lionel Messi.
The quicker C.O. can get to UEFA headquarters to sort this mess out the better!
Lets consider that no insolvency event happens in the coming months and The Rangers manage to stagger on and start in the Championship. What will the fans of the other clubs feel like knowing that The Rangers could scupper their teams chance of promotion ( i.e Dunfermline) if they again overspend to get to the Premiership? What do the Chairmen of these clubs feel like when they run a tight ship and supply audited accounts on time whereas this rule seems not to apply to the Govan Club? Have no Chairmen got the courage to ask the SFA if they are satisfied that the financial credentials supplied by The Rangers are suffice to see out the whole season and not bring the league into (Un) foreseen jeopardy?
Nice to see you back NTHM, and congratulations on your new spr…sorry the birth of your baby 😀 best wishes to mum as well, clearly by your upbeat writing both are well.
I expect late night/early morning postings will become a regular occurrence for you now, but can you type while holding baby’s bottle at the same time? 🙄
I can understand TH being guarded in what he says and I can also understand his businessman’s approach of “move on”. The only thing I was disappointed in relates to that “move on” attitude. This is, after all, a man who stood on the steps after a meeting and called the game’s authorities corrupt. Yet he now refers to them as “personable” and thinks they only make honest mistakes. I’m not sure I can rationalise how he is willing to move on with those same people involved in positions of authority. I know BP gave us his view in a post above that he thinks TH sees some progress and may be willing to wait for bigger changers in the future, but I still don’t see how I could work with people I saw as corrupt. BP, I really wouldn’t want to do the interviews, but this contradiction could have done with some prodding, I think.
Interesting article around the inclusion of B teams in the English leagues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27289819
So let me get this clear Mr Sevco. You are claiming that nasty Mr SoBB is extorting and blackmailing you with regards to the properties that he claims are his which is stopping you from legitimately selling much valued timeshares in said properties to Mr I.Trust and in response Mr I.Trust is withholding their funds from you to stop you using the property that Mr Sevco says is his and further, that you intend to use the disputed property for an activity that means, and I quote, “sod all” to you but the earth to Mr I Trust who says he’s only to give you his money if he gets the deeds that Mr SoBB says are his and that regardless of any of the above that the activity that means sod all to you must be maintained and indeed vastly improved upon. Do I have that right? Oh, and who the hell is this this Mr T. Icketus?
NTHM
Man City has also been restricted to 21 players not 25 players in their UCL squad next year.
How many did they use in the last campaign?
21
Not really a punishment at all is it?
@ClydeSSB: Andy Little has been told he won’t be offered a new contract at Rangers. Clyde sport understands other players being spoken to this morning.
ecobhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:35 am
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:49 am
TRFC will certainly have to have a bank account, just to operate, though I suspect monies (to meet the payroll) will only be transferred in from RIFC on the required date. Perhaps the ST monies are transferred to RIFC on a daily basis too (who knows). By my understanding/memory only monies in a bank account on the day an arrestment is served can be attached (frozen), though in the bizarre set up of TRFC/RIFC, of which IA will be fully conversant, he might have included RIFC’s accounts in his case (if possible). I suspect, too, that IA will have had to include heritable property in his petition (if that, too, is possible) if he wanted to cover this option. The state of TRFC Ltd’s bank account won’t be mentioned, or even taken into consideration, if the judge finds in IA’s favour, and will only be determined at the point of arrestment, so we might never know if the monies are, in fact, arrested. We could find ourselves debating on the presumption that the half million has been arrested, when the reality is that it hasn’t.
Hope I’m wrong though 😉
upthehoops says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:12 am
21
0
Rate This
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 5, 2014 at 11:24 pm
The point is – or more to the point = the problem is – having done it once, they have shown thereby the governance of the game is (or was) not fit for purpose. And the problem that should be exercising us is : how do we fix this?
==========================================
A good starting point would be the enforcement of their own article 10 if and when Mr King rides into town on his chariot to be carried up the marble staircase on the shoulders of joyous bears. The reporting on this story now appears to have gone beyond the question of whether he is fit for purpose. The onslaught of venom should the SFA even dare to stick to the rules would be worse than anything do far, but if they do want to act without fear or favour this time they have no choice but to block Dave King from taking a seat in the Ibrox Boardroom.
_____________________________________________
Agreed.
There is no way he is a FPP.
But as I understand it, self certification means that as things stand, the only action the SFA can take is to take action against the club if and when he does something dodgy or is shown to fail to meet the criteria.
What should be in place to improve this?
And this is trickier than it sounds when you think through all the implications.
