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 🙂
Volatile SSB tonight. Emotions running very high. If ever there was a time for the Ibrox fans to drop the Sevco-same-club myth, it’s now. The SFA and SPFL could now help fans by coming clean. It could help stop this mess and allow these desperate fans to start again. Lying never pays.
Danish Pastry says: May 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm
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?
==========================
Precisely. All the more reason for RIFC to jettison its insolvent child asap.
Could I suggest from experience that telling the already sceptical bears not to buy into king and not to worry about Sevco either because money will be found from other sources maybe wasn’t the cleverest play! I genuinely can’t see the ‘out’ now. Phil’s comment about the good ship Sevco drifting aimlessly intrigues me. It seems to play into Kings hands and yet the play there was surely the early pre pack before the season end.
The Greenock Telegraph is reporting that Kenny Shields has resigned as Morton manager.
After allowing his team to get humped 10-2 I’m no suprised.
ptd1978 says:
May 6, 2014 at 5:34 pm
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.
=============================================
I really feel it unfair to bad-mouth the judge involved – From my knowledge of this type of situation and from much more learned posters on here the chance of Imarn getting his money ring-fenced was all but zilch and that’s how it should be no matter what company is involved.
I don’t regard Imran as a White Knight but an equal partner with Green in this whole sordid tale which has damaged Scottish Football. I would take no pleasure in Imran winning in court just to financially damage Rangers.
Indeed if it pushed Rangers over the edge those that would be hardest hit are usually ordinary employees and small business creditors. On that basis I am quite happy that justice was done today.
Rangers might still go bust but at this rate Imran will just be another unsecured creditor – if he wins his actual court case – and that is fine by me 😎
No1 Bob says:
May 6, 2014 at 6:30 pm
======================
McLeish is one of a select band of Rangers people whom the media see as some kind of anointed person, incapable of any type of wrong doing whatsoever. Is a ‘real’ Rangers truly superior to others? Many in the media certainly appear to think so.
Eco,
Correct which is why this looked for all the world like a ‘deliberate hospital pass’ and yet still the show goes on.
ECOBHOY says: at 7:03 pm
Very much agree
And, would question why not suing Green?
This little episode doesn’t sit right
No1 Bob says:
May 6, 2014 at 6:30 pm
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.
===========================
Interesting – couple of days ago on the Darkside a poster stated that on Wednesday it would be announced that McLeish would be replacing McCoist. Probably nonsense but timing and name was spot-on and I wonder what might have been announced re McLeish if Imran’s money was ring-fenced.
I suppose it all depends how much fumes are left in the tank. I wonder how quickly the shares could be offered to existing investors and the money actually raised. I would have thought that would need to be at least 2-3 months.
So it really all depends on whether the STs sell and I haven’t a clue what’s going to happen with that one.
Did IA’s lawyer fail to mention Mr Easdale’s recent comments. the fact that the club needed a recent expensive bail out to the tune of £1.5m agin assets, cannot get an overdraft and no debit/credit facilities for fans to actually pay for SBs.. Surely this would put a wee different spin on things, regardless of what the lawyer was told to say. Why would they need £1,5m if they have just less than the £3.5m in December sat in the bank?
Someone has to be accountable if there is a soon to be admin based on the statement that they could survive without SB sales. I would assume there would have to be some guarantee supplied by someone and not based on a share dilution 6 months away that may or may not be agreed upon.. Then again maybe not…
I dare say IA can just bide his time ’til the mask slips and go for a similar ruling.. Could be an expensive lawyers bill for the rangers, maybe they would have been better/cheaper with a compromise agreement with IA.
ecobhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:03 pm
2 0 Rate This
———-
Good point @echo, and the last thing this blog should be seen doing is cheerleading IA. He’s hardly a victim and perhaps the judge saw him coming.
It would interesting to know who was at that meeting Phil mentioned. Can you imagine if IA had been present, in person or via cc? No, that’s too conspiratorial. I didn’t say that.
Smugas says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Eco,
Correct which is why this looked for all the world like a ‘deliberate hospital pass’ and yet still the show goes on.
========================================
It may well be that our learned judge today does know and understand Scottish Football and, like LNS before him, decided to kick the ball into the terracing rather than the open goal with no keeper in sight 🙄
JimBhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:14 pm
Did IA’s lawyer fail to mention Mr Easdale’s recent comments. the fact that the club needed a recent expensive bail out to the tune of £1.5m agin assets, cannot get an overdraft and no debit/credit facilities for fans to actually pay for SBs.. Surely this would put a wee different spin on things, regardless of what the lawyer was told to say. Why would they need £1,5m if they have just less than the £3.5m in December sat in the bank?
===================================
I think I noticed someone in court tweeting on that point with mention that the Rangers lawyer had a statement from easdale explaining what he actually meant.
I am sure the fearless journo who ran the Easdale exclusive which brought down ire from Wallace will run a worldwide exclusive story tomorrow using the transcript of the actual words spoken during the interview 😆
Or if Easdale was misquoted we will obviously see a retraction and apology printed 😕
Guys
We are dealing with Spivs
Amoral,unethical people who are only interested in money
Everything they are saying targets maximising ST money without strings
Their aim is to liquidate TRFC with as much money in the pot as possible.
Or put another way
Legally run off with the ST money as well as the assets in mid season or earlier
……………………………………………….
Heres a scenario
Step1
An RIFC EGM calling for 75% approval of a motion to disapply pre-emptive rights. Shareholders who failed to support this motion last time round will be threatened with immediate liquidation of TRFC and loss of everything they invested if they do not back the motion
Step2 (After Step 1 is successful)
RIFC issue millions of freebie shares to the favoured Spivs ( 40m at 5p/share would be really cheeky but legal) Raising peanuts but more significantly giving well over 75% control to the Spivs at the expense of everybody else
Step3
Pass more 75% resolutions with the enhanced majority achieved from Step 2
e.g. Increasing the No of treasury shares to a massive number like 400m
Step4
RIFC issue more millions of freebie shares to the favoured Spivs ( 100m at 5p/share would be really cheeky but legal)
At this point the Spivs could own around 182m out of 205m shares having “invested ” £7m that never gets spent because it is quickly dressed up as phoney but legal debt owed by TRFC to RIFC
Step5
A 100m(say) mid season rights issue at 10p to save TRFC. The Spivs do not participate but nevertheless retain majority control because they awarded themselves more freebie shares before the rights issue
Again the threat is that failure will mean liquidation of TRFC
Step 6
Liquidation of TRFC with the residual ST money, freebie share proceeds, rights issue proceeds and assets all going to RIFC to offset debt
TRFC is put up for sale
ecobhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:13 pm
1
0
Rate This
No1 Bob says:
May 6, 2014 at 6:30 pm
…
So it really all depends on whether the STs sell and I haven’t a clue what’s going to happen with that one.
_____________________________________________________
I guess this is where we get to see whether the new PR guru is worth his executive salary.
be honest, is anyone really surprised at the decision from the court today? look at all the legal challenges they have faced and the verdicts that have gone in their favour in defiance of all logic,law, rules and common sense, was this a surprise? no. there is more to this than meets the eye. i have never been one for conspiracy theories, but really if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…
Guys
We are dealing with Spivs
Amoral,unethical people who are only interested in money
Everything they are saying targets maximising ST money without strings
Their aim is to liquidate TRFC with as much money in the pot as possible.
Or put another way
Legally run off with the ST money as well as the assets in mid season or earlier
……………………………………………….
Heres a scenario
Step1
An RIFC EGM calling for 75% approval of a motion to disapply pre-emptive rights. Shareholders who failed to support this motion last time round will be threatened with immediate liquidation of TRFC and loss of everything they invested if they do not back the motion
Step2 (After Step 1 is successful)
RIFC issue millions of freebie shares to the favoured Spivs ( 40m at 5p/share would be really cheeky but legal) Raising peanuts but more significantly giving well over 75% control to the Spivs at the expense of everybody else
Step3
Pass more 75% resolutions with the enhanced majority achieved from Step 2
e.g. Increasing the No of treasury shares to a massive number like 400m
Step4
RIFC issue more millions of freebie shares to the favoured Spivs ( 100m at 5p/share would be really cheeky but legal)
At this point the Spivs could own around 182m out of 205m shares having “invested ” £7m that never gets spent because it is quickly dressed up as phoney but legal debt owed by TRFC to RIFC
Step5
A 100m(say) mid season rights issue at 10p to save TRFC. The Spivs do not participate but nevertheless retain majority control because they awarded themselves more freebie shares before the rights issue
Again the threat is that failure will mean liquidation of TRFC
Step 6
Liquidation of TRFC with the residual ST money, freebie share proceeds, rights issue proceeds and assets all going to RIFC to offset debt
TRFC is put up for sale
_____________________________________________________
One caveat:
The first move will be a rights issue – probably heavily discounted, but a level calculated to scare off the spivs (too steep) but not to phase the proper institutional investors (Laxey et al.)
This will be a powergrab.
It will provide a cash injection to get over the short term bump,
But not everyone will subscribe (Easedales and some of the other premium subscribers must be feeling a bit miffed, and could go either way). But I really don’t see those that got their shares for 1p – like Mr McCoist putting their own hands in their own pockets to pay into their beloved club. They can pretty much guarantee that the shareholder fans will opt for dilution.
So the Laxey/Institutional block will buy up any shortfall.
This will give them a 75% voting rights when acting as a block.
THAT will give them power to disapply pre-emption rights bloodlessly.
Then comes the ‘peanut’ share raising that dilutes everyone else to infinity, but raises enough cash to run a slimmed down operation for a while, and an asset grab thereafter.
GoosyGoosy says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:30 pm
2 0 Rate This
———–
Complicated.
I reckon they have now lost the bulk of the fans, or enough of them to make selling a new round of shares to fans a very remote possibility.
Maybe they are just opening another bottle of Chateau Lafite and hoping something turns up?
Or why not just sell up to King? Who wants this hassle?
Thankfully, I am neither a TRFC supporter or season ticket holder.
If I was, there are only 4 Options open to all season ticket holders with regards to season 2014/2015, as follows.
Option 1 – Renew your Season Ticket and give all money to the Muppet Show
Option 2 – Dont renew your Season Ticket and give all money to a trust fund run
by a convicted Tax Dodger
Option 3 – Pay at the gate for each home game
Option 4 – Stop going to Ibrox
If you love your football club Option 3 is the only sensible option that you should consider and hope that your football club survives in some form for the future.
You would be better spending your season ticket money on Lottery Tickets than considering either Option 1 or 2
ecobhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:03 pm
=======================
When I first saw the verdict it was exactly as I expected, but it is difficult to see how it can be construed as the Judge actually doing Rangers much of a favour. No matter which way they turn, they just see a different problem in their way. As for Imran, it’s difficult to view him as one of the good guys either. For anyone who simply enjoys Rangers misfortune, a Judge refusing to ring fence money is hardly going to spoil the enjoyment of the carnage that exists in bucket loads elsewhere.
Earlier today a line from one of the poets we did for English Higher in 1960 sprang unbidden to my mind.
It is in ‘ The Rape of the Lock’, by Alexander Pope, and it goes
“..And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine..”
It was some kind of caustic observation of the operation of the English courts of the time.
I cannot account for the fact that after many years, that line should have popped up.
Anyway, quite unrelated, I made my way into Parliament House this morning for nine o’clock , in case it was a nine o’clock kick-off.
In the event, Lord Armstrong , I was told, was dealing with bail applications, and kick-off was delayed until about 10.15 or so.
The line-up:
On the bench: Lord Armstrong.( who in his demeanour reminded me of a judge in ‘ The Untouchables’).
For the pursuer ( Imran Ahmed) Mr McBrearty QC., attended by an unnamed lawyer (male) and a much younger (presumably more junior) lawyer (female))
for the defenders (TRFC) Mr Summers QC, attended by one female lawyer.
on the public benches: Mr Lamont of the BBC, Mr Russell of STV, Mr TSFM occasional- poster, Mr ? from Universal News (?), and yours truly.
Also present, a female clerk of court and a male Usher/
At the outset, Lord A declared an interest, in that he knew (socially, or in spheres unconnected with professional knowledge of him as a QC: I could not quite hear), Donald Findlay, QC, and gave Counsel an opportunity to raise objection.
Neither did so.
—————————-
You all know the outcome of the case, of course, so there’s no hurry on my part to try to give a fuller flavour or picture. I will have a read at my notes ( such as they are: McBrearty’s delivery was really rapid, and I simply couldn’t attempt a full ‘transcript’). If I can fill out the short reports by the newsmen, I’ll post it later, for anyone who might be interested.
BroguesRoguesAndILikeThePogues says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:35 pm
be honest, is anyone really surprised at the decision from the court today? look at all the legal challenges they have faced and the verdicts that have gone in their favour in defiance of all logic,law, rules and common sense, was this a surprise? no. there is more to this than meets the eye. i have never been one for conspiracy theories, but really if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…
==============================================
I don’t think anyone with a modicum of legal knowledge/experience is at all surprised by the decision topday.
What amazes me is the amount of posters coming on and expressing surprise at today’s decision however I can only assume they have a much wider and deeper legal knowledge than the admittedly limited amount that I have 😥
John Clark says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:04 pm
If I can fill out the short reports by the newsmen, I’ll post it later, for anyone who might be interested.
=============================
I am sure I speak for many when saying if you feel up to it I would love to read it.
ecobhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:07 pm
1
0
Rate This
BroguesRoguesAndILikeThePogues says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:35 pm
be honest, is anyone really surprised at the decision from the court today? look at all the legal challenges they have faced and the verdicts that have gone in their favour in defiance of all logic,law, rules and common sense, was this a surprise? no. there is more to this than meets the eye. i have never been one for conspiracy theories, but really if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…
==============================================
I don’t think anyone with a modicum of legal knowledge/experience is at all surprised by the decision topday.
What amazes me is the amount of posters coming on and expressing surprise at today’s decision however I can only assume they have a much wider and deeper legal knowledge than the admittedly limited amount that I have 😥
___________________________________________________
Is this decision good for TRFC?