A blanket ban on anyone involved in a football insolvency could create the situation where a board that stepped in to rescue a failing club that had been abused by the previous incumbents, but failed could end up being barred from holding office subsequently (Suppose Ann Budge fails???) , while those who cut the brake pipes but jumped off before the bus crashed (like SDM) would escape.
How do we legislate so that spivs can have no interest or ability to participate, whilst ensuring that honest failure is not punished too severely?
The group accounts indicate that all money matters are dealt with via TRFC, which undoubtedly has a bank account, although equally undoubtedly, no bank loan or overdraft facility. All the IPO money was given to TRFC, which then merrily blew the lot on huge contracts for second rate players, second rate executives, and a third rate (I’m being kind here) football management setup. According to Wallace, there was just short of £3.5m in the bank a couple of weeks ago, so Imran has a good chance, in my opinion, of ring fencing the £500k he is after.
@TORREJOHNBHOY I read that earlier and IMO unless a serious injury Andy Little is the type of player Ally should have been building a team around. Maybe they, as tends to happen, paid him too much and he is not willing to renegotiate that down. Still a good player at 24, typical of the rangers policy, I think he will do well in England.
Palacio67 says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:43 am
10 0 Rate This
Lets consider that no insolvency event happens in the coming months and The Rangers manage to stagger on and start in the Championship. What will the fans of the other clubs feel like knowing that The Rangers could scupper their teams chance of promotion ( i.e Dunfermline) if they again overspend to get to the Premiership? What do the Chairmen of these clubs feel like when they run a tight ship and supply audited accounts on time whereas this rule seems not to apply to the Govan Club? Have no Chairmen got the courage to ask the SFA if they are satisfied that the financial credentials supplied by The Rangers are suffice to see out the whole season and not bring the league into (Un) foreseen jeopardy?
================================================
ah, so many questions…..I was catching up on last nights SSB podcast this morning. I thought there must be something wrong with my phone as it appears to have downloaded a 90 minute advert to sell Sevco season tickets through a new, imaginative and highly uncertain vehicle.
But, the jist of the argument appears to be this
1. If you pledge money to king, the club runs out of money in the VERY short term
2. If you don’t renew/pledge to king but buy on a game by game basis, the club runs out of money in the short term
3. If you do renew, the club runs out of money before the season ends
The whole debate is around which vehicle to put your money/confidence in….no argument WHATSOEVER about the fact that the clumpany is making huge losses which don’t appear to be getting addressed…indeed, year on year payrises, 100% bonuses, court cases of former directors/owners and new signings would suggest they will only get worse.
They have burned through 67M in 18 months, they have taken emergency loans at Wonga rates from directors/fans to meet payroll, there is an orchestrated campaign to withhold money in the form of season tickets and now the fans are planning to launch their own top (actually, i doubt the sevconians have the ability to organise either campaign effectively but..) the net effect will be disgruntled fans simply walking away depriving the clumpany of the cash
So, at what point does teh SFA/SPFL step in
the original business plan was a work of fiction
Do we see them having to launch a financial bond (like Livingston were asked to) to ensure they complete the season? What guarantees are in place they don’t go into admin next year the second promotion is gained – if it is gained?
Is anything being done to protect the game or will it be the same old reactionary apathy we’ve witnessed to date?
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:59 am
4 0 Rate Down
@ClydeSSB: Andy Little has been told he won’t be offered a new contract at Rangers. Clyde sport understands other players being spoken to this morning.
===========================================
“other players being spoken to this morning”
hahahahahaha
summoned to the headmasters and being sent home
these palyers have contracts, so, the ones being “spoken to” will be the ones who’s contracts are up, and the conversation will go along the lines of
“no new deal, good luck”
I guess there might be a plea to the remaining team to find new clubs and they can go for free…but given the value of those contracts, i imagine Sevco will have to be subsidising them to some degree when they do leave.
Anyway, i don’t expect we’ll hear any announcement on that until the day after the season ticket cash is in…if they get that far.
NTHM
(you said) “the original business plan was a work of fiction”
Was it? How do you know they didn’t put winning part time divisions, which they did, then selling to the highest hopefully fan based bidder in time for the Championship? Not impossible, especially if CO was aware of a not dissimilar deal agreed previously which the seller then had to renege on on the basis they couldn’t promise full time football (opponents). It would explain the inactivity/ failure to respond.
“Do we see them having to launch a financial bond (like Livingston were asked to) to ensure they complete the season? What guarantees are in place they don’t go into admin next year the second promotion is gained – if it is gained?”
I would have thought as a starting point, the clubs should be voting in the close season on the administration/promotion arguement again. Separate the automatic relegation bit since that seemed to be what caused the confusion/concern last time. Nice up front vote. If they say no again, fine, tell us why. We should not dimiss entirely out of hand, but still be very sceptical of “considering each case on its individual merits/board discretion” type arguements.