Not really.
IA is a class one spiv and a total chancer.
He basically seems to be suing his successor(s) for not honouring a one sided contract which he basically engineered for himself, and demanding commision for deals he brokered which probably helped bring the organisation he was a senior part of to its knees – an insolvency that he says may deny him his due!
This result was anti-spiv.
IA was always going to have to make a very strong case that he stood to genuinely lose out unfairly as a result of an insolvency. In my view, I think the judge clocked him for what he is and took the view that even if TRFC went bust and IA didn’t get to bring his case as a result, it wasn’t going to be unfair on him.
Don’t see that this makes things any easier for TRFC in the long term.
Ecobhoy
Fair point, but I’m not trying to cast aspersions on the judge and I’m not cheerleading for IA. I’m trying to make sense of what I see as a questionable judgement.
Did RIFC produce any evidence to back up their claims? If someone tells me money is “available”, I interpret that as meaning it’s as good as in the bank. Money from a future share offer is not “available” unless someone produces a binding agreement that shareholders WILL buy in.
The judge didn’t question this, nor did he clarify if such agreements existed.
A more forensic approach to the difference between slow sales and low sales would have been appropriate too. Especially given the original season ticket deadline has passed.
Union of Fans Statement- yes, another one!
“We note the latest attempt by this board to mislead and hold Rangers fans to ransom. Their latest “give us your money or the seat gets it” ultimatum is just another in a long line of misjudgements this board has made about the mood amongst the support in general.
The fact that those now in the crosshairs of this board are a lifelong Rangers fan who has ploughed millions of his own money into the club with no return, an iconic captain from one of the club’s most successful ever periods and a group of Rangers fans attempting to secure the home of our football club, says more about this board than we ever could.
There is no attempt to deprive the club of funds. This is made very clear in the security proposal and the board’s ham fisted attempt to misrepresent this is one of the few transparent things they have done since coming to power. No money will be taken from fans unless security is granted and we are of the opinion that the board’s reluctance to discuss granting security may well rapidly change.
Our public comments about Mr Wallace are not personal but have been based on his binding pronouncements on matters of huge importance which have been at best misleading, broken promises for engagement with fans, attempts to blame fans for the current precarious position of the club and a complete lack of any progress in bringing much needed investment into the club. We welcome the fact that the entire board have now publicly taken responsibility for all of these actions.
Once again we see meaningless sound bites with absolutely no substance to back them up. The result, no doubt, of the expensive PR man hired by this board with more urgency than a Chief Scout. What “significant progress” has been made? How will this “bright future” we are promised come about when the investment committee have failed to secure a single pound of investment? Rangers is certainly “dear to all of us”, the Rangers support. We have no idea why this board would attempt to claim the same when there is not a single fan amongst them. We do not believe that Rangers fans will fall for this again. We’ve seen it far too many times in the past two years. “ – See more at: https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/statements/#sthash.piRb81BL.dpuf
ptd1978 says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:22 pm
0
0
Rate This
Ecobhoy
Fair point, but I’m not trying to cast aspersions on the judge and I’m not cheerleading for IA. I’m trying to make sense of what I see as a questionable judgement.
Did RIFC produce any evidence to back up their claims? If someone tells me money is “available”, I interpret that as meaning it’s as good as in the bank. Money from a future share offer is not “available” unless someone produces a binding agreement that shareholders WILL buy in.
The judge didn’t question this, nor did he clarify if such agreements existed.
A more forensic approach to the difference between slow sales and low sales would have been appropriate too. Especially given the original season ticket deadline has passed.
_________________________________________________
Except ringfencing is a serious intervention not to be lightly undertaken. Burden of proof with IA. Not met.
Let’s look at this ‘pre-emptove equity release’
My reading is that RIFC claim that certain shareholders will ante-up with their ‘rights issue’ money ahead of the actual issue of shares. As has been stated this issue has to be on a 2 for 3 basis assuming they plan to issue the maximum they can. So how do they set the price?
If they base it on a discount to the current price, say 15-18p then that’s fine, but what happens if the share price drops even further through the floor? When the ‘real rights issue’ comes along they have to offer at a lower price. What happens to those ‘investors’ who have provided the short term capital? Do they get money returned? Or do they get extra shares from those shareholders who did not participate? And if the price rises? Do these investors have to pay more or are they ‘rewarded’ by getting their shares cheap? But then that would surely be against the rules, wouldn’t it?
It’s a mess
Smugas says:
May 6, 2014 at 6:40 pm
An early pre-pack WAS the play-however not all shareholders were on board.
Now that ship has sailed.
At the start of the year I would have said there was no chance of Liquidation happening.
Now it can’t be ruled out.
And that, of course, is what DK wants.
That is the cheap route to owning Ibrox stadium.
It is the only asset that really matters.
neepheid says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Union of Fans Statement- yes, another one!
“We note the latest attempt by this board to mislead and hold Rangers fans to ransom. Their latest “give us your money or the seat gets it” ultimatum…
==============================================
StevieBC says:
May 6, 2014 at 4:00 pm
…
THE Board of Rangers Football Club have issued the following statement today:…
———————————————————————————————————————–
…
This latest statement could be boiled down one sentence – a simple threat ;
“Give us your season ticket money now, or you lose your seat.”
================================================
Possibly plagiarised by UoF…would that be a compliment ? 🙂
neepheid says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:23 pm
0
0
Rate This
Union of Fans Statement- yes, another one!
…
‘attempts to blame fans for the current precarious position of the club and a complete lack of any progress in bringing much needed investment into the club…’
Oh dear! They still seem to think its an (other people’s) money in, (our) trophies out machine! 😥
Well, just keep rubbing the lamp, guys, I’m sure something will turn up 😉
Just out of curiosity…
Now that John Clark has confirmed the line up of both legal teams – would anyone be able to estimate a ball park figure for the total cost of this action today for either side ?
Would IA have been able to secure a ‘no win no fee’ deal from his legal team for this action ?
Seems like a chunk of money could have been punted on a ‘long shot’ ?
I think the UoF know they have their hands on the steering wheel of the burning bus as it hurtles towards the listed facade.
Insolvency for the benefit of Mr King
ptd1978 says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:22 pm
Ecobhoy
Fair point, but I’m not trying to cast aspersions on the judge and I’m not cheerleading for IA. I’m trying to make sense of what I see as a questionable judgement.
Did RIFC produce any evidence to back up their claims? If someone tells me money is “available”, I interpret that as meaning it’s as good as in the bank. Money from a future share offer is not “available” unless someone produces a binding agreement that shareholders WILL buy in.
The judge didn’t question this, nor did he clarify if such agreements existed.
A more forensic approach to the difference between slow sales and low sales would have been appropriate too. Especially given the original season ticket deadline has passed.
================================
I find it hard to accept that you aren’t casting aspersions at the judge when you state in your post: ‘The only alternative is that he had preheld opinions about football finance or Rangers that swayed his decision.’
I personally think that comments like that from someone not present in court does nothing for the reputation of this blog.
I really wouldn’t like to say what the judge did or didn’t question/clarify on the basis of a few tweets/SMSM reports. We may get a more balanced view if John Clark posts later.
However I would never ever question the decision of any judge unless I was either present or had a transcript of proceedings.
But my understanding is that in this type of action it is up to the pursuer to make their case which can put them at a real disadvantage. I don’t think it makes any difference whether the sales are slow or low – it is the amount raised that counts and was the figure of 2 or 3 million £ not mentioned?
The judge is obviously aware that things at Rangers are financially tight and he has to look at the broader picture as to how the business will be disadvanatged and possibly driven into financial meltdon by tying up £600K + of its cash for over a year.
Try and forget this is Rangers – would you have the slightest interest in the judge’s decision if it was any other company? I really doubt it. And if you did have experience of what judges usually decide in these circumstances you wouldn’t be in the least surprised by today’s decision.
You have to remember that Rangers have previously announced and notified AIM of their intentions to have a share issue in the Autumn I think and also to have an egm to re-run the resolution they lost at the agm in December.
There can be no cast-iron guarantees about a future share issue or a shareholder egm vote and the judge is well aware of this. So unless Imran could prove today that neither of these things were actually going to happen then the judge has really no alternative but to accept that on balance there will be money there to pay Imran if he wins his case.
There is no conspiracy at work here IMO just the normal working of the court – mundane though it might be to those expecting Rangers and all its followers to be put to the sword today. They may well end-up there but I don’t see it happening over Imran’s ringfencing case as he doesn’t really have one and wishful thinking won’t alter that simple fact.
ecobhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:52 pm
There is no conspiracy at work here IMO just the normal working of the court – mundane though it might be to those expecting Rangers and all its followers to be put to the sword today. They may well end-up there but I don’t see it happening over Imran’s ringfencing case as he doesn’t really have one and wishful thinking won’t alter that simple fact.
=========================================
The bottom line to me is that whether or not a Judge ring fenced £600K the fact remains they are a complete shambles, with different groups and factions publicly filleting each other on a daily basis. The Judge’s decision is hardly the breakthrough they were needing to make the great leap forward. It is almost irrelevant in my view.
It’s good that the MSM are starting to attend these hearings. I wonder, John, if their bosses have read your reports from earlier cases and told them to get in there and do their jobs.
Ecobhoy,
I think you are absolutely correct in what you say with regard to the normal workings of the court. It’s worth pointing out that IA has as things stand no legally binding claim on the sum of money he was seeking to protect.
It’s not uncommon for income or money held in bank accounts to be arrested until a proven debt has been paid or a payment plan agreed.
Ring-fencing money prior to securing the right to it looks to my non-legal mind something of a big ask. (‘big ask’ being a well defined legal concept, or so I am told)
Slightly OT here, but we had the idea to do our own version of the Blue Peter badge or the Crackerjack (CRACKERJACK!!!!!!!) pencil, so we have developed the Red Lichtie, a Podcast Mug to be awarded to each of our Podcast victims 🙂
All copyright observed and acknowledged of course :-0
You can see a facsimile of the coveted trophy here. http://www.tsfm.net/podcast-mugs/
Any observations on the page and not here please lest I be accused of encouraging OT-ism and being sent to the naughty step 🙂
I enjoyed listening to the podcast. Good work on getting Mr Hutton.
I thought he put over his views very well and gave us all something to think about.
In my view it would if we could put much of the last 20 odd years of corruption and mismanagement behind us. As stated you cannot achieve this by just pretending it didn’t happen, doing that will only perpetuate the behaviour, the eventual fallout becomes greater and could really lead to the demise of Scottish Football.
A process of Truth and Reconciliation is required. This would be a painful process for all involved but would hopefully strengthen Scottish football.
I am reasonably optimistic, the main stumbling block is that many of the main players don’t seem capable of telling the truth.
Would you be surprised if out of the current impasse somehow an agreement is reached between the Board at RIFC/TRFC and Ibrox 1972 Limited (let’s call it the Camp David Accord)?
Somehow (once again) Mr King finds a way to back away without actually doing anything. He says that supporting the Board is now the only game in town given the Board’s implacable refusal to give security. So for the good of “the club”, the supporters should go ahead and renew.
Much cheering as unity is achieved and renewals go ahead as normal.
Brilliantly done. Three months ago we were wondering which “great/legnedary Rangers man” was going to do the season ticket selling this time round because Mr McCoist was now tainted and there was a growing groundswell against the Board.
A Camp David accord could be just the excuse the supporters need to put them out of their existential angst. And hey presto the fleecing is yet again achieved.
I never could understand Mr King’s hokey cokey manoeuvrings in this. In SA, in Glasgow, in SA, in Glasgow with a preposterous trust plan. Maybe he exists in this simply to walk away (with a big show of reluctance and reticence of course) and thus sell the otherwise sellable.
Or maybe he’s already a shareholder?
In the hope that TSFM will transpose this to a separate whatever-you-call it, page? I’ll give you as far as I’ve got of today’s proceedings, and try to follow-up tomorrow.
I’ve just more or less copied what is in my notebook as it stands, without too much conscious editing or trying to make immediate sense , or putting words in people’s mouths.
Those of you who are intimately familiar with the accounts and the various CEO reviews and statements will see where I have NOT got that degree of familiarity.
There are still some pages of McBrearty’s submission to come. Mercifully, Mr Summer’s submission is a damn sight shorter!
“Mr McBrearty then opened proceedings by outlining the statutory basis on which cases of this kind were to be resolved. There were three tests: 1. there had to be a prima facie case in relation to the pursuer’s dispute with the defenders , i.e. did the pursuer have a case for claiming entitlement to a bonus of £500 000, 2. is there a substantial risk of possible insolvency, 3. would it be reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the applicant’s request for ‘ringfencing’ his £half million.
He referred to the fact that the Bain case ( not a ‘Reported’ case) of 2011, and the Hamilton Acad. case of 2010 ( a ‘Reported’ case) would be referred to.
In relation to ‘insolvency’ the test looked at ‘practical’ and ‘absolute’ insolvency. as regards the test on ‘real risk’, this had to be on the basis of a look ahead, to future outcomes ( like decree going in the pursuer’s favour when his claim to be owed the money is heard in November 2015)
And ‘risk’ was the possibility of insolvency, NOT actual or even Probable insolvency.
Lord Hodge’s decision in the Bain case made it clear that just the possibility of insolvency arising was sufficient to meet the statutory requirement.
Lord A asked Mr Summers if he was content with that exposition.
Mr Summers replied that the key will be in what the Act says, and the exercise of His lordship’s discretion under the Act.
Lord A said he was aware of Lord Tyre’s earlier judgment.
Mr McB hastened to say that he did not intend to rehearse the arguments in that case, or re-open Tyre.
Lord A asked whether he was going on the basis of new information.
McB replied, yes.There was no dispute about the pursuer having a ‘prima facie’ cas against the defender, so Mr McB could quickly update the Court.