Secondly, yes a financial bond, or at least significant, well sourced underwriting would seem the obvious solution. Its not as if projections say they might not make it. They can’t make it without unidentified investment, as you said yourself.
“Is anything being done to protect the game or will it be the same old reactionary apathy we’ve witnessed to date?”
I’d take the two conditions mentioned previously as a good start. I’d take failure to apply those conditions, and throw in a (still expected) “now when we said the end of the season, we didn’t mean the actual end of the season” regarding any event happening now, as a particularly bad start.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
May 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Congrats.
A quick look at wiki shows me 19 players have contracts that take them to 2015 and beyond (there may be more) therefore who is getting hauled into the Heidies room?
2017
Barrie Mckay
Lewis McLeod
Robbie Crawford
Lee Wallace
Cammy Bell
Arnold Peralta
2016
Nicky Law
Nicky Clark
2015
Lee McCulloch
Kyle McAusland
Chris Hegarty
Faser Aird
Kal Naismith
Luca Gasparotto
Scott Gallagher
Jon Daly
Steven Smith
Richard Foster
Bilel Mohsini
• RESIN_LAB_DOG says:
May 6, 2014 at 12:17 pm
There is no way he is a FPP.
But as I understand it, self-certification means that as things stand, the only action the SFA can take is to take action against the club if and when he does something dodgy
——————————————————————–
One major flaw there:
Let us say King passed the FPP when first appointed then went on to create havoc and run up millions of pounds in debt, subsequently causing the club to fold.
Technically that is ok as he was a FPP up until the point when it was discovered, even if proved he lied in the application form. So before that point, no actions can be taken for the destruction caused.
Well I am not an expert on the subject so maybe our resident SFA expert poster can clarify, what is his moniker again?
Ah, yes, SANDYBRYSONBHOY
Smugas says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:21 am
No idea.
Moreover I don’t think the people in charge of RIFC are now really in charge either.
There is a chain of events in play that they are not in control of-IMO
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
May 6, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Moreover I don’t think the people in charge of RIFC are now really in charge either.
There is a chain of events in play that they are not in control of-IMO
—————-
Phil, you aren’t suggesting another (or the same) big, bad boy is going to hit them and run away again?
From Twitter:
Grant Russell @STVGrant
Lord Armstrong has given permission for live tweeting from within the courtroom on Ahmad v Rangers but poor signal coverage inside.
Break for lunch in Imran Ahmad v Rangers. Mr McBrearty, acting for Ahmad, has spent morning outlining argument for claim to arrest £620,000
Mr McBrearty spent morning outlining importance of uncertainty over season ticket sales and risk of insolvency it may present to Rangers.
Court heard Rangers CEO Graham Wallace forecasts £2m income in season ticket renewals within next 10-14 days.
Mr McBrearty also cast doubt on ability of Rangers to quickly raise money through minor share issue if season ticket sales are slow.
Mr Somers, acting for Rangers, will state his case after lunch at 2pm.
Rangers CFO Philip Nash statement to court: “Renewal of season tickets has been slower, rather than lower, than expected”.
Nash statement in court that purchasing season tickets on security through trust is not possible, “matter of time before fans realise this”.
Did our own court reporter make it today?
Para Handy says:
May 6, 2014 at 1:27 pm
I can’t see any good options for them at the moment.
The playbook for RIFC is now very thin.
I can’t see a good outcome for them.
DK must know that it is highly unlikely that they will get security over the stadium. What he will get by way of an early administration sale is a long term lease over the assetts, which will be spun as “a security”.
£620,000 equals 1,771 season tickets.
If you were currently a creditor of TRFC and you see the action being brought by IA would it not turn your head. I would be asking myself whether I should be ring fencing money should things not look good or does it not work that way ?
South0fThe Border says:
May 6, 2014 at 1:34 pm
From those tweets are they saying Wallace, Sommers and Nash are all attending as opposed to just written statements.
If so was Phl Mac’s reference to a meeting them getting their stories straight?
If the big guns are attending in person then it must be ‘touching cloth’ time.
Will Lord Armstrong be hoodwinked by the well educated board????
From Reuters;
“Mr Crighton holds a BA (Hons) in Applied Economics from his home city of Dundee and a MA in Finance and Investment from the University of Exeter.
Mr. Wallace began his career at Ernst and Young where he qualified in 1986 as a Chartered Accountant. He then spent 20 years working in senior accounting and financial roles at oil company Conoco (now ConocoPhillips), Cable & Wireless and latterly as CFO of MTV Networks Europe. Mr. Wallace, originally from Dumfries, also has a degree in business management from Robert Gordon University.