He then read out the details of the contract between TRFC and Ahmed “.. entitled to 5% of….. ON CONDITION that 1) he had negotiated the contract 2) and that the CEO or Board approved the bonus “
The pursuer had indeed negotiated the contract and written approval was granted in the letter of 5th April 2013 from the CEO “I can confirm that your bonus will be no less than £500 000” -this was due because of the Puma and Sports direct contracts that Ahmed had arranged.
And the fall-back on the ‘negotiated’ position is that even if Ahmed had not actually negotiated the bonus contract, the fact of the CEO letter confirms the negotiation of at least £500 000 as a bonus.
And if it turned out that the CEO ( Charles Green) didn’t know what he was doing when he agreed the contract? Too bad. As amatter of law the contract would stand.
And the argument that it was only the ‘executive’ and not the whole Board who agreed the contract with the pursuer is wrong: Rangers Retail Co entered the negotiations, and that company is a joint venture company with the defenders (TRFC) being the majority shareholders.
So there is no dispute about the prima facie case that the pursuer has.All his arguments are respectable.
On the second leg, ‘real risk’, of ‘possibility of insolvency’: In February, The parent company RIFC plc held all the shares of RFC Ltd. The Annual and 6-monthly accounts were prepared for all the group companies. The whole pot of cash was shared.
The starting point before Lord tyre was the accounts to October 2012
On the 6th July 2013 The Business review covered 13 months: showed revenue at c £19 million, Operational expenses c£33 million , ongoing Loss of c£14.5′
look at what it says about season tickets: income at 30th June 2013 from 38 000 season tickets was £8 million.
We see the importance of season ticket revenue.
Average cost of a season ticket £222.
My (McBrearty’s) understanding is that prices were frozen then, but possibly subject to increases in this season.
The vast majority of season tickets are renewals. Now, previously uptake of renewals has been extremely quick, within the ‘deadline, after which date they open to new buyers and those who have not yet renewed.
This time, the renewal period began earlier than usual AND had to be extended to 16th May.
Lord A: Given the significance of 16th May as a deadline, wouldn’t it have been better if Ahmed had waited till then before making his application?
McB: With the ongoing dispute within the club, to wait would mean too late for pursuer.Now is the crucial point in time, due to the gravity of the position.
Going back to the accounts, p23, there was an operating loss of £14m . The fixed assets of £57m do not help the defenders in this regard.
Cash in hand was £11m, of which £946 000 was not available as working capital.
There had thus been a huge reduction from the IPO monies, and continuing deductions. That was the the starting point in February.
The FD indicated that the cash would be down to ? In April 2014, and said that it was intended to reduce costs. 2 loans were notified to AIM in February, repayable in September(?).
Lord tyre had however, rejected the pursuer’s application then because
of the cyclical nature of football club funding AND because it failed the ‘reasonableness’ test because it would reduce the amount available from the loans and therefore increase the likelihood of insolvency.
The defenders had produced affidavits from the CEO,( Wallace) the Finance officer (Nash) and the Nomad ( Shea?Shay?) giving their opinions on the season ticket sales and expectations.
The situation NOW is that there is significant doubt about Season Ticket income.There is a real risk of Insolvency or virtual insolvency.
There is great concern at a movement to withhold ST monies, which will be paid over only if the club should grant security over the stadium. The risk inherent in this movement must be taken into account.
The first suggestion of this movement came in February 2014, from Mr Dave King. His statement of 26th February included this “ The big question …..what can fans do..?”
There was a rsponse from the UoF [ which issues regular public statements, represents other fan groups and forums ( about 36 of them) but also undoubtedly many other fans.
Precise scale of representation cannot be measured, but one can only go with what one sees. The UoF cannot simply be brushed aside as representing a minority, but a significant ‘no confidence in the Board’ movement in support of DK and the ‘Trust’.
There was a public protest at the Dunfermline game at Ibrox on 15th March, the ‘blue card’ protest.
The Herald reported ’emphatic backing among 44 000′.
This is therefore not a campaign that can be lightly dismissed.
What would be the effect on the sale of ST’s and the increase in risk?
Lord A: Fans’
strategy. What happens?
McB: up to date: launch of Trust announced yesterday, deadline for pledges and security is I believe 9th August. If security over stadium not given, then it is up to the individual fan to choose what to do.
Dave King and former team captain Richard Gough are significant figures to the fans, and carry great influence. With them behind the protest, the risk of a high withholding of ST monies cannot be ignored.
Now, the interim results of the plc, to 31.12.13 The ‘highlights’ are :
ST sales 13/14 season 34 000.
Op. expenses £16.8 m.- loss of £3.5m. Cash available £3.5 m at 31.12 13 ( explains the need for loans in February)
On page 2, in discussing ST sales, “ when company was unable to……. the solution was a £1.5m loan.
The company could not generate funding through conventional banking facilities.
“ level of uncertainty about primary source of income..
may cast doubt on continuance as a ‘going concern’”
That is, the season ticket action has the ability to seriously affect the finances.
In the CEO review,page 3, the club retail partnership shows increase in revenue, sports Direct.
Page 5, the ‘independent’ review of RIFC – key assumptions re ST sales, Deloittes’ statement (page 5) “ adequacy of disclosure re going concern. Assumption re timing of receipts of ST and retail monies etc “This condition relating to timing indicates serious doubts”
The timing of ST sales is critical, and very relevant tom this application.
Critical assumption, timing of ST renewals:
Progressive increase in prices.
Modest increase in ST numbers [but only an increase on the 36 000 figure]
What is the degree of risk posed by the DK Trust on the timing?
The directors say “ after applying reasonable downside, the directors are happy that ..going concern.” but comment on the destabilising effect, having to seek finance, and ‘going concern’ could be threatened.
Your lordship must look at the public knowledge about this, and take a view on Risk.
The response of the UoF to the directors has been unfavourable: 6500 have already shown interest in registering as being in support of DK, and Ibrox 1972 is now in place.
The 120 (128) day Review by CEO.
A lot of blaming of previous regimes, serious mismanagement, precarious position, ‘overall strategy’ is to raise capital. Not able to raise equity because authority not granted at AGM. And the authority for pre-emptive issue could only be for an amount not exceeding £5m, and would take a long time to arrange.
The Court must critically examine whether in the current circumstances the PLC will have no difficulty in issuing shares.
I submit it would have GREAT difficulty.
There is a further significant point- there is no facility for fans to buy ST s using credit or debit cards. So the period of renewal was extended to 16th May.
If there is a shortfall, there will be difficulty in keeping going.
It is more difficult for fans to renew. And there is evidence that the Credit Card company is uneasy about facilitating the use of credit cards without significant security.
And the Board has stated unequivocally that it will not grant security over the stadium etc.
and will not meet the UoF demands.
In the next two months they will be unable to continue without raising more money…
(to be continued)
Dear all,
After a stern, and a wee bit sinister talking to from TSFM, I’m dipping my toe here after a few weeks lurking and trying to learn the something of the arts. I fear that it hasn’t happened for me though.
Revisionism has reached here too and the debate is headed towards discussing an acceptable dose.
The SFA and SPFL meanwhile are skipping thru the raindrops, there will be no poo on the fur of those berzz, not that anyone can see them to check. Ibrox is as it always was. There. And its survival is more guaranteed than the one o’clock gun.
Celtic are so self contented that an acre of crazy paving slabs obviously ensures that they are a majur institooshun.
Not much more to be said for the rest. Except Hearts of course – if only someone had seen it coming, or Hibs now reaping the mediocre seed. Aberdeen and their weighty chip are at least standing free and Utd alongside them tantalise us with something New.
But please. Do not be surprised at Today or what is about to come. They will be looked after and placed back where the establishment want them. And we will all be glad. Thank you Turnbull Hutton.
Ecobhoy
Again it’s a fair point. My intention was to look for possible alternatives to the reasoning provided and if I came across as accusatory of the judge then I apologise to him and the blog for dragging it down.
It’s entirely possible that IAs lawyers did an extremely poor job of putting their case. I didn’t put that forward as I would have expected the media to punch holes in any weaknesses there.
Union of Fans Statement-
RIFC Statement
…..”attempts to blame fans for the current precarious position of the club and a complete lack of any progress in bringing much needed investment into the club”…’
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Can we clear something up once and for all?
When a group of businessman talk about investing in a particular company
They mean
Getting a return on their investment greater than they would get investing their money somewhere else
And
When a Bunch of Spivs talk about investing in a particular company
They mean
Persuading people to give them money to invest in asset stripping on terms that cost the Spivs nothing if the investment turns out to be a disaster
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Whereas
When a group of Football Fans talk about investing in a particular company( which they call a “Club”)
They mean
Throwing money into a bottomless pit to be used exclusively as a war chest for the Manager
CampbellsMoney
Just a wee educational question. You mentioned earlier that it was up to IA to prove probability of insolvency as opposed to possibility. Yet Lord Hodge appears to have taken the opposite stance in the Martin Gain ringfence case. See below.
How do the two square up?
] I am satisfied that there is a real and substantial risk of insolvency if the tax appeal were to be decided against Rangers in the sums which have been discussed. In reaching this view I emphasise that I am concerned with the statutory test which addresses the degree of possibility. I am not speaking of the actuality or even probability of insolvency.
Campbellsmoney (& John Clarke)
Posted my query before getting stuck into John Clarke’s court report.
Given our intrepid reporters attention to detail I suspect I may get my answer from him as well.
Can I justtake the opportunity to say the site is a far greater place with your two contributions and talents. As many have said before- every day on here is an education.
WOTTPI
I will put my hand up and say that I cannot answer that with any certainty. If I read correctly what you have quoted from the Bain arrestment case, then I have to assume that Lord Hodge has probably factored into his thinking the degree of possibility that the tax case would go one way or the other and applied that to the financial position then prevailing. He seems to be saying if the tax case goes against RFC plc then there is a real risk of insolvency (not hard to work that out). I would take from this that today Lord Hodge would have been more likely to grant the warrant to arrest on the dependence than today’s judge and that today’s judge may not have granted Mr Bain his arrestment back in 2012 (or whenever it was).
Sorry 🙁
Can John Clark be rewarded with a TSFM pencil sharpener please?
Great work (AGAIN).
Campbellsmoney
No need for apologies. One thing we have all learned on here is that sometimes the law is an ass!
Q. How many judges does it take to go through the figures and supporting assumptions in a spreadsheet showing monthly income and expenditure?
A. None. Judges and Hugh Keevins don’t do spreadsheets.
To run their business TRFC must have business projections. If not then they should not be in business.
If not the SFA have no basis to grant or withhold a licence.
Never mind “Show us the deeds” ” Show us the frigging spreadsheets” .
There is much speculation here that it is a question of not if, but when the Sevco bus will crash and the new club encounters its first insolvency event.
Against this GW has repeatedly and explicitly stated that there will be no insolvency.
A consequence of todays court case occurs to me. GW and TRFC Ltd have given similar, quite categorical statements to the Judge in court today. Does this imply then that GW does have a plan that he believes is workable, sufficient to muddle through to the Autumn, hold an EGM and then a share issue? Raising enough dosh to get to the end of the season, buying time to further re-group and shed some high earners who will be out of contract by then?
Surely if there was to be an insolvency event before IA’s case is heard then certain individuals could be had for perjury? Just look at the certainty of some of their statements to the judge that all will be ok.
I think each of us will answer this based on our own existing opinion of GW, as either a spiv doing the bidding of spivs or a decent man fighting to save a sinking ship.
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:20 pm
12 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:07 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
taking off my tinfoil hat for a moment, nothing at all ever seems to stick to the newest football club in scotland. can it really all be down to ineptitude and honest mistakes? or is it something more sinistre (sic)?
I cannot say either way, the only ones who know are the people that make the decisions and form the judgments in the first place. the only thing that i can say with any degree of certainty is that the men who run football are nothing short of multifaceted cowards. without fear or favour? don’t make me laugh.
tinfoil hat back on.
can i get away with that one mods??
😀
Tincks says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:35 pm
0
0
Rate This
There is much speculation here that it is a question of not if, but when the Sevco bus will crash and the new club encounters its first insolvency event.
Against this GW has repeatedly and explicitly stated that there will be no insolvency.
A consequence of todays court case occurs to me. GW and TRFC Ltd have given similar, quite categorical statements to the Judge in court today. Does this imply then that GW does have a plan that he believes is workable, sufficient to muddle through to the Autumn, hold an EGM and then a share issue? Raising enough dosh to get to the end of the season, buying time to further re-group and shed some high earners who will be out of contract by then?
Surely if there was to be an insolvency event before IA’s case is heard then certain individuals could be had for perjury? Just look at the certainty of some of their statements to the judge that all will be ok.
I think each of us will answer this based on our own existing opinion of GW, as either a spiv doing the bidding of spivs or a decent man fighting to save a sinking ship.
_________________________________________________
I think its possible he does.
And if so, I think his plan will involve Laxey and Mike Ashley.
Both have deep pockets. Both have oodles of cash. Both are greedy and will want paying handsomely at some point. Boith are in a position to extend unlimited credit to the Ibrox incumbents.
And Both have infinite patience so long as there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
And Mike Ashley is an expert at extracting cash from sports fans for low grade schmutter.
It would not surprise me on bit if he was even getting a rake on the UOF rip off shirts!
So I would not be surprised if this is GW hard won ace up the sleeve. It would have come at a price no doubt, but a price that bears will be paying for years to come.
Exclusive rights to put a Rangers badge on a shirt ad infinitum? No problem
Exclusive rights to play out of Ibrox in a sky blue strip ad infinitum? No problem
The bears will be milked right enough. Gentler than recently. But for far longer.
Gor every £10 TRFC spend, £2 wil be pocketed by ashley or spivs.
The bears will pay more and get less.
I doubt they will even notice.