Mr. Somers is an Honours Economic Studies graduate and a qualified accountant (Fellow of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants).”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
“Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.”
And let’s not forget the bus tycoon
“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
wottpi says: May 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm
From those tweets are they saying Wallace, Sommers and Nash are all attending as opposed to just written statements.
_______________
Nash seems to be there, but I think that Wallace was just quoted. And it’s Alan Summers QC who is representing Rangers.
It needs confirmation from someone actually there though.
Does that not lend itself more in favour of King Dave’s preferred outcome? I sense the spivs jumping ship and taking what they can carry but one, (Laxey?), saying “here, haud the bus a frickin minute!”
medium_smart says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:23 am
25 1 Rate This
I have a hypothetical question here …
———-
They probably would go for the drip feed, if they could, but since those with Bikehireitis also want the security over your shop, I doubt they can.
Shuttng the shop down for a short time and selling off those pricy bikes might help the situation. In fact, after the carbon bikes have been sold (there is a market for them, I dream of a carbon bike myself) the bike hire shop could be turned into a fitness centre, with spa facilities, or just dismantled bit-by-bit; there are lots of artifacts in a historic bike-hire shop that people would pay good money for. They could even be used in a new bike-hire shop set up by enthusiasts. Anyway, after stripping the shop it could be bulldozed and the land sold to the highest bidder.
🙂
The debate on ‘can TRFC make it through the season and should the SFA/SPFL be taking steps now to demand a bond etc?’ has got me thinking. Again duh 😐
If IA is granted his arrestment today, because the court accepts his claim that TRFC Ltd are very unlikely to have £620K by the time his case comes to court (early next year?), and one could be correct in assuming the courts have a better understanding of such things than football administrators do, especially those with a track record of being duped over such things, would it be considered very remiss of those football administrators not to take note and act in accordance with the court findings?
I wonder, though, what action the authorities can take. Who would put up this bond? It would surely have to be much more than the £500,000 Livi put up, as the TRFC projections are much worse, and actually project a major shortfall, unless some uncertain, and very unlikely, success is achieved through a share issue. That added to being in a higher division, and likely to win it, or at least reach the play-offs, a very major fallout is foreseeable should they fail during the season. It has also been made clear, other than to the most blockheaded bear, that there is no sugar daddy out there to bale them out.
I think the time is fast approaching for the SFA/SPFL to take the bull by the horns and insist that TRFC reduce their player salary bill, at whatever cost, and play players of a level that falls safely within known income projections. If it means they have to field a team of players of the ability of those they played against in the 4th tier, then so be it. They’ve brought it on themselves. There really is no reason why TRFC should be shown any sympathy for their predicament, and surely it has been learned that doing them favours just doesn’t work!
the TRFC fans are rebelling, they will go game by game, the money wont be there to limp on, the fans are taking the power to finish off the “CLUB” themselves…..the correct action at the incorrect time……. 🙄
IA gets his 500,000 the assets cover secured debts, and the fans are left with……….??
South0fThe Border says:
May 6, 2014 at 1:34 pm
11 0 Rate This
From Twitter:
Grant Ru————-
Someone has been up late brushing up on his PR non-speak:
Indy,
On the plus side they will have a discernible club to make with what they can.
On the down side, said club will need money now, not least if those down-kicking SFA louts demand a cash bond, and also to pay a funny thing they’ve not encountered before, called rent.
Smugas, the club being the ethereal entity?
“Kenny Miller and wife abused by internet trolls amid rumours the Scottish striker is returning to Rangers”
—————————————————–
Now if you saw that headline in The MSM, what would your initial thoughts be?
Scottish Non-Rangers supporters giving them abuse simply because he may be coming to Rangers?
That was my first thought.
In fact, it would seem the abuse originated in Canada and by a fan(s) of the club he played for who did not appear to like them that much for some reason. No mention of Rangers in the abuse so why is it in the headline?
And this is one of the reasons we don’t trust the SMSM, they appear unable to act with any degree of integrity when it comes to the establishment Club.
They are just as guilty of anyone at the club for creating the situation that leads to the “everyone hates us but we don’t care” mantra!
South OTB.
This tweet from earlier suggests Somers is in attendance
Grant Russell @STVGrant 3m
Mr McBrearty repeated in court public claims that around 2000 season tickets sold by Rangers to date. Mr Somers shook his head at this claim
And the use of the word “again” in this suggests Wallace and Nash are also there
moo @moo_ted 5 mins
Wallace , Nash and the nomad have all given statements again saying they don’t see an Insolvency event
Big Pink,
I haven’t had time to listen to the podcast so far. I’ve been responding to the matters being discussed by other contributors. I suspect with the passage of time Turnbull Hutton has taken a broader view and been influenced by other factors. How much has the various threats(burn down their stadium etc) influenced his current thinking?