Campbellsmoney says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:56 pm
0
0
Rate This
WOTTPI
I will put my hand up and say that I cannot answer that with any certainty. If I read correctly what you have quoted from the Bain arrestment case, then I have to assume that Lord Hodge has probably factored into his thinking the degree of possibility that the tax case would go one way or the other and applied that to the financial position then prevailing. He seems to be saying if the tax case goes against RFC plc then there is a real risk of insolvency (not hard to work that out). I would take from this that today Lord Hodge would have been more likely to grant the warrant to arrest on the dependence than today’s judge and that today’s judge may not have granted Mr Bain his arrestment back in 2012 (or whenever it was).
Sorry 🙁
______________________________________________
He may also have factored in the TGEF factor.
Genuine question (I forget the timings):
Had RFC(IL) / Wavetower failed to submit VAT/PAYE remittances (obviously) or returns at the point when Martin Bain won his case?
This is not the actions of a solvent undertaking (the last ditch recourse of the desperate).
Marting Bain had an open goal and Hodge could have awarded him the tie on that basis alone without repudiation. Easy burden of proof.
Indeed, in CW shoes, given the choice of having a couple of hundred K locked out by MB, or giving Hector the millions I was stiffing him for…. no contest. Probably wouldn’t even mount a proper defence.
As far as I am aware, no such situation occurs in TRFC. Therefore burden of proof to IA. And a high one at that. No shenanigans this time I reckon.
this site is very good, though it has transfer values at odds to the man in the streets view, or the DR media spin.
Mainy because transfer value is a function of wage/age/ability/length of contract left and then crucially the premium (or discount) due to the relative needs of the buyer/seller.
“Rangers”
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/rangers-fc/startseite/verein_124.html
“Rangers players out of contract” change drop down to vary year.
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/rangers-fc/kader-vertragsende/verein_124.html
I also find the agents to be slightly interesting..
Buddy
Dundee Utd have sold twenty seven thousand tickets for the Scottish Cup final as of tonight. They have another three thousand arriving.
Auldheid says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:09 pm
Your posts sums up the difficulties of squaring the circle re yesterdays decision and that in the Martin Gain case.
We know that in the no so distant past the footballing club playing out of Ibrox had to use tax monies to remain afloat. Previous to that during the SDM era the club failed to raise required funds through a share issue and the money then had to be provided by a company that subsequently was found to be in hoc itself.
So there is precedent that owners of the previous football club/company that chased European glory and associated incomes, which due to the vagaries of sport is no guarantee, failed to make their model work. In fact worse than that, even when reaching a Euro cup final it still resulted in the model failing.
While I have said that Wallace can succeed in securing the survival of the club, the Business Review’s aim of chasing Celtic and Euro success (all to be achieved by frequent shares issues and a reliance on the expensive but so far ineffective facility at Murray Park), IMHO puts the possibility and probability of insolvecy at greater than 50 percent.
Why are so many intelligent people still blinded by Minty Moonbeams?
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:51 pm
……..every £10 TRFC spend, £2 wil be pocketed by ashley or spivs………………… You aren’t suggesting the 20% won’t be going to rightful owners HMRC are you? 😉
PS
And the guy running the show down Govan way was previously involved with club that could be fined £50m for its financial largesse.
How many clues do the authorities need 🙂
Devils advocate here though, which is undoubtedly the hat the SFA will wear as well. As long as it is largely and as far as possible their own cash they are using and in the event of VL losing there’s not really a problem as such. A cash bond to cover football debts and no team in their right minds selling players on deferred terms and there’s not really much more they can do (apart from my pet subject of an insolvency event automatically barring promotion).
The onus is now on fans firstly and then the existing shareholders thereafter to fund the continuing largesse. The question is why? To what end? Is a staggering carcass dragging it’s exhausted body into the SPL worth more than they are now?
Desperate times. Mike Ashley being touted (again) as a possible saviour.
TRFC fans would do well to listen to the Guardian Football Podcast from yesterday. As discussion moved to Newcastle United the phrase ‘suffocating lack of ambition’ was used a couple of times to describe the Magpies and their owner. Whatever Ashley is into it’s not football for triumphalists.
DU tickets sales impressive. Anyone know the Saintees numbers?
Danish Pastry says:
May 7, 2014 at 8:20 am
DU tickets sales impressive. Anyone know the Saintees numbers?
——————————————————————
14,000+ as far as I can tell from forums though haven’t seen anything official for a bit.
A pretty decent figure imo.
parttimearab says:
May 7, 2014 at 8:33 am
1 0 Rate This
———-
“Fantastic, ye cannae beat it!” 🙂
I see Off the Ball is live from McDiarmid Park this weekend. Good times.
On the subject of Ashley the saviour they may have to be careful what they wish for. NUFC fans would love rid as the mass walkout on Saturday was as much against Ashley as it is with Francophile* Pardew.
*No concrete proof beyond his penchant for signing French speaking players most of whom also qualify as French in Intgernational Football terms 😉
wottpi says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:24 am
While I have said that Wallace can succeed in securing the survival of the club, the Business Review’s aim of chasing Celtic and Euro success (all to be achieved by frequent shares issues and a reliance on the expensive but so far ineffective facility at Murray Park), IMHO puts the possibility and probability of insolvecy at greater than 50 percent.
=====================================
Ah! But I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if Wallace just threw in these emotional triggers for Bears to gee them up to buy STs and reinforce the belief of the deluded ones that all was going to plan with ‘The Journey’ and the ‘Rightful Place’ would be achieved.
I’m not sure whether that makes Wallace a Spiv or a realist but it urges caution as to whether his words should be taken at face value especially as he now has previous with a couple of statements whose meaning becomes a bit fuzzy on closer examination.
However as I have always said the Bears will get the club they deserve and a pressing decision in that process is whether they buy STs from Wallace; follow the DK ‘vision’; just buy on a walk-up basis; or quietly fade-away and forget football, find a new team, just watch on telly. Some may well return when the dust settles and things are clearer.
But from my perspective everything seems to be in the air and anything could happen. But while the Bears remain bemused and bewildered the spivs will be planning to make sure that the end goal is achieved no matter what roadblocks are erected in their path IMO.
Rumours on Twitter that Dundee United are signing Charlie Telfer from Sevco, but are only willing to pay two years compensation, as that’s how long they’ve been in existence!
Fun and games await if true.
John Clark says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:21 pm
@John – What another Sterling insight your coverage has provided – losing an ‘e’ has had no effect whatsoever 😆
I was particularly fascinated by this bit from McBrearty:
It’s correct to say that TRFCL is the majority shareholder in Rangers Retail but in any financial matters the 49 Sports Direct shares count for double and those of TRFCL don’t. So in any vote on financial matters – and I find it hard to see anything that wouldn’t fall into that category – a split vote would consist of Sports Direct 98 and TRFCL 51.
So control of Rangers Retail remains firmly with SportsDirect and as I have said before my reading of the Rangers Retail set-up contained in the Rangers AIM Prospectus allows SportsDirect to buy-out the Rangers share but not the reverse.
Might mean nothing but if it was important to point-out to the court that TRFCL was the majority shareholder – which implies ‘control’ to me – then surely it was incumbent to clarify that the actual ‘control’ in any matter of importance lay with SportsDirect the minority shareholder.
It all begs the question of course as to why SportsDirect should be involved in the bonus payment negotiations of the commercial director of TRFCL and major shareholder of that company and subsequently RIFC Plc.