As occurs more often than not in Scotland, in matters Ranges/sevco, when speaking/writing of this “institution” the “walking on eggshells” syndrome is used. Words become mealy-mouthed and almost apologetic in some cases.
Nawlite has noted how Turnbull called the administration CORRUPT then but now has fallen for the age old “honest mistakes” defence. How can the administrators now be “personable” nice guys but corrupt at the same time???
JUSTICE is waiting in the wings. It has been restrained or obstructed for far too long. The act of kicking the can down the road and hopefully out of sight over the horizon will not work.
The proof is there and the culprits have been charged and found guilty. For heavens sake, how simple is it to take the next step of applying the rules and enforcing the appropriate action. How long must Scottish Football shilly-shally around this issue? Turnbull Hutton wants us to move forwards. We all do. And I respect him for what he had the courage to do back then. I just wonder if that courage has diminished in the face of other pressures.
Decision at 4pm
Various on Twitter who are there.
No, he has subsequently stated that it is, in fact, Alan Summers and that he had suffered from brain fade
Corrupt official says: May 6, 2014 at 3:13 pm
South OTB.
This tweet from earlier suggests Somers is in attendance
_________________________________
No – that was a spelling mistake by Grant Russell – it’s Alan Summers who is the QC representing Rangers at the hearing who does the headshakes!
Madbhoy24941 says:
May 6, 2014 at 3:09 pm
I think it was RTC himself who said that there were an alarming number of innaccuracies that inevitably featured whenever the Rangers story was covered, however the errors were, with precious few exceptions, always ‘one way’.
Just a thought.
Could Scottish football have a ‘truth and reconciliation commission’. I don’t particularly care about punishment, but I’d be interested in agreement over what has happened that could no longer be ignored by the SMSM.
@STVGrant
Mr Summers remarked that Mr Nash and Mr Wallace were in London last week meeting with Rangers’ current institutional investors.
Grant Russell @STVGrant
It was said that Rangers’ institutional investors have a “good degree of confidence” in the business going forward.
Grant Russell @STVGrant
Lord Armstrong asked Mr Summers if he was saying that message was Rangers are financially secure. He replied that it was.
Grant Russell @STVGrant
Mr Summers said that the Union of Fans are a “small group”. Circa 6,500 pledges, if that is “scale of threat”, is not “major concern”.
@STVGrant
Lord: “You say withholding of season tix money does not create practical insolvency risk? Other funds are available?” RFC: That’s the case.
@BBCAlLamont
Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would “go away to allow the club to move on”.
@BBCAlLamont
Re possibility of a future liability to IA of £500-600k. Lord Armstrong: One way or another that would be met? Mr Summers: Yes
elsewhere, Official statement
THE Board of Rangers Football Club have issued the following statement today:
“The Board of Rangers note with dismay the launch of the ‘Ibrox 1972 fund’ led by Dave King and Richard Gough.
“Attempting to create a fund that wishes to deprive revenue to the football club these men purport to love so much and create financial difficulty for Rangers, displays a twisted logic.
“For the avoidance of doubt and so that all Rangers fans are again reassured, the Board has stated that it has no intention of granting security over Ibrox to anybody. We have already shown in our actions – and not words – that our stadium is sacrosanct.
“Any supporters considering engaging with Ibrox 1972 Ltd should be clear that as the Club will not grant security over Ibrox to any such organisation, there is no prospect that any commitment to this new scheme will ever come to fruition and is therefore entirely meaningless. Nor will the Board enter into any agreement with a third party organisation on season ticket renewals, as is being suggested.
“Therefore this scheme is a worthless academic exercise created to serve the purposes of individuals and not the greater good of Rangers Football Club. It could never deliver the stability and security this football club and our supporters deserve.
“It is also important to note that should existing season ticket holders choose not to renew by the 16th May deadline, as is being encouraged, they could lose their seat allocation. The Club believes it must – as it always does at this time of the year – attempt to satisfy the requests we have received from current season ticket holders who wish to relocate to other available seats around the stadium.
“The absurd attacks made by individuals associated with this new scheme on Chief Executive Graham Wallace are disgraceful. Since Mr Wallace joined the Club he has worked tirelessly to create a Rangers fit for the future.
“Mr Wallace has brought his considerable business experience together with his extensive knowledge of top-level football operations and impeccable reputation to the Club and we continue to see the benefits of his work. To question his integrity, ability or professionalism as a means to discredit him personally and to undermine the Board generally is absolutely unacceptable.
“Mr Wallace has the Board’s unequivocal support.
“We are only too aware that our incredibly loyal supporters have been through remarkably testing times in recent years, but Rangers has made significant progress in recent months, both on and off the field.
“A bright future awaits and we would respectfully ask our fans to support the Club and renew their season tickets. Season ticket sales are the largest single source of income for Rangers and only the Club and the team will suffer if some of this income is withheld.
“Any decision not to renew season tickets can only damage the Club. Such action would only serve to harm the very institution that is so dear to all of us.”
With regards to IA’s case, does anyone know who the burden of proof is on? Does IA need to demonstrate unequivocally that they are in financial doo-doo or must RIFC open the books to show they are not?
I would imagine that the 120 day review and some recent utterances from Mr. Easdale might sway it in IA’s favour…
Just my opinion but it looks as if Imram is going to lose.I think his lordship will accept all the ifs,buts and maybes(but no guarantees) put forward by the club.I don’t see one institutional investor actually confirming their support but the fact that TRFCs brief says they will,will be enough to ensure they carry the day.
andygraham.66 says:
May 6, 2014 at 3:40 pm
…
THE Board of Rangers Football Club have issued the following statement today:…
======================
TRFC must also hold a world record for issuing lengthy, rambling, and relatively pointless statements !
This latest statement could be boiled down one sentence – a simple threat ;
“Give us your season ticket money now, or you lose your seat.”
More from Grant, some startling stuff here, esp the share comment which is now at 22p
@STVGrant
Remarks also on Ahmad’s role in purchase of Edmiston House & Albion Car Park. Rangers: “one sitting empty, other a simple waste of money”
@STVGrant
One more line from Rangers’ defence from their NOMAD. “The share price has rebounded satisfactorily.”
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
May 6, 2014 at 3:51 pm
4 0 Rate This
Just my opinion but it looks as if Imram is going to lose.I think his lordship will accept all the ifs,buts and maybes(but no guarantees) put forward by the club.I don’t see one institutional investor actually confirming their support but the fact that TRFCs brief says they will,will be enough to ensure they carry the day.
====================
“So, counsel for the defence you are saying that your client didn’t do it?”
“Yes, m’lud”
“Ok, if you say so, case dismissed”
If that’s the burden of proof required then no-one would ever get convicted.
andygraham.66 says:
May 6, 2014 at 4:02 pm
0 0 Rate This
More from Grant, some startling stuff here, esp the share comment which is now at 22p
@STVGrant
Remarks also on Ahmad’s role in purchase of Edmiston House & Albion Car Park. Rangers: “one sitting empty, other a simple waste of money”
==============================
Without them they wouldn’t have got an emergency loan 🙄
The Turnbull Hutton podcast was a great insight into the dedication, humour and pound notes it takes to run a regional club.
Most people in his position can fill all his hours on real problems and don’t have the stomach for fighting for the root and branch review we believe is needed.
I personally think he has moved on and is being pragmatic with his own time and focus and his driver is survival – and eventual repayment of his long term loans to his club.
Accordingly it is easier for him to now say stuff like he thinks there were “honest mistakes” made.
Much easier to slip into this mode rather than seeking to correct them.
He has Raith Rovers to think about and not Scottish Football.
He and clubs like Raith need peace and stability to allow them to survive not constant uncertainty and Turnbull cannot ever be the sole catalyst or even spark we need to clean up the SFA.
We all however will always owe him a great deal and the firebrand Turnbull on the steps of Hampden is how I perceive him in my minds eye and always will.
He was right then and for his own current and very real agenda he is right now.
Just different rights.
Good interview and touched softly on a lot of stuff we collectively care about.
But I’d have loved to have asked him a few more questions.
“If as you say there was no hidden agendas what do you think was discussed between RCO and Regan and Rangers at the Glasgow hotel dinner before Rangers got their last European Licence? Do you think the licence award was fair on the clubs who lost out?”
“What do you think of the bonus your ex UD colleague Bill Longmuir got from the SFL for leaving? Why has it not been publicised to all the members? Who authorised it? Could it not have been used more efficiently in the game rather than a spurious bonus?”
Good luck Turnbull and Raith.
@STVGrant
Remarks also on Ahmad’s role in purchase of Edmiston House & Albion Car Park. Rangers: “one sitting empty, other a simple waste of money”
Factually correct re Edmiston House, but how can the Albion car park be called a waste of money? Surely it must pull in £10k every home game? Assuming that the money actually goes to TRFC ,that isn’t the worst investment ever. But maybe CG outsourced the running of it to a CG company? He wouldn’t have, would he?