Sergio Biscuits says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:26 am
Rumours on Twitter that Dundee United are signing Charlie Telfer from Sevco, but are only willing to pay two years compensation, as that’s how long they’ve been in existence! Fun and games await if true.
———————————————-
Even if untrue it’s delightfully hilarious and appeals to my sometimes twisted sense of humour 😉
The remainder of Mr McBrearty’s submission:
“In the next two months they will be unable to continue without raising more money.
So,
the possibility of risk is REAL
highly improbable that capital could be raised in the short term
the past mismanagement record at the club ( e.g not increasing season price tickets, huge player contracts, purchase of car park) have had effects on the total financial capacities)
And now, further, the director Easdale’s statement of 24th April that the finances of the club were ‘fragile’.
Mr Summers: There are differences of opinion on what Mr Easdale meant, my lord.
Lord A: this statement was not a sworn statement, an affidavit?
Mr Summers: No, my Lord. But I have a note of what he did say.
Mr McB: It would be entirely possible to obtain a recording of the interview, of course, but he did use the word ‘fragile’.
But moving on, my Lord. The response of the fans to the CEO’s ‘review’ was entirely negative.
And if could comment now on the defenders’ affidavits.
Mr W’s comments “ …an unquantifiable number (of fans) threatening (to withhold ), but I expect uptake …” MUST be viewed with a critical eye
“ from a trading perspective company’s cash position normal….” – fair enough
“ I would expect £2m …..” But this has to be seen against £16 m on-going costs per half-year!]
“ extended period [for renewal]….. BUT timing is critical.
The mention of 6100 withholding would have caused difficulties, but there may be a whole lot morewithholding, and Mr W underestimates the problem. He then goes on about pre-emptive share issue. But who would take up shares in all the circumstances?
Mr W’s opinionis NOT well-founded, as tested by the Act. In effect his affidavit ignores the problem and gives no re-assurance to the Pursuer.
R Nash’s ( the Chief Finance Officer) affidavit contains a lot of stuff about his qualifications and background. He says “ the renewal of season tickets has been “slower” rather than “lower” than normal. Which is a curious comment.And confirms the anxiety.
There is no reference to the effect of the UoF protest ( which at the time had not been formally set up)
BUT the Trust is NOW in existence, and the Board have confirmed that they are NOT going to meet Mr King’s demands that they sign over the Stadium as security. The point being that when that refusal becomes reality to the fans it will be in July.
This affidavit does nothing to remove risk.
The affidavit of Mr Shea (?) , the NOMAD. “ There was a full review closely involving Daniel Stewart. There would be no difficulty raising loans for working capital, and there is authority for pre-emption issue of shares. Confident that the club will remain solvent..”
This affidavit is almost identical to the one sworn by Nash in February!
Your Lordship should not be beguiled by the NOMAD.He is just expressing an opinion on whether a rights issue would be successful. Your Lordship is of course not bound by that opinion.
And this affidavit is very limited and does not address the current situation.
In my submission, the tests required by statute are met.
-there are unfounded assumptions about state of finances
-the effect of the Ibrox 1972 protest has not been considered
-the timing of revenue receipts from Season Tickets is questionable
-Merchant company demanding security before permitting use of credit/debit card payment facilities
-Mr Easdale’s comments
-the time it would take to raise capital by share issue
All of this points to there being a real and substantial RISK, given the time constraints.
On the ‘reasonableness’ test, [ edit: this seemed to do with whether the pursuer, any pursuer,
has in some way been responsible for putting himself in the position he claims to be in], Ahmed does not agree that buying MP was ‘mismanagement’, and it was only a one element of the huge £70m expenditure. In the Bain case, Lord Hodge knocked back the notion that a director’s business decisions were to be considered in this context.
There is agreement that Mr Ahmed has a respectable prima facie case against the club in his claim for bonus
and, as for the prospects of warrant in his favour to ‘ringfence’ the £500 000 bringing on an Insolvency, well that is more a reason to GRANT the warrant than to refuse it.
We are not in the same situation as obtained February.
Lord A: At that time, was the assumption that ST renewal would proceed as normal?
Mr McB: Yes, it would appear so,my Lord.
Turning to the question of how much may be attached, there is no case for reducing the amount below £500 000. [edit; here there was a wee technical bit about the amounts of any ‘attachment”]
And that was Mr Brearty finished for the moment.
Mr Summers rose to speak, but it was noted that it was 12.55, and it was agreed that court should adjourn for lunch, rather than have him speak for only a few minutes.
( to be continued)
Does anyone know if the SPFL have introduced their own version of FFP for each league similar to those for the English Leagues? If so, what are they and does anyone have a link?
Inside The SPFL @AgentScotland 14m
Kenny Miller will sign 2 year contract with Rangers, £6k p/w with 50% increase on Promotion, the deal also features bonus heavy incentives.
Could this possibly be true?
If so likely being used to try and boost season ticket sales.
So they get rid of some young players to free up money for a 34 year old.
I find it really easy to believe that as it lines up precisely with Ally Macs ‘vision’.
When I see Kenny Miller though, a saying my grandfather used to use always comes to mind
Looks as though Glasgow City Council has decided to find out who the Bear Land ‘Experts’ are.
Doesn’t in the least surprise me given the the unfounded allegations of public corruption, lying, cheating, faking reports, and destroying evidence being made against local government employees on the basis, apparently, that they support Celtic and are involved in a secret and complex plot lasting decades which is designed to ensure Celtic’s financial and presumably footballing success.
I often think that those so-called Rangers supporters making these claims actually betray what they might be capable of themselves through their obvious obsession which has little, if anything, to do with football and is completely detached from reality.
One prolific Freedom of Information seeker is Joe Canoe who has 15 FoI requests which are all related in some way to Celtic.
However his latest one requesting info from Glasgow City Council has had a novel response which seems to have triggered a bout of ‘writers block’ in Mr Canoe.
The FOI in question relates to Westthorn and although tedious and utterly meaningless the response of GCC reveals they appear to have woken-up to the nasty and IMO actionable campaign of defamation being aimed at their employees.
On 29 April 2014 a GCC employee advised Mr Canoe:
Another authority woke-up a lot sooner to the outrageous attacks on its staff and has ignored FoI requests presumably on the basis that if the requestor appeals to the Scottish Information Commissioner she will need to establish the complainer’s actual identity as the Commissioner knows full well the law in this regard and the interpretation of the Court of Session on this very issue against the Commissioner which wasn’t appealed.
Sadly I can see this whole sorry plan to use a twisted and vexatious obsession being used to prevent or curtail legitimate Freedom of Information requests by tightening access to information.
Once again the wider interests of society could fall victim to a clique of obsessed individuals who care for nothing except that their mythical ‘Rightful Place’ is retained. However – The times are certainly changing
Whether a real or imaginary Mr Canoe has paddled-off down the Clyde is not yet known but he has yet to respond to GCC confirming his actual name in the event that ‘Joe Canoe’ is fictitious. The delay is unusual because he is usually very quick off the mark in his responses 😆