Judge rules in favour of Rangers against Ahmed
No shock
Grant Russell @STVGrant
Message from Rangers essentially that they feel threat of withholding season ticket money will pass in time and fans will purchase.
And as soon as the judge retires to consider his verdict only then do Rangers release the following in their statement:
Season ticket sales are the largest single source of income for Rangers and only the Club and the team will suffer if some of this income is withheld.
“Any decision not to renew season tickets can only damage the Club. Such action would only serve to harm the very institution that is so dear to all of us.”
The burden of proof was always against Mr Ahmad. Remember that what this was about was him asking the court to prevent TRFC from having access to one of its own assets (cash) pending resolution of his action against them for bonuses etc.
To convince a court that a company should be prohibited from using its own assets at a time when a pursuer’s own case has not yet been won (we call this “on the dependence of an action”) always requires a court to see some very real risk of insolvency – not just a possibility of insolvency. So the burden (and a heavy burden at that) was always on Mr Ahmad.
And from a policy point of view, this is quite right. Parties should not have the use of their own assets denied to them just because someone is suing them.
@STVGrant
Lord: “You say withholding of season tix money does not create practical insolvency risk? Other funds are available?” RFC: That’s the case.
@BBCAlLamont
Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would “go away to allow the club to move on”.
===========================================
Perhaps I’m being stoopid as I can be. However I read that exchange as: Fans don’t need to buy STs and it won’t financially affect RFC as Institutional Investors will pick-up the tab.
Also UofF can p*ss off and don’t need to buy STs because we (RFC) don’t care.
Well all good and well – but I wonder what Wonga terms will be imposed on these loans from institutional investors. It might well be that Ibrox and Murray Park has to be used to guarantee them. If I was a Rangers fan I might be a bit miffed that RFC are happy to pledge property to possibly mystery offshore investors but not to Scottish Bears.
However – another day – another tale. What will be will be 🙄
andygraham.66 says:
May 6, 2014 at 3:40 pm
@STVGrant
Lord: “You say withholding of season tix money does not create practical insolvency risk? Other funds are available?” RFC: That’s the case.
————————————————————————————————————————–
That is really good news for Ibrox fans that their money is not essential as there is other funds available.
Would you but a ST or wait for investment to be put in other than than the fans. If you are on the fence why not wait it out, pay game by game all looks rosy as other funds are available. Funds must mean investors IMO. Trust is the key, who to trust?
What comeback does IA have if Rangers go into administration over the next couple of months because SB sales are not forthcoming and no other fund are available?
ecobhoy says: May 6, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Well all good and well – but I wonder what Wonga terms will be imposed on these loans from institutional investors. It might well be that Ibrox and Murray Park has to be used to guarantee them.
__________________
It was clarified by
Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont
To clarify, Mr Summers meant inst. inv would take up pre-emptive equity release rather than provide loans.
medium_smart says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:23 am
“Do these “Real Bike-hire men” have any case in law to do this to me and my business?”
—————————————-
Interesting analogy and sufficiently well crafted to simplify the proposition.
From a layman’s perspective I’d be thinking there might be an issue with misrepresentation of the product on offer. After all, the ‘real bike men’ don’t have control of the product so it is hard to see how they can fulfill any agreement that would guarantee supply. If the ‘real bike men’s’ offer involves access to a bicycle that is not actually theirs and which they therefore cannot guarantee the availability of, then there might be a case for the product having being misrepresented to the customer.
There are similar type arrangements in place concerning agency agreements. You can sell a product you don’t own as long as you have reasonably unhindered access to a stock of it. Purchasing concert tickets on EBay is an example where the vendor will likely have bought a batch of tickets from the original issuer so will have a stock to sell on in an agency type role. Many products might be available in this way where a customer makes a purchase from the retailer and the retailer in turn resorts to the wholesaler to obtain a stock. The retailer cannot be held responsible if the wholesalers stock is exhausted and therefore the customer does not get they product they paid for. Of course payment would be returned in these circumstances or a substitute product offered. However if a trader were to receive funds in payment for a product for which they had no real access to then I think the product may have been misrepresented.
In the case of King’s trust fund, he will have access to product up until middle of May, presuming season tickets are not sold out. So up until that point he is just acting like a kind of agent.
Campbellsmoney says:
May 6, 2014 at 4:33 pm
9 2 Rate This
The burden of proof was always against Mr Ahmad. Remember that what this was about was him asking the court to prevent TRFC from having access to one of its own assets (cash) pending resolution of his action against them for bonuses etc.
———————
Many thanks CM although hardly a surprise or we would have the courts filled with these matters. However, I would say that given the circumstances, it would take a very brave or foolhardy person to bet against the possibility of an insolvency event down Govan way in the next 12 months.
The problem I see for the SFA/SPFL is that they will consider themselves in a damned if we do/damned if we don’t scenario.
If they jump off the fence they either effectively commit the Ibrox entity to an insolvency event by not granting them a license or they do it by requiring a bond before they do so.
Given the background of the SFA’s Comms officer, I can’t see anything other than a sair erse fir Darren…
Southoftheborder That equity cannot be realised (if at all) until the autumn I am sure Waldo says. £1.5m loans and 5 or 6 payrole runs to happen before that and that’s without paying a bill or any redundancy.
Today’s court proceedings seem to be a great advert for expensive lawyers. The judge has had to weigh up cold hard facts against unsubstantiated promises and self interested opinions.
Unless he included some strong caveats about holding anyone who may have made what turn out to be misleading statements to him in contempt and being held personally liable for IA’s money, then I’m at a loss as to how he arrived at this judgement.
The only alternative is that he had preheld opinions about football finance or Rangers that swayed his decision.
So assuming a slight discount, for every season ticket Rangers need to replace, they will have to ‘pre-emptively’ issue around 2000 shares. Good effort.
There are echoes of LNS here – they are in a ‘fragile’ financial situation but have access to funds to pay more than half a million in addition to their normal running costs even without the ST money … at the same time they are telling the fans they need their money desperately ….. whereas with LNS, the money they spent on players that they couldn’t afford (as proven by the fact that they were liquidated) did not give them eny advantage on the pitch. It was just an atruistic jesture to these poor lads. LNS was promoted after this astonishing ruling – clearly we simple souls were just too dim to follow the logic of these very learned judges.
South0fThe Border says:
May 6, 2014 at 5:10 pm
3 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says: May 6, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Well all good and well – but I wonder what Wonga terms will be imposed on these loans from institutional investors. It might well be that Ibrox and Murray Park has to be used to guarantee them.
__________________
It was clarified by
Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont
To clarify, Mr Summers meant inst. inv would take up pre-emptive equity release rather than provide loans.
———–
Pre-emptive equity whit? How does that work?
Actually, on that subject, how can they do this? They have approval to have a limited rights issue but as far as I am aware, any such offer would have to be made to ALL shareholders. What they are effectively saying here is that they would take money in advance of such an offer, so presumably any such ‘additional investment’ is going to have to be limited by the percentage held by the ‘investor’ in question.
RIFC already have the authority to issue over 40M shares, but only with pre-emption rights, i.e. they must be offered to existing shareholders first.
If this was done in full it would mean a two for three rights issue. i.e. for every three shares you currently hold you would be offered the chance to buy another two.
It is only the shares not taken up by the existing shareholders that can be offered on to another party.
Anyone who doesn’t take up their rights would see their holding diluted by this process
40M shares at 20p would raise £8M less expenses. However that would assume that the “value” of the company would go up by the £8M.
There is no way that the value of the company would go up by that amount if the money raised was just to be used to pay wages together with the dilution that would result.
A more realistic price would be in the 10p-15p range, raising £4M-£6M
Today’s outcome does not surprise me in the slightest and IA should not be suprised either. Was the speculation surrounding Rangers any worse than last time he was in court, doubt it. Was the appeal started immediately after he lost the last case or just recently? If it was the latter surely he should have known that unless he has hard evidence he’s onto plums.
I see that BBC Scotland are reporting that Alex McLeish is backing Dave King.
So Alex, the recipient of a £1.7million EBT, is backing Dave who was a director when Alex’s £1.7million EBT was approved.
Quality.
easyJambo says:
May 6, 2014 at 6:17 pm
1 0 Rate This
———-
But who in their right might would put more money into a failing company by buying even more of the shares that are heading south?
Very curious about limited tactics – [sic] `if no security therefore no cash collected`?
Bears not getting security – even it could be given
Not convinced spivs would risk admin – even assuming they can calculate all risks
[+ Bet the SFA would be far from pleased 😉 ]
Think the bears missing a few tricks…
Why not collect the cash for a `rainy day` – aka – an event horizon in coming months
– Or even let it roll over to next season if needs
– Better than feeding bonuses, `onerous` contracts, a `debt` of 19m, and goodness knows what
Sooner or later the spivs will get the message they’re not wanted
That`s when money rolled up useful
Not to pay off spivs – investment poss
Just find the current presented bear tactics v strangely ill-fitting to purpose?
Plus spivs are hanging on with gritted teeth for some unfathomable reason[s]?
Still – it’s the bears ball – their play
ps
MSM recent insight `fantastic` – just as `fantastic` as over esp the past 18 months 😉